Presented to the
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
by the
ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY
u
net o/ Q/'ncuant.
BRIG -GEN. SIR JOHN JOHNSON, BART.
ORDERLY BOOK
SIR JOHN JOHNSON
DURING THE
ORISKANY CAMPAIGN, 1776-1777
ANNOTATED BY
WILLIAM L. STONE
AUTHOR or THE LIFE AND TIMES OF SIR WILLIAM JOHNSON, BART.; BURGOYNE'S CAMPAIGN ; LIFE AND JOURNALS OF GENERAL AND MRS. RIEDESEL, &c.
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION
ILLUSTRATING
THE LIFE OF SIR JOHN JOHNSON, BART. ;
BY
J. WATTS DE PEYSTER, LL.D., M.A.
if ANCHOR ^
AUTHOR OF THE LIFE OF [SWEDISH FIELD-MARSHAL] LEONARD TORSTENSON
[GENERALISSIMO], 1855; CARAUSUIS, 1858; WINTER CAMPAIGNS, &c.,
1864; THE PERSONAL AND MILITARY HISTORY OF MAJ. GEN.
PHIL. KEARNY, 1869 ; LA ROYALE, THE GRAND HUNT OF THE
ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, 30-7™ AP*IL, 1872-4; MARY,
QUEEN OF SCOTS, 1882; &c., &c.
v
SOME TRACINGS FROM THE FOOTPRINTS OF THE
TORIES OR LOYALISTS IN AMERICA
CONTRIBUTED. BY
THEODORUS BAILEY MYERS.
ALBANY
JOEL MUNSELL'S SONS. M DCCC LXXXll.
TO THE
WHOSE GRANDMOTHER, JANE STARIN, SUFFERED FOR HER PATRIOTISM DURING THE ST. LEGER CAMPAIGN:
AND TO
A FRIEND FROM BOYHOOD,
THIS VOLUME IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED,
BY THE ANNOTATOR.
CONTENTS.
Life and Misfortunes of Sir John Johnson, including the Battles of Oriskany and of Klock's Field I
Introduction to Orderly Book a
Orderly Book _-__-___ i Appendix 99
I. Rev. Marinus Willett. II. Gen. Marinus Willett.
III. Oriskany from a British Standpoint.
IV. Sir Darby Monaghan. V. Jane Wemple Starin.
VI. Addenda consisting of additional notes. The Tories or Loyalists in the Revolution 137 Indexes -_-____.-__ 257
PLATES.
To face.
Portrait of Sir John Johnson, - - - - Title. Portrait of Frederic de Peyster - Dedication. Map of Mohawk Valley illustrating the
Battle of Oriskany and Klock's Field clxii
Portrait of J. Watts de Peyster - - clxv
Portrait of Barry St. Leger .-.-•- 44
Portrait of King Hendrick - - - 53
Picture of a Batteau 75 Portrait of Joel Munsell - ----- I 29
View of Fort Johnson 139
Portrait of Sir William Johnson - - 159 Facsimile of Paper signed by Johnson,
Herckmer, Schuyler, and others - - 161
Facsimile of Proclamation of George III 181
Portrait of Joseph Brant 1 96
View of Johnson Hall - - - - - - 212*
Facsimile of Washington's Letter - - 215
Facsimile of Declaration of Independence 220
Ctfe atrtr of
Sir Sotjn Soljusou
WITH
RESPECT AND AFFECTION
THIS LABOR is
D ED ICATED
TO
MY LATE VENERABLE FATHER,
Jreberic'be $eti0ter, C£. 83,,
PRESIDENT OF THE NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, NEW YORK
SOCIETY LIBRARY, ST. NICHOLAS CLUB, AND FORMERLY OF
THE ST. NICHOLAS SOCIETY,
&c., &c., &c.
With a grateful remembrance of the assiduity with which, at an
early age, the father inspired the son with literary tastes
and introduced him to the study of history, thus
furnishing to him an inestimable resource
in trouble and a sure solace amid
many sorrows.
I
PREFACE.
" Fidelity, that neither bribe nor threat Can move or warp, and gratitude for small And trivial favours, lasting as the life."
COWPKR, "Task."
There is perhaps no truer proverb than that which de- clares that '"whoever excuses himself accuses himself." There are exceptions, however, to this as well as to every other rule — although, even in the case of this little work, there would have been no necessity of explanation had circumstances — as conceited mortality vainly imagines — been in reality under human control. Man, let him delude himself as he will, is anything but a free agent. As Canon Charles Kingsley makes one of his characters sing, in "The Saint's Tragedy,"
" 'Tis Dame Circumstance licks Nature's cubs into shape :
Then why puzzle and fret, plot and dream ? He that's "wise will just follow his nose,
Contentedly fish, while he swims with the stream ;
'TlS NO BUSINESS OF HIS WHERE HE GOES."
"All around is forethought sure,
FIXED WILL and stern decree. Can the sailor move the main ? Will the potter heed the clay f Mortal ! where the spirit drives, Thither must the wheels obey. I— a
b Preface.
" Neither ask, nor fret, nor strive :
Where thy path is, thou shalt go. He who made the streams of time, Wafts thee down to weal or woe ! "
A variety of causes delayed the preparation of the his- torical treatise assigned to the writer, as an Introduction to "Wm. L. Stone's " Orderly Book of Sir John Johnson, 1776- 7." Among these impediments was the expectation of receiving new facts from Europe. While thus delaying, Nature stepped in and demonstrated that a long series of violations of her laws — one of them excessive mental labor — would terminate in the arrest of all work.
It was at first intended to furnish a complete and de- tailed narrative of the whole career of Sir John Johnson, Bart., without limitation as to the space required. Sub- sequently a definite number of pages was assigned. To condense without injury to clearness is not only a rare gift, but also a question of severe labor, of time, and of thought. One of the most celebrated of English writers, when asked to epitomize one of his diffusive works, in order to render it more accessible to general readers, re- marked, "I have not time to condense." It was also in- tended to present in this connection a reprint of a rare little \vork, entitled "Adventures of a Lady [Mary (Watts) Johnson, wife of Sir John Johnson, Bart.] in the War of Independence in America." This little duodecimo work of 57 pp. has a very curious history, and is very valuable as a presentation of the traditions of the Johnson family in regard to the wrongs inflicted upon Lady Mary (Watts) Johnson, and the sufferings undergone by her in making her
Preface. c
escape from the whigs, patriots, or rebels, in her successful attempt to rejoiu her husband, Sir John, within the royal lines at New York. It is the tradition of the victim, as opposed to the legends of the victimizers ; it is the me- morial of the persecuted, as a set-off to the stories of the persecutors ; it is the production of a cultivated mind, in contrast to the recollections of many received as authori- ties, among whom are numbered the illiterate depending entirely upon the fallible functions of memory.
This story of Lady Johnson's "Adventures" was written by Miss Susan Griffiths Colpoys — daughter of Admiral Griffith Colpoys, of the British Navy — who mar- ried Colonel Christopher Johnson, B. A., sixth son of Sir John Johnson, Bart. She was, consequently, sister-in- law of Adam Gordon Johnson, third Baronet, son of Sir John, and aunt of Sir William G. Johnson, the present and fourth Baronet, the grandson of Sir John Johnson, the second Baronet. The publication referred to was re- ceived, and the main particulars in regard thereto were derived from Sir William G. Consequently, also, Mrs. Col. Johnson had every opportunity of hearing all the incidents from those most interested in the occurrences and cognizant of the sad facts of the case.
It was the youngest daughter of this Mrs. Col. Chris- topher Johnson who married Mr. Henry Curwen, who inherited the ancestral abode of the Curwens, the historic estate of "Workington Hall," noted as having been the temporary residence or place of detention of Mary, Queen of Scots, in 1568, when she fled from Scotland after her
d Preface.
defeat at Langside, 15th of June of that year. Among the heirlooms of this family, a portrait of Mary is pre- served, which is said to have been presented by the queen herself to Sir (Knight, not Baronet) Henry Curwen, then master or owner of Workington Hall.
In an address delivered by the writer before the New York Historical Society, on Tuesday evening, 6th Janu- ary, 1880, the case of Sir John Johnson was treated with great care, and to this was annexed two voluminous ap- pendices, presenting at length quotations from original authorities which explained and bore out the views ex- pressed in the paper itself. These supplements likewise embraced accounts of the principal actions in which Sir John was second or chief in command. Even to cite in this introduction the full titles of all the works examined would occupy more space than could possibly be conceded to such a list, and the reader must be content with the pertinent remark of a well-known writer (James Freeman Clarke) who says, in his introduction to the "Legend of Thomas Didymus," "I present no list of the authorities from which my facts are derived, but will merely say that the result of much study may be sometimes contained in the form given to a single sentence." To friends who have interested themselves no thanks are sufficient for their assistance in thought, word and deed. To Gen. Horatio Rogers, of Providence, R. I., the diligent investi- gator and digester of the facts and fancies, the narratives and traditions of the past ; to Col. T. Bailey Myers, of New York city, the true friend, the generous and genial
Preface. e
collector and collator; to Mr. Wm. L. Stone, the pains- taking and indefatigable historian, to Wm. C. Bryant, Esq., of Buffalo, N. Y., the disinterested champion of the wronged and misrepresented ; to Mr. Henry A. Homes, of the N". Y. State Library, for much trouble and courtesy,— to these and to others in lesser degree, but with great kind- ness, the warmest gratitude is felt and acknowl edged.
14 0 ^ J. WATTS DE PEYSTER.
"ROSE HILL,"
Tivoli P. O., Duchess Co., N. Y. 4th July, 1882.
NOTE. — There are few individuals in the United States who have the prerogative of expressing an opinion on the causes and course of the American Revolution superior to that of the writer. Lincoln, in his speech of speeches, at the consecration of the Soldiers' Cemetery at Gettysburg, — an utterance declared by English critics to be second only to Scriptural simplicity and sublimity — said that the brave men living and dead who struggled here — that is on the battlefield — " have conse- crated it far above our power to add or to detract ;" "that they gave the last full measure of devotion" to the cause that they espoused. The writer's ancestors and relatives " gave the last full measure of devotion" to the cause that they deemed right, and that they espoused. They were among the most wealthy and the most influential in the province of New York. A great great-uncle, Stephen de Lancey, was one of the most accomplished Executives who ever administered public affairs. His brother was a Brigadier-General, and common relatives held commis- sions in the British service, from general down to cornet. A great uncle, James de Lancey, was Colonel of Light Horsemen, comprising " the Elite of the Colony." His daring enterprises won for him the title of "the Outlaw of the Bronx," and "the terror of the region," "the debat- able ground," of Westchester County. A near kinsman and namesake was Major of the 8th or King's Regiment of Foot. He was among the ear- liest officers to visit Lake George ; he built the first frame building at Nia- gara Falls ; won the affections of whites and redskins on the far lakes ; left a work, styled " Miscellanies," which is a mine of facts for histo- rians ; rose to be colonel of his regiment, and of another, the " Dum- fries Gentlemen Volunteers," raised to resist French invasion ; is com memoratcd in the dedication of the " Poem on Life," by a famous pri-
f Preface,
vate in his corps, the poet Burns; died full of years ^nd honors, and was buried with rites only equalled on one other occasion, in the grave- yard of St. Michael's Church, lamented and revered by all who knew him. Both grandfathers held royal commissions, the first as the last royal Recorder of the city of New York, and the other as a captain, from 17 to 25, and was severely wounded, but recovered. Three great-uncles by blood were shot on the battlefield : one killed ; another desperately wounded, losing a leg ; a third by almost a miracle escaping the effects of a rifle-shot. Another great-uncle by mirriage, afterwards Earl of Cas- silis, was a captain in the British navy ; a second was Sir John Johnson; a third (James) was major, afterwards colonel of the British artillery, threatened by the mob with burial alive, and, escaping their rage, lost literary treasures, the accumulation of a lifetime and the rest of his accessible property. The writer's great-grandfather, President of the King's Council, who, if the crown had succeeded, was to have been the Lieutenant-Governor and acting Governor of the Province — in place of his father-in-law, the distinguished Colden — who had main- tained the rights of the people against military assumption, narrowly escaped death at the hands of the mob, left the country, was attainted, had his wealth confiscated a year subsequently to his departure, died an exile, straightened in means, and laid his bones in a foreign grave. His noble wife died of a broken heart. This list of martyrs might be greatly augmented.
The same Loyalty which sent these men to the front during the Re- volution, actuated their descendants during the war of 1812-15. The writer's father and four uncles, beside other relatives who were of suf- ficient age, were all in arms for the United States. One cousin, after- wards a major-general, the conqueror of New Mexico and of Califor- nia, died in consequence of the aggravation of political rancor, nay, persecution.
A kindred loyalty to the government sent every available relative into the field during the Slaveholders' Rebellion, and cost the lives of five out of six of those nearest and dearest. Loyalty, when it pays ''the last full measure of devotion," has a right to make itself heard ; Loyalty which shuns no danger and fears no consequence, is a better in- terpreter of Duty than mere passion incited by prospective advantages. To risk the loss of all is a better proof of honesty than the chance of winning something in a desperate game. And it is not only injustice, but spite that would endeavor to attribute unworthy motives to devotion such as was testified by those who threw life, property and all that men hoid dear into the scale, and lost all from motives of Loyalty to Autho- rity and Fidelity to the Flag.
THE JOHNSON FAMILY
OF THE MOHAWK VALLEY.*
(Original motto of Sir WILLIAM JOHNSON, Bart.)
"I cannot see," observes a gentleman (of New York Whig antecedents and ancestry), at once an historical scholar, a practical soldier and an accomplished man of business, "how a man so formed and trusted in himself and his family [as Sir John Johnson] could have acted differently than he did."
In many respects the two greatest men who adminis- tered the affairs of the colony or province, or, even since, of the State of New York, were Lieutenant -Governor,
* The following genealogy of the Johnson family is compiled from various sources : from memoranda furnished by the present Baronet, Sir William George Johnson, from Burke's " Peerage and Baronetage of Great Britain, from Sabinc's " Loyalists of the American Revolution," from Wm. L. Stone's "Life of Sir William Johnson, Bart.," &c., &c.
ii The Johnson Family.
acting Governor, James de Lancey, and Sir William Johnson, Bart., the "Indian Tamer" — the Conqueror at Lake George in 1755, and the Capturer of Niagara in 1759. If space permitted, it would be a very interesting and agreeable task or duty to clear up some historic- doubts in regard to the first Sir William and introduce illustrations of his ability which have never been presented to the American public.
It is marvellous what ridiculous nonsense has been published in regard to the antecedents and adventures of this remarkable man. The following is the literal truth, furnished from a most authentic source :
"The Hon. Sir William Johnson, Bart., in America, was the son of Christopher Johnson, Esq., of Smith- Town, County Meath (Ireland), a gentleman of great re- pute and renown, descended from a distinguished Irish family,* and of Anne Warren, daughter of Michael War- ren, Esq., of the same county, and sister of Sir Peter
* It has been bruited that originally the family name was not John- son, but Jausen, and that the first who bore it and settled in Ireland was a Hollander, who, like many of his countrymen, went over afterwards with William III. in 1690, won lands and established themselves. If this report had a grain of truth in it, that the name should become angli- cised immediately would be nothing remarkable, since hundreds of similar and of far greater transmutations and travesties, some amount- ing to simple absolute translations, occurred in this State within a gene- ration after its settlement : the Feuersteins becoming Flints, the Muh- lers Millers, &c., &c. This Jansen story, however, is a myth, like many of the stupidities which are engendered by ignorance or started through envy or other like meannesses in illiterate neighborhoods. Col. Guy Johnson, nephew of Sir William, always retained a touch of the brogue.* "His tongue bore evidence of his Irish extraction" (Captain Snyder, in Stone's "Brant," II. 67.
The Johnson Family. iii
Warren, Knight of the most Honorable Order of the Bath, Vice- Admiral in the British Navy under George II. (and well-known for his exploits — among these his co- operation with Sir William Pepperell in the famous expe- dition against Louisburg, the French Gibraltar in Amer- ica, in 1745), and niece of Admiral Lord Aylmer, of Bal- rath, County Meath, Ireland.
"The above Christopher Johnson was son of William Johnson, then called MacSean or MacShane, a general of very great repute and credit in that part of Ireland (coun- ty Meath, whose principal river is the Boyne, famous for the victory of William III. over James II., 1st July, 1690), and of Anne Fitzsimmons, of Tally nally, county of Westmeath. William MacSean was the son of Thomas MacSean and Frances Fay, of the very ancient family of Derrinaganale, county Westmeath. This Thomas MacSean was son of John (O'Neil), from whom the MacSeans of that family were called, and was descended from the Royal (Irish) family of Dungannon, County Tyrone, formerly princes of Ulster and monarchs of Ireland, ' ' antecedent to Christianity" and "before the coming of St. Patricke." The family of Warren (here referred to), of Warrentown, is the head and stock of several illustrious families of that name in Ireland, and the founder, was one of the principal followers of Earl Strongbow when he conquered Ireland, 1169-70. This family of Warren is descended in a direct legal line from the Marquises of Warrene, in Normandy, France.
According to Sir William George Johnson, Bart., there 2
iv The Johnson family.
is an exceptional honor attached to the patent of nobility conferred upon the first Sir William and his son, Sir John, which is almost unprecedented in British history. The patent which perpetuates the baronetcy in this family con- tains a clause which gives the title of "Knight" or " Sir" to the eldest son on his attaining his majority, an extraor- dinary clause, as knighthood as a rule is not hereditary, but is conferred for special services and terminates with the life of the recipient.
I. WILLIAM JOHNSON, Esq. (afterwards Knight and Baronet), was born at Smith Town, County Meath, Ireland, and subsequently adopted by his maternal uncle, Admiral Sir Peter Warren, K. B., capturer of Louisburg, <fec., and went out with him to North America, where he rose to the rank of Colonel in the British Army, Major-General of the Provincial Forces and (or) of the Militia, 16th April, 1783, and distin- guished himself as a military commander during the French (American) War (1754-63), and as a negotiator with Indian tribes. He was created a Baronet 27th Nov., 1755. In 1756 he received his commission as " Colonel, Agent and Sole Superin- tendent of all the affairs of the Six Nations and other Northern Indians" " with no subordination but to Loudon (London?)." He died llth July, 1774, of chronic malignant dysentery, aged 59, at his seat, Johnson Hall, Tryon County, New York, leaving by Catherine Wisenberg [Weissenberg ?], his wife :
i. JOHN, his heir.
u. ANNE, married to " Col. DANIEL CLAUSS, of North America, and died about 1798.
in. MARY, married to Col. GUY JOHNSON, and had two daughters: 1. Mary, wife of Field Marshal Lord Clyde, queller of the East India Mutiny, originally Sir Colin Campbell, and mother of Gen. Sir Guy Camp- bell : 2. Julia.
The Johnson Family. v
The son and heir of Sir William Johnson, Bart. : II. SIR JOHN, of Johnson Hall,* Tryon (afterwards Fulton) County, N. Y., finally of Mount Johnson, Montreal : Colonel of Regiment of Horse in the Northern District of New York, in 1773; Major-General of the Militia belonging to the same por- tion of the Province after the decease of his father'; Lieut.-Col. commanding, the Loyal or Provincial " King's Royal Regiment of New York," otherwise "The Queen's Loyal New Yorkers;" or "Johnson's or Queen's Royal Greens;" Colonel, B. A., 21st October, 1782; Brigadier-General of the Provincial Troops, <fec., 14th March, 1782; Superintendent-General and Inspector-
* To furnish some idea of the condition of insecurity in which the Johnson family lived, and the state of preparation maintained at the Hall — the family home — a semi-fortification, the following order, copied from the original by Col. T. Bailey Myers, is inserted entire.
It was by a father who was so careful in his instruction, who was so capable in the handling of men, so conscientious in his labors, adminis- trative, executive and military, and so fortunate in his enterprises, Sir John Johnson was brought up and prepared for the arduous career which absorbed the best portion of his active life.
" 1st. You will keep your Party sober and in good order and pre- vent their having any unnecessary Intercourse with the Indians least any difference might arise between them from too much familiarity.
3d. If any difference should arise between them, if the Indians use any of your party ill, I am to be immediately acquainted with it.
4th. You will in the day time keep one Sentry on the Eminence to the Northward of the House, who upon seeing the enemy advance is to fire his piece and retreat to the Fort. Another Sentry to be posted at the Gate of the Fort on the outside, who is also to enter the Fort on the advanced Sentry alarming him.
3d. The Sergeant to take care that the Men's Quarters be kept very Clean and that they wash well and freshen their Salt Provisions, the neglect of which makes them subject to many Disorders.
7th. In case of an attack the 2 Bastions to be properly manned and the 2 curtains also, there mixing some of my People with yours. The remainder of my People to man the Dwelling House and fight from thence, making Use of the Four "Wall Pieces and Musquetoons and of the windows fitted for them.
vi The Johnson Family.
General of the Six Nations of Indians and their Confederates, of all the Indians inhabiting Our province of Quebec and the Frontier, 16th September, 1791 (a copy of Sir John's com- mission is appended as a note) ; * Colonel-in-Chief of the six Battalions of the Militia of the Eastern Townships of Lower Canada. He was Knighted at St. James', London, 22<1 Nov.,
6th. Whenever an alarm is given by the advanced Sentry, you will order three Patteroes [or Peaeroes, a very small kind of cannon] im- mediately to be fired, that being the signal I have given to the Mo- hawks, and on their approach near the Fort, when challenged, they are to answer " George" as distinct as they can, then to be admitted if prac- ticable.
5th. When there are no Indians here the Gates to be locked at 8 o'clock in ye Evening and opened at Six in the Morning, first looking around about to see that all is safe and clear, the advanced Sentry then to be posted Every Day.
The men's arms and ammunition to be kept in Good Order. To FORT JOHNSON, I am, Sir,
Lieut. August the 9th, 1756. Yrs.,
ALEXANDER TURN BULL. WM. JOHNSON.
NOTE.— On the 10th of August the Marquis de Montcalm, who had succeeded Baron Dieskau in command of French army, invested Oswego. On the 13th Cause of this the garrison, Shirley and Peppereirs regiments, 1600 men, evacuated absence. and retreated to the old fort across the river, and surrendered on 13th, and both forts levelled. Johnson was at Albany on the 20th when the news arrived, and was sent by Ld. Loudon with two battalions of militia to German Flats to support Gen. Webb, who had (started from Albany for the relief of the garrison two days before the surrender, but, on receiving intelligence of it, retreated with precipi- tancy to German Flats, which ended Loudoun's campaign and disappointed and in- censed the Six Nations, who looked for his protection, and gave Sir William much trouble ; the Mohawks only remaining reliable, the others for a time negotiating for peace with the French.
* GEN'L J. W. DE PEYSTER, BUFFALO, March 30, 1882.
DEAR SIR : — I enclose copy of Sir John Johnson's commission as Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs. The original is bound up in a collection of autographs and documents in my possession, and could not be detached without mutilation.
Possibly this may be of some slight service to you.
Very respectfully yours, WM. C. BRYANT.
[To whom the Johnson family owe a heavy debt of gratitude for
The Johnson Family. vii
1765. (On the death of his father, Sir William (I.), Sir John positively refused to accept the succession to the former's dig- nities and offices in connection with the Indians, and they were conferred upon his cousin, Guy Johnson, who exercised them throughout the Revolutionary War, and thus Sir John and Col. Guy have often been confounded, to the disadvantage of Sir John. Sabine says, " Col. Guy Johnson's intemperate zeal for his royal master caused the first affray in that [Tryon] county.") Sir John married, 30th June, 1773, MARY, daughter of Hon. JOHN WATTS, Senior, Esq., some time President of the King's Council of New York, and by her (who died 7th Au- gust, 1815) he had issue :
i. WILLIAM, Lieut-Col., born 1775; married in 1802, SUSAN — an extraordinary beauty — daughter of Stephen de Lan-
his noble defence of Sir John Johnson, and the writer abundant thanks for information, rendered doubly valuable by the courtesies attending its transmission. J. W. DE P.]
GEORGE R.
[GKEAT SEAL.]
George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To our trusty and well-beloved Sir John Johnson, Bart., Greeting: We reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Fidelity and Ability do by these Presents constitute and appoint you to be Superintendent General and Inspector General of our Faithful Subjects and Allies, the Six United Nations of Indians and their Confederates, and of their Affairs, and also of our faithful Allies the Indians inhabiting Our Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, in America, and the frontiers of our said Provinces, and of their affairs : And you are to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as you shall receive from Our Commander in Chief of Our Forces in Our said Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, or, in case of his absence, from the Officer who may be left in the Command of the said Forces for the Time being.
Given at Our Court at St. James's, the Sixteenth day of Septem- ber, 1791, In the Thirty First Year of Our Reign.
By His Majesty's Command,
HENRY DUNDAS.
viii The Johnson Family.
cey, Governor of Tobago, and sister of Sir William de Laricey, K. C. B., " Quartermaster-General of Welling- ton's army," killed at Waterloo ; and died 1812, leav- ing by her (who married secondly, 1815, General Sir Hudson Lowe, K.C.B., and died 1832) three daughters :
1. Charlotte, married in 1820, Alexander Count
Balmain, Russian Commissioner at St. Helena, and died in 1824.
2. Mary, died unmarried in 1814.
3. Susan, died' unmarried in 1828. ii. ADAM GORDON, Hid Baronet.
in. JAMES STEPHEN, Captain 28th Regiment, killed at Badajoz, born in 1785.
iv. ROBERT THOMAS, drowned in Canada in 1812. v. WARREN, Major 68th Regiment, died 1813.
vi. JOHN, of Point Oliver, Montreal, Col. Com'g 6th Bat- talion of Militia, born 8th August ; 1782, married 10th February, 1825, Mary Diana, daughter of Richard Dillon, Esq., of Montreal, and died 23d June, 184], leaving issue :
1. WILLIAM GEORGE, successor to his uncle, and
present (in 1882) Baronet.
2. CHARLES, Captain Madras Artillery, born 4th
February, 1833.
3. JAMES STEPHEN, Lieut. 14th Foot, born 5th
March, 1836 ; killed at Barbadoes.
4. ARCHIBALD KENNEDY, born 20th June, 1839.
1. MARIA DIANA.
2. ANNE MARGARET.
3. ELIZA THERESA.
4. MARY ANNE.
vii. CHARLES CHRISTOPHER, of Argenteuil, Canada East, born 29th October, 1798: Lieut.-Col. in the Army; Knight of the second class of the Persian Order of the Lion and Sun; married 1818, Susan, eldest daughter
The Johnson Family. ix
of Admiral Sir Edward Griffiths, of Northbrook House, Hants (Hampshire) (who took the surname of Colpoys), and died 30th September, 1854, leaving:
1. WILLIAM, an officer in 20th Regiment, bora
28th May, 1821, deceased.
2. JOHN ORMSBY, Captain Royal Navy; born llth
August, 1822.
3. CHARLES TURQUAND, born 17th June, 1825, de-
ceased.
4. EDWARD COLPOYS, born llth August, 1855, an
officer in the Army.
1. MARIA BOWES, married, 18th June, 1867, Rev.
Wm. Bell Christian, of Ewanrigg Hall, Cum- berland, and Milntown, Isle of Man.
2. MARY ANNE SUSAN.
vin. ARCHIBALD KENNEDY, born in 1792, married, 13th Sep- tember, 1818, Maria Johnson, daughter of Patrick Langan, Esq., of Montreal, died 8th October, 1866.
1 . ANNE, man-ied to Col. Edward Macdonnell, De-
puty Quartermaster General to the Forces in Canada, who died in 1812.
2. CATHARINE MARIA, one of the loveliest, wisest and
best of women, married in 1805 to Major- General BARNARD FOORD BOWES, an officer of unusual ability and intrepidity, who fell in the attack upon the forts at Salamanca, 23d June, 1812.( See Harper's "Alison," III., 476 (2) and note f, and other authorities on the War in Spain). She died at Anglesey, near Gosport, England, in 1850.
3. MARIANNE, died 1st January, 1868.
SIR JOHN, died 4th January, 1830, and was succeeded by his eldest surviving son,
IH. SIR ADAM GORDON, Lieut.-Col. of the 6th Battalion of Militia, born 6th May, 1781 ; who died unmarried 21st May,
x The Johnson Family.
1843, and was succeeded by his nephew, WILLIAM GEORGE, the present (1882) Baronet.
IV. SIK WILLIAM GEORGE JOHNSON, of Twickenham, Coun- ty of Middlesex, England, was graduated at Woolwich, and lor the best portion of his life held a commission in the British Army as Captain of Artillery, and acted, in the discharge of va- rious staff duties, at different posts, and once upon the Island of St. Helena; born 19th December, 1830; succeeded as IV. Baro- net at the decease of his uncle, in May, 1843.
ARMS. — Argent, two lions counter-rampant, supporting a dexter hand gules ; in chief, three estoilles of the last, and in bas, a salmon naiant in water, proper.
CREST. — An arm, gules, encircled with a ducal crown, Or, the hand grasping a sword, proper, poinard and hilt, Or.
MOTTO. — "Nee aspera terrent" '•'•Difficulties do not stop (or deter) or dismay.'''' " BOLDNESS WINS."
Sir John Johnson, might have exclaimed, in the words of Dryden :
" Fortune came smiling to my youth, and woo'd it, And purpl'd greatness met my ripen'd years, When first I came to empire, I was borne, On tides of people crowding to my triumph : The wish of nations, and the willing world Receiv'd me as its pledge of future peace. I was so great, so happy, so belov'd, Fate could not ruin me, 'til I took pains, And work'd against my fortune ; chid her from me, And turn'd her loose, yet still she came again. My careless days, and my luxurious nights, At length have wearied her ; and now she's gone. ****** Oh ! I am now so sunk from what I was, Thou find'st me at my low-water mark : The rivers that ran in, and rais'd my fortunes, Are all dried up, or take another course. What I have left is from my native spring ; Pve still a heart that swells in scorn of fate ."
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
" Our knowledge of the future [1861 — 5], can only be a copy of the past [1775-83]." TH. RIBOT'S " Diseases of Memory"
Ctesar. — " You must obey what all obey, the rule
Of fix'd necessity : against her edict
Rebellion prospers not."
Arnold. — "And when it prospers — "
C&sar. — " ' Tis no rebellion."
* * * *
Philibert. — • '' How now, fellow !
Thou waxest insolent, beyond the privilege
Of a buffoon." Ceesar. — " You mean, I speak the truth.
I'll lie — it is as easy ; then you'll praise me
For calling you a hero."
BYRON'S "Deformed Transformed" Act I., Scene II.
Posselt, in his "History of Gustavus III., of Sweden," after mentioning that he has had a number of manuscripts communicated to him by a high and competent authority, says, " the author, although he fully agrees in opinion with the writer (of these manu - scripts), will not communicate them to the public, because the world ivill neither hear nor believe the simple truth, but wishes to be deceived."
SCHLOSSER, "History of the XIX. Century" IV., 342.
"A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so : and what will ye do in the end thereof." JEREMIAH V., 30, 31.
There was a greater and a finer display of Loyalty to the Government, that is, to the Union and to the Flag, in 1861, ten times over, than of patriotism or whatever it may be said to represent, to the cause of Liberty and Independence, that is to the Confederated Colonies, in 3— xi
xii Historical Introduction.
1775-6. In 1861 there was a universal popular fervor at
the North, totally disinterested — an uprising of the people.*
• In 1775-6, as a national feeling, it was exactly the reverse.
There were more native Americans in the course of the war in the British service than Washington ever had to- gether, regulars and irregulars, under the highest pres- sure of voluntary and compulsory service.
Lorenzo Sabine demonstrates this, and the following letter is too pertinent and corroborative to be omitted. It is from the pen of a very able Federal general, and one of the most reflecting men of this generation, who is like- wise a collateral relation of one of the most prominent Continental generals. In it the writer says :
" The more I read and understand the American Revolu- tion, the more I wonder at our success. I doubt if there were more than two States decidedly whig — Massachusetts and Vir- ginia. Massachusetts (morally) overlapped New Hampshire — and the northern part of Rhode Island — and dragged them after her. [These seemed to realize the dependence of the Second Jager in Schiller's " Wallensteirfs Lager" or camp —
" Freedom must ever with might entwine, I live and will die by Wallenstein."]
The Massachusetts people were Aryan (by race), with a strong injection of Jewish (instincts). The population of Southern Rhode Island and Connecticut were divided — more loyal than
* There was more patriotism shown at the North, among all classes and conditions of men, during the first two years of the " Slaveholders' Rebellion" than has ever been exhibited, spontaneously, by any people in the world— far more than during the American Revolution. The Loyalists of 1861-2 took up arms for their colors and country and for conscience — for principle ; so did the Loyalists of 1775-6.
Historical Introduction. xiii
Rebel. New York was Tory. New Jersey — eastern part fol- lowed New York, western part Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was Tory, Maryland was divided ; North Carolina partly fol- lowed "her, partly South Carolina. South Carolina had many Tories. Georgia followed South Carolina. Two parties con- stituted the strength of the Whigs — the Democratic Commun- ists of Massachusetts and wherever their organization extended and the (Provincial) aristocracy of Virginia, which was loyal to the King but would not bend to the aristocratic Parliament. The Scotch (Protestant not Papist) Irish in New York, Pennsyl- vania and North Carolina were Rebels to the backbone. The Dutch families in New York [not in authority], the Huguenots in South Carolina, likewise. The Church party, the Germans, the Catholic Irish and the Quakers were Loyalists. The Dis- senters everywhere were Rebels."
Without the active assistance of France and Spain, and the silent influence of other powers, jealous or envious or inimical to Great Britain, the achievement of American Independence would have been an impossibility. AVhen the goal was reached how did the Confederated Colonies, transmuted into the United States, show their gratitude to France and Spain ?
Again, there was more honesty, mercy, magnanimity, more charity or philanthropy manifested to the Rebels in 1865, than to their brethren, if they were so in fact, by the Colonial authorities in 1782-3. The Duke of Alva was scarcely more cruel for his race, day, prejudices and opportunities than the authorities of the State of New York, for their blood and their era. Not one sentence of this introduction is written to uphold Great Britain. Even accepting Lecky's depreciatory estimate of George III.
xiv Historical Introduction.
and his ministry, nothing can excuse the animus which permeates the enactments of New York against the Loyal- ists, stigmatized as Tories, who were certainly as honest and self-sacrificing in their convictions as their opponents. The uprising of 1861 settled the interpretation or definition of Loyality — Fealty to the Government and Fidelity to the Flag! If there was any man in the Colonies who was a decided enemy to the Crown it was John Adams, and yet he it was who declared, or rather
wrote these remarkable words :
«
" For my own part there was not a moment during the Revolution when I would not have given anything I possessed for a restoration to the state of things before the contest began, provided we could have a sufficient security for its continuance'."
The idea thus expressed by John Adams with the pen, was nothing more than Sir John Johnson wrote in fiercer colors with the sword, at the sacrifice of such a magnificent property that John Adams would have regarded a portion of it as an elegant competency.
What have Native Americans gained by all that has been undergone? Would their leaders have taken the stand that they did, if they could have looked forward and foreseen the present condition of things ? Is material prosperity the highest good ? The wish has been attributed to Jefferson, the "Apostle of Democracy?" that an ocean of fire rolled between his country and the old world, to pre- serve it from the evils of emigration. Foreigners in a great measure engineered the American Revolution. How
Historical Introduction. xv
many figured at the head of our armies ? How many influenced the resolutions of Congress? Of twenty-eight active major-generals — there were thirty, but one re- signed 23d April, 1776, and one was retired in 1778 — eleven were foreigners, and four had learned their trades in the British service. Throwing out those who were promoted, of the fifty-five brigadiers, between 1775 and the close of the war in 1782, twelve were foreigners.
The two chief agents of independence were Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine. The first was an accidental American, just bor» in this country, and the latter an Englishman.
Individual rights are more respected and regarded to- day in Great Britain, and the law is held in more rever- ence there than in the United States. Here license dictates the laws and a respectable minority has to suffer and suc- cuftib. There is no law but public opinion, right or wrong, and the atrocious influence of political greed and grasping monopoly. Is that worse than a royal will, tempered by a constitutional representation ?
The atmosphere breathed by so many of the prominent American families of New York was surcharged with Loy- alty and Fidelity to a rightful Prince. Whether the idea was wise or foolish, right or wrong, nothing was considered as much a man's personal duty as the maintenance of his honor. The young and charming Lord James Radcliffe, Earl of Derwentwater, the idol of the Jacobites, was beheaded*
* "LORD DEHWENTWATEH'S LIGHTS. — There have been several wonderful and most unusual displays of aurora borealis in England
xvi Historical Introduction.
24th February, 1716 ; that is, on the very day, it is claimed by Col. T. Bailey Myers, that Sir William John- son was born, and the wild fervor of Jacobite Loyalty was still alive when Sir John was a boy. The world was yet ringing with the thrilling, touching and trumpet-toned ballads which celebrated the virtues and sacrifices of those who dared and died for the Stuarts. With such examples before them, men who had been elevated and rewarded by the Crown would have been false to manhood if they had not stood by the source of honor whose streams had en- nobled and enriched them.
Contrast LORD DER WENT WATER'S famous "Good Night" with a similar poem, evoked by the exile and ruin of the Westchester de Lanceys. The same spirit manifests itself in both.
lately, seriously affecting, as they have done here, the telegraphic communication. In Northumberland, the aurora borealis is known among the peasantry by the name of Lord Derwentwaters Lights. In the attempt to place the Stuarts on the throne, the Earl of Derwent- water, head of the great Roman Catholic north country family of RadclifFe, took a conspicuous part, and paid the penalty on the scaffold. On the night of his execution there was a brilliant display of the aurora borealis, and the simple peasantry, by whom their lord, a man of high and amiable character, was greatly beloved, associated the phenomena with the death of the unfortunate young nobleman.
" There is also a legend, which yet lingers amidst the homesteads of the property which once was his, that the water in the moat of Dilstone Castle, the family seat, turned blood red on that same fatal night. This notion is likely to have arisen from the reflection of the sky [crimson with the aurora] in the water. The vast estates of the Rad- cliffes were confiscated to the endowment of Greenwich Hospital, and are now worth about £60,000 a year. A maniac, calling herself Countess of Derwentwater, has lately been claiming them." Post, Nov. 29, 1870.
Historical Introduction. xvii
" Farewell to pleasant Dilston Hall,
My father's ancient seat ; A stranger now must call thee Ms,
Which gars my heart to greet. Farewell each friendly well-known face,
My heart has held so dear ; My tenants now must leave their lands,
Or hold their lives in fear.*
' No more along the banks of Tyne,
I'll rove in autumn grey ; No more I'll hear at early dawn,
The lav' rocks wake the day. Then fare thee well, brave Witherington,
And Forster ever true ; Dear Shaftesbury and Errington,
Receive my last adieu.
"And fare thee well, George Collingwood,
Since fate has put us down, If thou and I have lost our lives,
Our King has lost his crown. Farewell, farewell, my lady dear,
111, ill thou counsell'dst me ; I never more may see the babe
That smiles upon thy knee.\
' And fare thee well, my bonny grey steed,}:
That carried me aye so free ; I wish I had been asleep in my bed,
The last time I mounted thee. This warning bell now bids me cease, My trouble's nearly o'er ;
* True to the letter as regards the tenants and dependents of Sir John Johnson.
f Lady Johnson's child, born in captivity, died in consequence of the exposure attending her escape from the Whigs or Rebels, and Sir John only looked upon it to see it die.
t Sir John Johnson had a famous (white or whitey-grey ?) charger, which was captured during the invasion of 1780. (See Simm's "Scho- harie," 386.)
xviii Historical Introduction.
Yon Sun that rises from the sea, Shall rise on me no more.
"Albeit that here in London town,
It is my fate to die ; O carry me to Northumberland,
In my father's grave to lie ! Then chant my solemn requiem,
In Hexham's holy towers ; And let six maids of fair Tynedale,
Scatter my grave with flowers.
"And when the head that wears the crown,
Shall be laid low like mine, Some honest hearts may then lament,
For Radcliffe's fallen line. Farewell to pleasant Dilston Hall,
My father's ancient seat ; A stranger now must call thee his,
Which gars my heart to greet."
The touching lines, just quoted, are echoes of similar heart-utterances of every nation which has a literature, and which has been torn by civil war. Several poems of exquisite pathos attest the deep feeling of the Huguenot exiles driven by bigotry from France and from the sunny homes they were never again to behold. Many years ago, among old family records, the writer found some verses in manuscript which embody the same sentiments as those which characterize "Lord Derwent water's Good Night." They refer to the desolation which fell upon the domain in Westchester County, N. Y., where his grandfather, Hon. John Watts, Jr., married, 2d October, 1775, the lovely Jane de Lancey — a couple so fitted for each other in every respect, that the festival was suitably commemorated in prose and poetry. The gentle Jane was the niece of
Historical Introduction. xix
Lady Johnson, wife of Sir John, and the sister of the famous Colonel James de Lancey, who organized a Battalion of Loyal Light Horse. "This Troop [the nucleus] is truly 'Elite' of the country," is the record of the Royal Governor. Their commander, stigmatized by his oppo- nents as the "Outlaw of the Bronx," became "the terror of the region" between the Harlem river and the High- lands. He was fearless and indefatigable, and, on one occasion, came near "gobbling" Washington. So formid- able did he prove, that Washington's "first offensive de- sign"— after his junction with Lauzun's Legion and the ad- vanced corps of Rochambeau — was an attempt to destroy de Lancey' s Legion. This, like that of Lauzun, Pulaski, Armand and "Light Horse Harry" Lee, comprised both Horse and Foot. The enterprise was undertaken on the night of 1st July, 1781. It failed completely.
When the success of the Americans was decided, Colo- nel James de Lancey, the hero of so much sterling fact and romantic fiction, went forth an exile — a sad fate for so brave and conscientious a soldier, although he was rewarded by the bounty and confidence of the King for whom he had lost all. He was a nephew of Sir John Johnson. When about to leave forever his ancestral home, the ' ' ' Outlaw of the Bronx' mounted his horse, and, riding to the dwell- ings of his neighbors [early associates and constant friends through life] bid them each farewell. His paternal fields and every object presented to his view were associ- ated with the joyful recollections of early life. The con- sciousness that he beheld them all for the last time, and
xx Historical Introduction. '
the uncertainties to be encountered in the strange country to which banishment was consigning him, conspired to awaken emotions such as the sternest bosom is sometimes compelled to entertain. It was in vain that he struggled to suppress feelings which shook his iron heart. Nature soon obtained the mastery, and he burst into tears. After weeping with uncontrollable bitterness for a few moments, he shook his ancient friend by the hand, ejaculating with difficulty the words of benediction — 'God bless you, Theophilus [Bailey] !' and spurring forward, turned his back forever upon his native valley" — the home of the writer's great-grandparents on the mother's side.
The following feeling lines were written by a stranger, an Englishman, who visited the old de Lancey manor, in Westchester County, N. Y., expecting to find there, still existing, some memorials of that gallant, courtly and emi- nent race which once directed the development of the colony and province. But, alas, in the same manner that war, exile, confiscation and death had smitten and scat- tered the proud owners, even so had flood, fire and change laid waste or altered their ornate possessions. A solitary pine, towering aloft in natural majesty, alone survived to mark the spot where once a flourishing loyal race ex- tended its stately hospitalities, and enjoyed the sweets of a home, the abode of prosperity and the ghelter of extra- ordinary hereditary capacity. A contrast so marked be- tween the past and the present moved even the alien, and in poetic numbers he testified his sympathy and recorded the desolation :
' Historical Introduction. xxi
" Where gentle Bronx clear winding flows
His shadowing banks between ; Where blossom'd bell and wilding rose
Adorn the brightest green ; Memorials of the fallen great,
The rich and honor'd line, Stands high in solitary state,
De Lancey's ancient pine.
" There, once at early dawn array'd,
The rural sports to lead, The gallant master of the glade
Bestrode his eager steed ; And once the light-foot maiden came,
In loveliness divine, To sculpture with the dearest name,
De Lancets ancient pine.
"And now the stranger's foot explores
De Lancey's wide domain, And scarce one kindred heart restores
His memory to the plain ; And just like one in age alone,
The last of all his line Bends sadly where the waters moan —
De Lancey's ancient pine.
" Oh greatness ! o'er thy final fall,
The feeling heart should mourn. Nor from de Lancey's ancient Hall
With cold rejoicing turn : No ! no ! the satiate stranger stays
When eve's calm glories shine, To weep — as tells of other days
De Laneey's ancient pine."
THE AMERICAN LOYALISTS.
"At the conclusion of a long war, how are we recompensed for the death of multitudes and the expense of millions, but by contemplating the sudden glories of paymasters and agents, contractors and commissaries, whose equipages shine like meteors, and whose palaces rise like exhalations." * DR. JOHNSON.
" Thus perished the party of the Gironde ; reckless in its measures, culpable for its rashness, but illustrious from its talents, glorious in its fall. It embraced all the men who were philanthropists from feeling, or Republicans from principle ; the brave, the humane, the benevolent. But with them were also combined within its ranks numbers of a baser kind ; many who employed their genius for the advancement of their ambition, and were careless of their country provided they elevated their party. It was overthrown by a fac- tion of coarser materials, but more determined character, * * * Adorned by the most splendid talents, supported by the most powerful eloquence, actuated at times by the most generous intentions, it perished * * * Such ever has, and ever will be, the result of revolutionary convulsions in society when not steadily opposed in the outset by a firm union of the higher classes of the community ; in the collision of oppo- site factions the virtuous and the moderate will too often be overcome by the reckless and the daring. Prudence clogs their enterprise ; virtue checks their ambition ; humanity paralyzes their exertions. They fall because they recoil from the violence which becomes, in disastrous times, essential to command success in revolutions."
ALISON'S " 'History of Europe" II., ix., 214, 2.
Fortunately for the colonies, Carleton was not in favor with the British authorities at home, and Burgoyne, sub- stituted in 1777, had neither the wisdom nor the generosity to develop an element of strength which Carleton had found so efficacious and trustworthy. Clinton, in this regard,
* This sentence was adopted as the motto of a £ omewhat scarce " History of the First Ten Years of George III.," London, 1788, written by (Robert ?) Macfarlane, who kept an academy at Walthamstow, in Essex County, England, seven miles N.N.E. of London, xxii
The American Loyalists, xxiii
imitated Burgoyne. The German, Knyphausen, strange to say, was the first to perceive the truth and organize a military organization of the Loyalists that could be relied on upon every occasion. He raised, in 1779-80, six thou- sand good troops among the citizens of New York, which made this city — the grand base of the British forces — se- cure. A course similar to that of Carleton, after the cap- ture of Savannah by Campbell, in December, 1778, enabled Prevost to convert Georgia almost entirely from rebellion to loyalty. Clinton, in 1777, was as unwise on the Lower Hudson as Burgoyne had been on the Upper. Cornwallis had all the sense of Carleton without his astuteness. His advice to the Loyalists of the Carolinas was admirable. He counselled them not to take up arms and embody until he was near enough at hand to protect and support them ; until they had gathered strength to stand and go alone. His policy in this regard would have worked wonders, had it not been for the intervention of a new element, which had not entered into the calculations of any of the Royal com- manders. This was the appearance upon the scene of the mountaineers of the Alleghanies, who were aroused to action by the fugitives from the districts occupied by the temporary victors. Cornwallis, although severe, was just ; and it is somewhat remarkable that it was not until 1866 that a little book appeared, entitled "The Last Ninety Days of the War in North Carolina," in which justice is done to the previously misrepresented Marquis. Cornwal- lis did hang a number ; but American historians are very careful not to state that those hanged were taken "red
xxiv The American Loyalists.
hand," "with American arms in their hands and with British protections in their pockets. " It was only through the generosity of Cornwallis that the Loyalists with him in Yorktown were enabled to get off with safety when the place was taken.
The whole of this matter is misunderstood, and has never been clearly placed before the people.
Too many of the influential Loyalists acted in 1775-6 like the French nobility in 1790-2. Louis de Lomenie, in his "Comtesse de Rochefort et ses Amis" (p. 297), has some remarks on this subject which are pertinent.
"To explain so prompt a downfall of the French aristocracy of the eighteenth century, writers have often urged the irresist- ible impetuosity of the Democratic movement. We do not deny this impetuosity, but it is nevertheless necessary to recognize that if this aristocracy, in place of being a mere shadow of what it should have been, had retained the vigor of an effective patri- ciate (higher or better class) and a living body, it would not with- out utility, perhaps, for the cause of liberty, have tempered the revolutionary movement, or, at least, have opposed to it a stronger resistance than it did. It was broken at the first shock, because this formerly flourishing branch of the great national tree"
was not true to itself. Lomenie goes on to give other rea- sons which were peculiar to France, whereas in America, although the causes were apparently different, they were at bottom the same, viz.: the better classes had "given hostages to fortune," and this, according to the proverbs of all time, unnerves men until it is too late.
It is inconceivable how the Loyalist strength in the co- lonies was misapplied, frittered away or wasted. The re-
The American Loyalists. xxv
suit only shows that in all revolutions the Middle or Neutral — generally styled the Conservative — party only embarrass the Ultras on one side in support of the govern- ment, and aid the .Radicals, on the other side, by attempt- ing to arrest or mediate ; thus affording time for the organi- zation of the latter, which converts rebellion into revolution. In all political crises or cataclysms, a renaissance through blood, the best, the conservative class, the cham- pions of right, pure and simple, furnish the first and the bulk of the victims. Thus it was in America. The daring and reckless with comparatively little to lose, with grand exceptions, it is true, fell upon the intellectual and wealthy, who adhered to the government under which they had thriven. The myrmidons of the Crown — selfish, indolent, self-satisfied professionals — were as cruel in their inaction as the leaders of faction were merciless in their exactions. The persecution of the Tories was determined with cold-blooded calculation, since the Saxon can not plead in excuse the excitability of the Celtic or Latin races ; what he does he does advisedly. Nor was the desertion of the Loyalists at the Peace of Paris, 1783, less disgraceful on the part of Great Britain. It was fiercely denounced in the House of Commons ; it was justly stigmatized in the House of Lords. Even Lord St. Germain redeemed himself in a measure by his eloquent advocacy of the brave party who had abandoned everything for honor — principle, the mother-country; its highest representative of these, the Crown. Ldrenzo Sabine has demonstrated all this, laid open the iniquity, revealed the truth, vindicated the
xxvi The American Loyalists.
Loyalists or Tories ; for the term Tory, as used in re- gard to a party adverse to Rebellion or Revolution, dur- ing 1775 to 1783, is a title of honor and not a term of reproach.
When the difficulties between the Crown and the Colonies first began to develop into positive ideas of ulti- mate resistance on the side of the latter, the party for inde- pendence was in a comparatively small minority and con- fined to particular disaffected localities. If the whole popu- lation had then resolved itself into two camps, the matter might have been decided promptly and for many years to come. As it happened, those who had much to lose were too timid to act instantly and resolutely ; and those who had little or nothing to lose became bolder and bolder in the pres- ence of an irresolute antagonism, which was not backed by a military force sufficient absolutely to overawe. Massachu- setts was unquestionably in earnest from the first ; but an- tagonism to the Crowji was its normal condition. It had always been the hot-bed of what might be harshly termed, from a British' point of view, sedition. Although the first bloodshed occurred in New York, on the 19th-20th January, 1770, it would not have led to any comparatively general outbreak, had it not been for the terrible uproar following the second bloodshed at Boston, 5th March, 1770, and the consequences which ensued from the latter. The very assemblage which considered the Declaration of Independence, in 1776, did not unanimously vote or agree in the act to sever the connection between the colonies and the mother country. The date accepted, 4th of July, is in-
The American Loyalists. xxvii
correct ; and the Declaration was juggled through, and the signatures were appended from time to time throughout the year, if not a longer period. This accounts for the irre- gular manner they appear on the document, since the latest were inserted wherever a vacant space was found. It be- came a sort of test oath.
The Judge published an admirable burlesque, or pa- rody, or caricature of Trumbull's famous picture of "The Signing." It depicts the representatives in very dilapi- dated conditions, with blackened eyes, bruised bodies, torn clothes and general tokens of an affray, drawing near to affix their signatures at the table where Hancock presides look- ing like the genius of an Irish wake. There is as much truth as poetry in the conception, for the Declaration was not agreed to with anything like unanimity or the generally conceived harmony.
There is something very curious about the respect as- tached to this "4th of July." The first Congress of the Colonies signed a "Compact of Union" (K. W. G.'sG.W. and his Gens.," II., 15), on the 4th of July, 1754, at Al- bany. This may account for the selection of this day in 1776. The fact that two of our ex-Presidents, who had signed the Declaration, died on the same date, added ad- ditional significance, which a series of victories, from East to "West along the whole line on the same day, in 1863, confirmed in the minds of the people.
The Loyalists, confiding in the power of the Crown, did not take up arms as soon as their adversaries ; and thus, when they did begin to embody, they were at once 5
XXV111
The American Loyalists.
crushed by stronger and better organized masses. The British professional leaders — as a rule throughout all time, and especially in this country — with the usual arrogance of their caste, neither sought to utilize, support nor protect their friends when they did come together, and even treated them witli superciliousness and neglect, if they did not absolutely sacrifice them when they appeared as auxil- iaries. Carleton was the first who had the wisdom to call this element into play, and through it he saved Canada, just as the French had previously lost New France through a contrary course to his, amounting to the same subsequent lack of judgment on the part of the royal British military governors.
SIR JOHN JOHNSON,
KNIGHT AND BARONET.
BORN 5TH Nov., 1742. DIED 4TH JAN., 1830.
"The Past appeals to the impartiality of the Future. History replies. But, often, generations pass away ere that reply can be given in a determinate form. For not until the voices of contemporaneous panegyric and censure are hushed ; not until passionate pulses have ceased to beat ; not until flattery has lost its power to charm, and calumny to vilify, can the verdict of history be pronounced. Then from the clouds of error and pre- judice the sun of truth emerges, and light is diffused in bright rays, of ever increasing refulgency and breadth. * * * Every age has its own heroes — men who seem to em- body the prevailing characteristics of their relative epochs, and to present to after ages the idealized expression of their chief tendencies. Such men must be judged by no ordi- nary standard. History must view their actions as a whole, not subject them to separate tests, or examine them through the lenses of partial criticism and narrow-minded prejudice." OSCAR II., King of Sweden, in his "Life of Charles XII."
" I would serve my king ; Serve him with all my fortune here at home, And serve him with my person in the wars ; Watch for him, fight for him, bleed for him, and die for him, As every true-born subject ought !"
THOMAS OTWAY'S Tragedy, "The Orphan" 1680.
Perhaps no man in ' ' the Colonies ' ' who adhered to the Crown, has been so cruelly misjudged and consistently misrepresented as Sir John Johnson. Every possible charge, derogatory to him, has been raked up and brought out against him. Why? Because he did not submit quietly to what he deemed injustice, but struck back boldly and severely — made himself felt, made those xxix
xxx Sir John Johnson.
suffer who caused him to suffer. He was the only Loyal- ist who had the opportunity to force the bitter chalice which he had been compelled to drain, back upon the lips of those who filled it for him, and in turn obliged them to quaff the same hateful draught. The de Lanceys and many other Loyalists fought just as boldly and as bitterly, and as persistently, but they never had the same opportunity as Sir John to make every fibre of antagonism quiver.
The father of Sir John Johnson — the subject of this me- moir— was the famous Sir William Johnson, Bart., Colo- nel in the Koyal Army, Major-General in the Provincial service and British Superintendent of Indian Affairs. This gentleman was, perhaps, the most prominent man in the province of New York during the decade which preceded the Declaration of Independence. Peter Van Schaack, a very noted lawyer of the period, wrote, July, 1774, a few days after the Baronet's decease : "I own, I consider him as the GREATEST CHARACTER OF THE AGE. ' ' If ever there was a leader who deserved the Corona Oleagina* of the Romans, it was Sir William. Whether a Jansen — a descendant of one of those indomitable Hollanders who assisted to subdue Ireland, and anglicised their names — or of English race, proper, Sir William was a strong ex- ample of those common-sense men who know how to seize Fortune by the forelock and not clutch in vain the
* This Corona Oleagina, was a wreath of olive leaves and the re- ward of a commander through whose instrumentality a triumph had been obtained though not himself in the action by which it was achieved. AUL. GELL., V., 6. ; RICH. DJCT., R. & G. A.
Sir John Johnson. xxxi
tresses which flow down her receding hack. He opened to emigration two of the most productive valleys in the world — the Mohawk and Schoharie; and with the development of their riches rose himself to a height of opulence and influence unequalled in the "Thirteen Colonies." Just in his dealings with all men, he was particularly so with the Indians, and acquired a power over the latter such as no other individual ever possessed. Transferred from civil jurisdiction to military command he exhibited no less ability in the more dangerous exigen- cies of war, than in the laborious services of peace. He, it was, who first stemmed the tide of French invasion, and turned it at Lake George, in 1755 ; re- ceiving both from his sovereign and from Parliament a grateful recognition of his extraordinary services. Nor were the people of the Province of New York less demonstrative in their applause or appreciative of his achievements. At "Johnson Hall" he lived in truly baronial state, and no other provincial magnate ever ex- hibited such aifluence and grandeur as was displayed by him in his castle and home (Fort Johnson) on the Mohawk. His greatest achievement, in immediate as well as ultimate results, was his victory at Lake George over the veteran Dieskau, 8th August, 1755. New England, always jealous of New York, has endeavored as usual to transfer the laurels from Johnson to one of her own people. As king, country and countrymen accorded the honor and reward to Johnson, "success," in his case, "proved the -test of merit." That there were New Eng-
xxxii . Sir John Johnson.
landers who could estimate Johnson at his true value, let the folio wing letter (Stone's "Sir W. J.," L, 521) attest. It is from Surgeon Williams, of Massachusetts, to his wife in Deerfield in that colony. It bears the date of the very day of the battle, which, by the way, was exactly a month less a day subsequent to Braddock's defeat; the Provin- cial by his ability redeeming in New York the incapacity of the Professional and Regular in Pennsylvania:"
"I must say," wrote Williams, "he [Johnson] is a complete gentleman, and willing to please and oblige all men; familiar and free of access to the lowest sentinel ; a gentleman of un- common smart sense and even temper; never saw him in a ruffle, or use any bad language — in short, I never was so dis- appointed in a person in the idea I had of 'him before I came from home, in my life ; to sum up, he is almost universally be- loved and esteemed by officers and soldiers as a second Marl- borough for coolnsss of head and warmness of heart"
His next exploit, scarcely less notable and resultive, was the defeat of a superior French force seeking to relieve Fort Niagara, and his capture of this noted stronghold, 24th July, 1759. The distinguished British general and military historian, Sir Edward Oust, in his "Annals of the Wars," refers in the following language to this not- able exploit of Sir William: '-'This gentleman, like Olive, was a self-taught general, who, by dint of innate courage and natural sagacity, without the help of a military edu- cation or military experience, rivalled, if not eclipsed the greatest commanders. Sir William Johnson omitted no- thing to continue the vigorous measures of the late gene-
Sir John Johnson. xxxiii
ral [Prideaux, killed] and ad$ed to them everything his own genius could suggest. The troops, who respected, and the provincials, who adored him," were not less de- voted than the Six Nations of Indians, who gladly fol- lowed his own ever fortunate banner and the less fortunate guidon of his no less valiant and loyal son.
Thus, with a sway hard to comprehend at the present day, beloved, respected and feared by law-breakers and evil-doers, the mortal enemies of his semi-civilized wards — the Six Nations — he lived a life of honor ; and died, not by his own hand, as stated by prejudiced tradition, but a victim to a chronic debilitating disease, and to that ener- gy which, although it never bent in the service of king or country, had to yield to years and nature. Sick, and thereby unequal to the demands of public business, he presided at a council, llth July, 1774, spoke and directed,
until his' ebbing strength failed, and could not be restored
i
by the inadequate remedial measures at hand on the bor- ders of the wilderness. To no one man does central New York owe so much of her physical development as to Sir William Johnson.
Wedded, in 1739, to a Hollandish or German maiden, amply endowed with the best gifts of nature, both physical and mental, "good sound sense, and a mild and gentle disposition," Sir William was by her the father of one son, born in 1742, and two daughters. The latter are sufficiently described in a charming, well-known book, entitled "The Memoirs of an American Lady" — Mrs. Grant, of Laggan. The former was Sir John Johnson, a
xxxiv Sir John Johnson.
more heroic representative of the transition era of this State, than those whom Success, and its Dupe — History, have placed in the national "Walhalla." .While yet a youth this son accompanied his father to his fields of battle, and, when the generality of boys are at school or college, witnessed two of the bloodiest conflicts on which the fate of the colony depended. He had scarcely attained major- ity when he was entrusted with an independent command, and in it displayed an ability, a fortitude, and a judg- ment worthy of riper years and wider experience.
Sent out to England by his father in 1765, "to try to wear off the rusticity of a country education," immediately upon his presentation at court he received from his sovereign an acknowledgment — partly due to the reputa- tion of his parent, and partly to his own tact and capacity — such as stands alone in colonial history. Although his father, Sir William, was already a knight and baronet for service to the crown, John was himself knighted, at the age of twenty-three ; and thus the old-new baronial hall at Johnstown sheltered two . recipients, in the same family and generation, of the accolade of chivalry. There is no parallel to this double knighthood in American biography, and but few in the family annals of older countries.
This was the era when ' ; New York was in its happiest state."
In the summer of 1773, and in his thirtieth year, Sir John Johnson married the beautiful Mary — or, as she was affectionately called, "Polly" — Watts, aged nineteen.
Sir John Johnson. xxxv
Mrs. Grant, of Laggan, has left us a charming pen-portrait of this bright maiden.
Inheriting his father's dignities and responsibilities, Sir John Johnson could not have been otherwise than a champion of his sovereign's rights. If he had turned his coat to save his property, like some of the prominent patriots, he would have been a renegade, if not worse. Some of the lights of patriotism had already cast longing glances upon his rich possessions in the Mohawk Valley. Its historian intimates (Simms, 120) that in a successful rebellion the latter counted upon dividing his princely domains into snug little farms for themselves. The germ of anti-rentism was developing already ; although it took over sixty to seventy years to thoroughly enlist legislative assistance, and perfect spoliation in the guise of modern agrarian law. Surrounded by a devoted tenantry, backed by those "Romans of America," the "Six Nations," those "Indians of the Indians," the Iroquois, it was not easy "to bell the cat" by force. It is neither politic nor intended to revive hereditary animosities by the mention of names. Sufficient to say, might prevailed over right, and Sir John was placed under what the Albany Com- mittee choose to define a "parole." Modern courts of inquiry, especially in the United States since 1860, have decided that such a vague system of paroling is in itself invalid, and that individuals subjected to such a procedure are absolved de facto from any pledges.
It is both persistent and popular to charge Sir John with having broken his parole. Before even entering into the 6
xxxvi Sir John Johnson.
question, it is simple justice to rebut the charge by denial. His superiors did not recognize it, and able men acquainted with military law are not unanimous in holding that a parole, imposed, as it was upon him, was binding either in law or honor. But, even if it were valid, he did not break it, since the very self-constituted authority that imposed it, abrogated it by its own action.
There are two parties to every contract, legal, equitable or honorable, and if one party uses duplicity and manifests the intention to alter an agreement by a procedure which would completely change the relation of the parties, what- ever, great or small, could come within or under the legal signification of fraud, or even deception, or "a snare," abrogates every contract. If Sir John gave a parole to any parties having power to exact it, he was entitled to every right and privilege conferred by a parole. If using the parole as a blind, those by whom it was exacted, un- dertook to withdraw it simultaneously with the substitu- tion of an order for his arrest and close and severe confine- ment, and the latter could only be effected by treachery to the obligations of the former, common justice must concede that the discovery of such an intention put an end to the obligation of the parole. The treatment of Lady Johnson subsequent to her husband's escape is the very best proof of the animus which dictated the course against Sir John. If a body in authority could hold the utmost penalty over the head of a helpless woman, detained as a hostage, it is only fair to believe that there would have been no mercy shown to the defiant husband. The little
Sir John Johnson. xxxvii
rare work already cited in these pages as an authority, " The Adventures of a Lady in the War of Independence in America," sets forth the cruelty exhibited towards Lady Johnson, and, until that can be shown to be false, it must be accepted as a trustworthy witness.
The treatment of Madame de Lavalette, by the French government, for co-operating in the escape of her husband, condemned to death for his adherence to Napoleon in 1815, has always been considered an indellible stigma upon it. General Gust pronounces him innocent of "treachery." Still, although this lady suffered a rigorous solitary con- finement of twenty-sfx days, no one dreamed, even at this period, of the intensest feeling and bitterest animosity, or intimated, that she should, or would be, held as a hostage for the conduct of her husband. "Now, Madam," is the language addressed to Lady Johnson, as quoted by her daughter-in-law, Mrs. Colonel Christopher Johnson, "My command does not extend beyond this province ; but, if Sir John comes one foot within my district with his mur- derous allies — your fate is sealed ! "How, sir; what do you mean? "What can I do ! " gasped the lady, overcome for the moment by the information and the manner in which it was conveyed. "I mean, Madam, that if your husband lets his Indians go on scalping our people, we can't prevent then shooting you * * Your case, Madam, is different from all others. Sir John [Col. Guy was Superin- tendent of the Indians, not Sir John] has power over the Indians, whom no one else can control. We have no wish to injure you individually ; but we must save our people
xxxviii Sir John Johnson.
from his savages. We hold you and your children as host- ages / and we consider that another such descent as the
Indians made yesterday on the village of , will justify
us in the eyes of the whole world in avenging the slaughter of many women and children, as helpless and more innocent than yourself! "
A prominent major-general, a regular officer, dis- tinguished in his profession as well as with his pen, to whom the question of this parole was submitted, decided in favor of Sir John, and a lawyer of standing and an historian of ability has argued this question at length in his Notes, xxx., xxxi., to the "History of New York," by Judge Thomas Jones, who, likewise, exonerates Sir John. Mr. de Lancey after furnishing his proofs, sums up the matter in these words : " The common charge of historical writers, that Sir John broke his parole, is therefore " with- out foundation and untrue"*
In a conversation with Gen. B. B. C , had 5-3-80,
discussing the question of paroles, this gentleman, author of "Battles of the American Revolution," who had given the closest attention to original documents at home and in England, furnished additional arguments as to the impossibility of the right to impose a parole on Sir John. Johnson was put upon parole, so called, by
* In the Appendices ("Proofs Considered") to the writer's Address on Sir John Johnson, Bart., delivered before the New York Historical Society, at its annual meeting, 6th January, 1880, Mr. de Lancey has not only been quoted at length, but additional evidence printed derived from other and various sources.
Sir John Jolmxnn. xxxix
those who were styling themselves at the time "faithful subjects of his Majesty." If faithful subjects, how had Sir John rendered himself liable when the original charges against him were "subsequently proved false?"
There are some curious circumstances connected with this consideration would require a lawyer's brief to make them plain to common observation. Sufficient to say, everything turns on the success of the Revolution. Might made right, and Sir John, who if the Crown had won would have been exalted to the seventh heaven of honor, since the mother country failed, is thrust down into the lowest nether depths by those who rose on his fall and profited by the confiscation of his extensive estates. Such is human judgment. It is to be hoped the same law does not rule elsewhere. If, however, it was a simple exem- plification of "might makes right," there is no more to be said. That is the supreme law of this country to- day ; no other.
Here it is not only pertinent but just to remark, that Count d'Estaing, the first French Commander who brought assistance to this country, had notoriously broken his parole, and yet American writers have never alluded to the fact as prejudicial to his honor. It did not serve their purpose. The French held that Washington once violated his parole; and Michelet, a devoted friend to liberty and this country, feelingly refers to the case of Jumonville, to demonstrate one of the heart-burnings which France had to overcome in lending assistance to the revolted colonies. Marshall, in his "Life of Wash-
xl Sir John Johnson.
ington, ' ' enters into a detailed explanation of this event ; but it only shows that if national antagonism is so difficult to reconcile, how much more so is the intenser spite of civil differences after blood has been shed. How many South- ern officers, in spite of their paroles, met the Union troops on battlefield after battlefield. Regiments and brigades, if not divisions, paroled at Vicksburg, were encountered, it is averred, within a few weeks in the conflicts around Chattanooga. French generals, paroled by the Prussians, it has also been charged, did not hesitate to accept active commands in even the shortest space of time. Circum- stances alter cases, and under those which govern in re- spect to him, the charge against Sir John was a pretext ; but, weak as it is, it is not true. Power in all ages has not been delicate in its choice of means to destroy a dan- gerous antagonist.
It would have been well for some of the noblest histor- ical victims, such as Abner, Amasa, Sertorius, Yiriathus, Abd el-Kader, Osceola, — if they had comprehended the spirit of these verses (Ecclesiasticus xii., 10, 16) as well as the reply of van der Does, in Leyden, to the Spanish general Yaldez, besieging the place :
"The fowler plays sweet notes on his pipe when he spreads his net for the bird."
Sir John was to have been simultaneously released from his parole and made a prisoner. The officer who carried the communication discharging Sir John from his parole, was the bearer also of directions to arrest him as soon as he had read it, "and make him a close prisoner, and care-
Sir John Johnson. xli
fully guard him that he may not have the least opportunity to escape." Sir John had some friends among those who were now in power, and received intelligence of what was going on. He exercised ordinary discretion, and escaped before the trap — a "snare," as Lossing styles it — could be sprung upon him.
Sir John fled, but he did not fly unaccompanied ; and among his subsequent associates, officers and soldiers, were men of as good standing as those who remained be- hind to profit by the change of authority. Many of the latter, however, expiated their sins or errors on the day of reckoning at Oriskany.
" Sir John, after nineteen days of inconceivable hardships, reached Montreal with his companions in a state of fatigue and destitution which they could not have survived many days longer. The regular roads were so entirely occupied by the rebels, that they had to take a circuitous route through the thickets of the forests. The few provisions the Indians had prepared were soon exhausted, and they had to subsist on roots ; their boots and clothes were completely destroyed, and when they reached the shores of the St. Lawrence, it was difficult to recognize or understand the gaunt spectres who emerged from the ' bush,' to seek shelter and a passage across [the St. Law- rence] from the wondering ' habitans' of the first settlement they came to. But a few weeks sufficed to restore Sir John to his usual vigor, both of mind and body ; and, before he was able to assume an active command, he was at work organizing a force of Loyalists, of which he is the colonel, and his frequent irruptions into the territory held by the Continentals, as they call themselves, were the causes of your [Lady Johnson's] being removed from Albany. He is charged by them with having broken his word of honor, pledged that he would remain pas-
xlii Sir John Johnson.
sive ; but we all knoio that his person would have been seized, had he remained that night [when Col. Dayton arrived] at the Hall.'1'' Stone, in his ' Life of Brant' (I., 144), corroborates this. 'After nineteen days of severe hardship, the Baronet and his partisans arrived at Montreal in a pitiable condition — having encountered all of suffering that it seemed possible for man to endure.' Stone then adds (Ibid, 144), and he presents almost the identical idea of the magnanimous Sabine (I., 581): 'Sir John was immediately commissioned a colonel in the British service, and raised a command of two battalions, composed of those who accompanied him in his flight, and other American loyalists who subsequently followed their example. They were called the 'Royal Greens.' In the month of January following, he found his way into New York, then in possession of the British forces. From that period he became, not only one of the most active, but one of the bitterest foes of his own countrymen of any who were engaged in that contest — and repeatedly the scourge of his own former neighbors. He was unquestionably a loyalist from principle, else he would scarcely have hazarded, as he did, and ultimately lost, domains larger and fairer than probably ever belonged to a single proprietor in America, Willian Penn only excepted."
Sabine (I., 581) observes: "It is thought that he was a conscientious loyalist ; and this may be allowed. He lived in a style of luxury and splendor which few country gentlemen in America possessed the means to support. His domains were as large and as fair as those of any colonist of his time, the estate of Lord Fairfax only excepted; and no American hazarded more, probably, in the cause of the Crown. Faith- fulness to duty is never a crime; and, if he sacrificed his home, his fortune, and his country, for his principles, he deserves admiration. * * * The conduct of the Whigs towards him may have heen harsh, and, in the beginning, too harsh for his offences."
The majority of those who were most active in wrong-
Sir John Johnson. xliii
ing the family of Sir William Johnson experienced severe , punishment, either in themselves or their surroundings, and the consequences of their injustice threatened to undo the work of a century and make Schenectady once more a frontier town.
Not able to seize the man (Sir John), disappointment determined to capture a woman. The victim was his wife. Why ? The answer is in the words of a letter preserved in the series of the well-known Peter Force, which says: "It is the general opinion of people in Tryon County, that while Lady Johnson is kept as a kind of hostage, Sir John will not carry matters to excess." Lady Johnson must have been a bold woman ;. for even when under con- straint, and in the most delicate condition that a woman can be, she exulted in the prospects of quickly hearing that Sir John would speedily ravage the country on the Mohawk river to redress his own and her wrongs and suffering. To quote another letter from the highest authority, "It has been hinted that she is a good se- curity to prevent the effects of her husband's virulence."
With a determination even superior to that exhibited by her husband, because she was a woman and he a man, Lady Johnson in midwinter, January, 1777, in disguise, made her escape through hardships which would appal a person in her position in the present day. Through the deepest snows, through the extreme cold, through lines of ingrates and enemies, she made her way into the loyal city of New York. Her story reads like a romance. People cite Flora MacDonald, Grace Darrell, Florence Nightin- 7
xliv Sir John Johnson.
gale. We had a heroine in our midst who displayed a courage as lofty as theirs ; but she is forgotten, because she was the wife of a man who had the courage to avenge her wrongs even upon the victors, and chastise her ene- mies and persecutors as well as his own.
It was intended at first to embody the whole of Mrs. Colonel Christopher Johnson's story of her step-mother's wrongs ; but this sketch, as it is, will far outrun all pre- vious calculation. For particulars, the reader is referred to the "Appendices " to his Address before the Historical Society, on file there; to pages 76-81, "History of New York," by Judge Thomas Jones; and to Note XXXI. thereto, by Edward Floyd de Lancey, Esq. The conclu- sion of the story of her escape, after she had parted from her sister, is t<jo interesting and too touching to be omitted.
" We must now follow the course of the poor dispirited, agitated mother, who, though relying much on the zeal and fidelity of her devoted servants, yet felt keenly the loss of her active and affectionate sister [Anne Watts, afterwards Countess of Cassilis], whose stronger health and spirits were such an inestimable support. Poor Tony's [one of her husband's faithful negro slaves, who risked so much from affection for the family] chief ground of consolation arose from the conviction that, being so very near the British lines, they could not fail of reaching them — they were almost within sight, he said ! Poor fellow, if strength and courage could have insured the safety of his mis- tress and her children, he would have carried them or fought for them till he had dropped ; but, as resistance to sentries was out of the question, the present business of all was to be prepared to exercise self command, and to reply with composure to the
Sir John Johnson. xlv
questions that would be asked. Fortunately, Grove House was but a little out of the way of their real destination, and as it was probable inquiries might be made there, it would not have been safe for them to take the sleigh on. They, therefore, stopped at the cattle-shed, a little distance from the mansion, and leaving the sleigh and horse there, with one of their heaviest wrappings, as an indication that they intended to return, pursued their way with as much speed as possible in the direction of the British camp. By means of their pass, and avoidance of the larger bodies posted at different stations, they went on uninteruptedly to the end of that day; and when they reached a resting place for the night, it was a matter of deep thankfulness to find that, as the Continental camp was protected on that side by a wide river just in a state of partial thaw, that rendered the crossing it dangerous for individuals and imprac- ticable for a body of troops, it had been deemed unnecessary to keep that point very strictly guarded. They easily found, as usual, a meal and a bed ; but the anxiety of the Lady was cruelly aggravated by the state of her infant, who depending entirely on the nourishment derived from its unfortunate mother, participated in her physical exhaustion and suffering. The elder children, too, were both so fagged that Tony and the nurse were obliged to carry them almost without in- termission— so that the poor Lady could hardly be relieved from the burden of the infant. They rose, therefore, the next morning, with trembling frames and spirits, their sole consola- tion being that they were but two miles from the river ; yet how to cross it Avas a question that could only be solved on its banks. While taking their breakfast, a soldier was seen looking about in the few cottages that were near their refuge, and presently he came in to them. Happily there was no sign of travelling about them, and supposing them to be the established inhabitants, he began explaining his business by asking after some people who had arrived in a sleigh driven by a black. Most fortunately, also, Tony had separated from
xlvi Sir John Johnson.
them, and was taking his meal in another cottage. The soldier did not seem to have been dispatched with any very exact or urgent directions; but his officer having received a message from the camp near Grove House, to inquire after a party who had been expected there, and had not arrived, sent his servant to gain some information previous to the arrival of more par- ticular instructions. Taking the license which young and in- experienced soldiers are apt to exercise, of using their own judgment, the man said, 'If the Britishers were sending women and children over to us, we'd send them back pretty smnrtly; but if any of the stupid fellows who are taking old George's pay, instead of fighting for their country, have a mind to have their wives with them, why, I say, let 'em have the keep of 'em ; and I think my captain don't much ap- prove of being sent woman-hunting, and not even a written order. However, if you hear anything of 'em, you can let me know. I'm going by the lane round the corner out there, for I believe there's a kind of an inn to be found ;' and, so saying, he wished them good-bye, and marched off. No sooner was he out of sight than the terrified females summoned Tony, and with steps quickened by fear set off towards the river. It was no great distance, and on reaching it the state of the ice showed clearly why its shores were not very carefully guarded. It must here be remarked that the danger of crossing a river, partially covered with ice, is different from that incurred in a milder climate. As long as the ice lasts, it is much too thick to give way to the heaviest weights ; but when repeated thaws have loosened its firm adherence to the shore, it breaks into enormous masses, which, driving and struggling against each other, and the force of the current, partially released from its winter bondage, form at once one of the grandest exhibitions of Nature, and threaten fearful peril to those who venture to attempt a passage. But, like most dangers to which the na- tives of a country are habituated, they often risk their lives even for an inconsiderable motive, and it is not uncommon to
Sir John Johnson. xlvii
see a sleigh passing the well-marked road over the ice, which in two hours afterwards is floating away like a vast field, un- broken till it crashes against another mass, when both pile upon each other in awful grandeur, till further additions shove them on to final destruction.
"By the side of a mighty stream in this state, stand the fugitives, hopeless of escape, and supposing that the hour has come when they must yield themselves back to captivity, — a bitter anticipation after all their toils and dangers. Tony's experienced eye, however, described, and pointed out to the Lady that the centre of the river was tolerably clear, and that if they could take advantage of one of those moments when the opposing masses were locked against each other, a boat might land them on the opposite side. But could a boat be found ? Yes. They see one, and a man in it, paddling about, apparently seeking a safe nook wherein to bestow his little vessel. Tony chose a point nearest the shore, and springing over fissures and firm pieces of ice, succeeded in making the man hear. He was one of those bold, careless characters, who rather enjoyed the risk, as well as the acquirement of the dollars often lavishly bestowed for a passage. It was now un- necessary for the party to feign poverty, therefore the gold hitherto hidden in their garments was produced, and each carrying a child made their way with infinite labor and peril of slipping to the frail vessel, which was to be guided among masses that might in an instant be in motion to crush or over- whelm them. The poor Lady clasped her infant closer and closer to her bosom, not venturing to speak lest she should withdraw Tony's attention from the guidance of the boat ; yet trembling at the suspension of the feeble cries which till then had wrung her heart with anguish. The little face was chilled, and the eyes closed; but though. she feared the worst, she yet hoped that it was but the sleep of exhaustion. Half-an-honr, which seemed an interminable period, brought them to the opposite shore. The British tents were within sight, gold
xlviii Sir John Johnson.
was thrown to the boatman, and though the snow was deep and soft, and the Lady staggered with weakness, she struggled on through a mile which yet separated them from the first line of sentries. Indians were the first who spied the party, and though they received with their usual composure the announce- ment of the Lady's name,* a glance sent off two of their num- ber towards the camp, while the others, wrapping some furs around the Lady and her infant, lifted tliem with the utmost care and tenderness in their powerful arms, till they were met by the messengers returning with blankets and mattrasses, hastily formed into litters. On these all were carefully de- posited and carried on swiftly ; Tony weeping with joy and thankfulness over his mistress, and telling her Sir John was coming! The poor mother cast one hopeful glance towards the distance, and another of anxiety upon her infant, who just opened its little eyes, and ere she could see that it wns the last convulsion of the sinking frame, she was clasped in the arms of her husband and borne insensible to the quarters of the Commander-in-Chief, where every care and comfort was bestowed on her and her children that their exhausted state required. The first delight of being restored to her husband and seeing her children at rest and in safety was marred by the anguish of missing the little loved one, whom she had borne through so much sorrow and suffering. ' But a few hours sooner,' she thought, 'and my pretty one had been saved.' But the joy and thankfulness of those around her soon stilled her repining. Both her surviving children appeared to be entirely restored to health; but with the little girl the appearance was
* Such was the affection borne by the " Six Nations" to the Johnson family, that, many years after, when the writer's father visited them, in Canada, and when the survivors of this onre mighty Confederation, " the Remans of America," learned that he had married a niece of Lady Johnson, they adopted him with the affectionate pseudonym (according to Sir William George Johnscn. Bart.): " SAITAT-TOINOU-IAKIOJS," signi- fying, in substance, " One of us."
Sir John Johnson. xlix
fallacious. After the first week her strength and appetite declined, and her parents had the grief of laying her in an untimely grave, from the destructive effects of cold and ex- posure on a frame previously debilitated by illness during her mother's captivity, when she could not procure either advice or proper medicines." (" Adventures of a Lady in the War of Independence in America," pages 53-7.)
It is not the intention of this work to reflect upon, or refer to, Revolutionary officials further than is absolutely necessary. The Johnson family, the loyalists, their friends and advocates, present an entirely different statement of facts from those which may be styled the popular account, which is that of the victors, realizing the bitter force of the proverb "vc& victis" The judgments pronounced by either of these are not more severe in their conclusions and opprobrious in their language than the terms used in the various accounts of the contests between the settlers and their leaders of the New Hampshire Grants, now Vermont, and the authorities of New York and their agents ; or of the collisions between the Connecticut settlers and their chief-men in the Wyoming Yalley, and the "Pennamites" and their executives seeking to enforce the rights of the Penn Patentees in the Susquehanna Yalley, or of the Union party or Loyalists and the South- erners during the " Slaveholder's Rebellion " in 1861-5 and since.
There is nothing so bitter and spiteful, so barbarous
•
and revengful and unforgiving as the rancor and re- course of political struggles and those arising from religious antagonisms, except family feuds. The conflict
1 Sir John Johnson..
of the American Revolution necessarily partook of the nature of all three. Presbyterianism, in one form or another, gave energy to the Revolutionary party, while Episcopalianism was, as a rule, the creed of the Royalists or Loyalists. The former fought to obtain what the others enjoyed, and families and neighborhoods were divided, and blood poured forth like water, with spiteful savageness, by hands whose vigor was derived from the same veins, under the impulse of the same brains, of race, kinman- ship and connection, family ties and associations. This was especially exemplified in the two bloodiest and de- cisive encounters of the war, King's Mountain at the South, and Oriskany at the North. In the Carolinas and in the Mohawk Valley, mortals on both sides sometimes surpassed demons in their enmity, because in both, par- ticularly in the latter, fathers, sons, brothers, cousins and former friends exchanged shots, crossed steel and applied the torch. Men of this day cannot conceive the feelings of that, and to judge the Loyalists or Tories by the stories of the Rebels or Patriots is just as fair as to credit the charges of an ultra fire-eating Southerner against Loyal men and the invading troops of the Union. Furthermore, if the fury of the antagonism in the Carolinas equalled that in New York, there was a vast contrast in the legis- lation that followed the peace. The Carolinas excelled in magnanimity and New York in ungenerous severity. There the offences of the Loyalists were condoned from respect to their gallantry and convictions ; in New York the confiscations and penalties were continued in force
Sir John Johnson. li
and the Loyalists, true-men, were compelled to live and die, as a rule, in poverty, pain, exile and proscription.
All this occurred prior to the spring of 1776.
Sir Guy Carleton, undoubtedly the grandest character among the British military chieftains, at this time, acting independently, in America, received Sir John with open arms, and immediately gave him opportunities to raise a regiment, which made itself know and felt along the frontier, throughout the war. With a fatal parsimony of judgment and its application, the Crown frittered away its strength, in some cases in protecting private or vested interests, and never accumulated sufficient troops at de- cisive points and moments. The arrival of these was too often delayed and even afterwards they were diverted from objects of highest importance to points where success could produce no lasting result. In 1777, when Burgoyne was preparing for his invasion of New York down the Hudson, St. Leger was entrusted with a similar advance down the Mohawk. Sir Henry Clinton, an able strategist and a brave soldier, but an indolent, nervous mortal, and an inefficient commander, recorded a sagacious opinion on this occasion — endorsed by Continental Nathaniel Greene — viz., that to St. Leger was assigned the most important part in the programme with the most inadequate means of carrying it out. To play this part successfully, re- quired a much larger force ; and yet — to take a fort garri- soned by at least 750 (perhaps 950) not inefficient troops, with sufficient artillery (14 pieces ?), and fight the whole available population of Try on County in arms beside,—
lii Sir John Johnson.
St. Leger had not more than about 410 whites and an aggregation of 600 to 800 Indians from 22 different tribes, gathered from the remotest points administered by British officers — even from the extreme western shores of Lake Superior. To batter this fort he had a few small pieces of ordnance, which were about as effective as pop-guns ; and were simply adequate, as he says in his report, of "teasing," without injuring the garrison. St. Leger' s second in command was Sir John Johnson.
For the relief of Fort Stanwix, Major (or only Brigadier) General Harkheimer, Sir John's old antagonist, gathered up all the valid men in Tryon county, variously stated at from 800 and 900 to 1000, constituting four embodied regi- ments of militia, besides numerous volunteers of all grades and standing, a few mounted men (Hoffman), and some Oneida Indians. These latter, traitors to a fraternal bond of centuries, seemed about as useless to their new associates as they were faithless to their old ties. To meet Harkheimer, Brigadier-General St. Leger allowed Sir John Johnson to proceed in person and carry out the able plan conceived by the latter. It is now clearly established beyond a doubt that his ability planned and his determin- ation fought the battle of Oriskany. Had the Indians shown anything like the pluck of \vhite men, not a Pro- vincial would have escaped. In spite of their inefficiency, Sir John's whites alone would have accomplished the business had it not .been for "a shower of blessing" sent by Providence, and a recall to the assistance of St. Leger. As it was, this was the bloodiest battle of the
Sir John Johnson. liii
Revolution at the North. Indecisive on the field of battle, it was morally decisive in results. Harkheimer lost his life, likewise several hundred of his followers, and Tryon County suffered such a terrific calamity, that, to use the inference of its historian, if it smiled again during the war it smiled through tears. The iron will of Schuyler, another old, almost life-long personal and political antago- nist of Sir John, sent Arnold, the best soldier of the Revo- lution, to save Fort Stanwix, the key to the Mohawk valley. The rapid advance of this brilliant leader, and the dastardly conduct and defection of the Indians, preserved the beleaguered work ; and St. Leger and St. John were forced to retire. On this salvation of Fort Stanwix and NOT on, properly speaking, Hoosic or Walloomscoik, mis- called Bennington, nor on Saratoga, hinged the fate of the Burgoyne invasion and the eventful certainty of independ- ence. !No part of the failure is. chargeable to Sir John.
As before mentioned, the English war administration seemed utterly inadequate to the occasion. They had not been able to grapple with its exigencies while the colo- nies were ' ' doing for themselves, ' ' as Mazzini expressed it. When France and Spain entered the list, and Bur- goyne's army had been eliminated from the war problem, they seem to have lost their heads; and, in 1778, aban- doned all the fruits of the misdirected efforts of their main army. The nervous Clinton succeeded to the indolent Howe in the field, and the uncertain Haldimand to the determined Carleton in Canada. Haldimand, a Swiss by birth and a veteran by service, was entirely deficient in the
liv Sir John Johnson.
priceless practical abilities in which his predecessor ex- celled. Those who knew him considered him an excellent professional soldier, but for administration and organiza- tion his gifts were small. He was so afraid that the French and Provincials would invade and dismember the remaining British possessions in North America, that he not only crippled Clinton in a measure, by constant de- mands for troops, but he was afraid to entrust such bril- liant partisans as Sir John Johnson with forces sufficient to accomplish anything of importance. He suffered raids when he should have launched invasions, and he kept al- most every available company and battalion for the defence of a territory, which, except in its ports, was amply pro- tected by nature and distance. Washington played on his timidity just as he afterward fingered the nervousness of Clinton. Thus the rest of 1777, the whole of 1778, and the greater part of 1779 was passed by Sir John in com- paratively compulsory inactivity. He was undoubtedly busy. But like thousands of human efforts which cost such an expenditure of thought and preparation, but are fruitless in marked results, their records are " writ in water."
In 1779 occurred the famous invasion of the territory of the Six Nations by Sullivan. In one sense it was triumphant. It did the devil's work thoroughly. It con- verted a series of blooming gardens, teeming orchards and productive fields into wastes and ashes. It was a disgrace to developing civilization, and, except to those writers who worship nothing but temporary success, it called forth
Sir John Johnson. Iv
some of the most scathing condeirinations ever penned by historians. When white men scalp and flay Indians, and convert the skins of the latter' s thighs into boot-tops, the question suggests itself, which were the savages, the Continental troops or the Indians. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that, for every Indian slain and Indian hut consumed in this campaign, a thousand white men, women and children paid the penalty ; and it is almost unexceptionally admitted that the inextinguishable hatred of the redskins to the United States dates from this raid of Sullivan, worthy of the Scottish chief who smoked his enemies to death in a cavern, or of a Pellissier, a St. Arnaud or a Pretorius. Simmes, in his "History of Sco- harie County," N. Y., commenting on Sir John's devasta- tions in 1880, remarks: "Thus was revenged the destruc- tion of the Indian possessions in the Chemung and Gene- see Valleys the year before by General Sullivan ; which, had they a historian, would be found a no less gloomy picture."
Sullivan's ultimate military objective. must have been Fort Niagara, the basis, for about a century, of inroads, French and British, upon New York. Why he did not make the attempt requires a consideration would occupy more space than .can be assigned in this memoir. There were adversaries in his front who did not fear pop-gun artillery like the Indians, and were not to be dismayed by an "elegant" cannonade as at Newtown. Haldi- mand had sent Sir John Johnson to organize a body of 500 (K Y. Col. Doc., viii., 779) \vhite troops, besides
Ivi Sir John Johnson.
the Indians, and these were rapidly concentrating (Stone's " Brandt," II. , 10) upon Sullivan, when the latter counter- marched. American historians give their reasons for this retreat; British writers explain it very differently. In any event this expedition was the last military com- mand enjoyed by Sullivan. The Scripture here affords an expression which may not be inapplicable. "He departed without being desired."
Sir John's further aggressive movements were pre- vented by the early setting in of winter, which rendered the navigation of Lake Ontario too dangerous for the certain dispatch of the necessary troops and adequate supplies.
The diligent search for information in regard to the details of the movements upon this frontier, has been hitherto baffled. According to a reliable contemporary record, Sir John Johnson, Col. Butler and Capt. Brandt captured Fort Stanwix on the 2d of November, 1779. This is the only aggressive operation of the year attributed • to him.
In 1780 Sir John was given head, or let loose, and he made the most of his time. In this year he made two incursions into the Mohawk Yalley, the first in May and the second in October.
There is a very curious circumstance connected with the first of these raids. The burial of his valuable plate and papers, and the guarding of the secret of this deposit by a faithful slave, although sold into the hands of his master's enemies; the recovery of the silver through this
Sir John Johnson. Ivii
faithful negro, and the transport of the treasures, in the knapsacks of forty soldiers, through the wilderness to Canada ; has been related in so many books that there is no need of a repetition of the details. One fact, however, is not generally known. Through dampness the papers had been wholly or partially destroyed ; and this may ac- count for a great many gaps and involved questions in narratives connected with the Johnson family. The "treasure-trove" eventually \vas of no service to him. God inaketh the wrath of man to praise Him ; and al- though Sir John was the rod of His anger, the staff of His indignation and the weapon of His vengeance for the injustice and barbarisms shown by the Americans to the Six Nations, but especially during the preceding year, the instrument was not allowed to profit, personally, by the ser- vice. * The silver and other articles, retrieved at such a cost of peril, of life, of desolation and of suffering, was not des- tined to benefit anyone. What, amid fire and sword and death and devastation, had been wrenched from the enemy was placed on shipboard for conveyance to England, and, by the ' ' irony of fate, ' ' the vessel foundered in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its precious freight, like that described in the "Nibelungen Lied," sank into the treasury of so much of earth's richest spoils and possessions, the abyss of the sea.
* According to another tradition — as little reliable, perhaps, as such legends usually are — the vessel did not founder, but was captured by a New England privateer out of Salem, Mass. Another legend attributes Sir John's ill luck and loss to a French letter-of-marque.
Iviii Sir John Johnson.
There is a curious but complete moral in the career of Sir John Johnson. Those who from purely selfish motives per- secuted him for his adherence to the crown — loyal from prin- ciple and simply striving to save his own ; perished or suffered some other just punishment. Nevertheless, Sir John, the in- strument of their chastisement, did not profit by his success to the extent of regaining his own, through his triumphant retalia- tion upon his enemies. The course and consequence of the whole original wrong-doing and reprisals realized the prophecy of Isaiah, to the effect that when the Lord had performed his whole work upon Judah, through the Assyrian, "the rod of his anger and the staff of his indignation," he declared that in turn he would punish the instrument, because he had exceeded his commission and made it, as it were, a personal matter. Judah, the Whigs, were to be scourged to the bone for their sins, but the flail, the Loyalists, were not to profit personally by it. This is just about the view that the honest Sabine takes of the whole matter and agrees with the expression of Zechariah, that God was "sore displeased" with those whom he employed to execute his punishment, because he "was but a little dis- pleased, and they helped forward the affliction." So it is ever, alas, in this world. As Ecclesiasticus impresses upon its readers, there is an existing and unerring law of compensation. The pendulum of what "will be" sweeps far to the right, but the law of " must be " gravitates and the momentum brings it back as far to the left ; and thus it swings, to and fro, as long as the impetus of cause and result continues to exert their forces ; like a thousand agencies, great and small, scourging the world: the west like Attila, the east like Tamerlane; a continent, Europe, like Napoleon, or a country apart, Italy, like Hannibal; a province, as the Lowlands of Scotland, like Montrose, or a district, the Mohawk and Schoharie Valleys, like Johnson. When the mission is fulfilled and the victims have suffered, the agent perishes or the instrument is laid aside ; the former often dying peaceably, tranquilly, trustingly ; be- cause, however man may judge the act, it is God, alone, who
Sir John Johnson. lix
can judge the motive, which is often fidelity to principle, pure and simple, and an execution in rigid obedience to a law that humanity cannot comprehend. Men in their wrath sow the wind to reap the whirlwind of the passions they arouse. The Whigs of the Mohawk Valley worked their will upon the Tories in 1776, and, if the day of evil had not been mercifully shortened for them, the rich district they coveted would have been left to them a desert.
It is said that Sir John's second invasion of this year was co-ordinate with the plan of Sir Henry Clinton, of which the basis was the surrender of West Point by Arnold. If so, the former bore to the latter the same relation that the advance of St. Leger did in respect to Burgoyne. St. Leger' s failure burst the combined move- ment of 1777 ; and the capture of the unfortunate Andre exploded the conception of 1780. Thus Sir John's move- ment, which was to have been one of a grand military series, unhappily for his reputation became an apparent "mission of vengeance," executed, however, with a thoroughness which was felt far beyond the district upon which the visitation came — came in such a terrible guise, that a hundred years have scarcely weakened the bitter- ness of its memories. Whatever else may be debited to him, it can be said of Johnson, as of certain, but. few, other honest, earnest, Loyal men, who have offended the masses, that he did his work effectively.
Even in 1781 Sir John was still a menace to the frontier. Affairs in New York and Vermont) along Lake Champlain, were in a very unsatisfactory condition. All the assist- ance that could be hoped for from France was directed to 9
Ix Sir John Johnson.
another and a distant quarter. The very districts of New York which had rallied to oppose Burgoyne and his lieutenants, were disaffected. "The poison was actively at work even in Albany." At this time an expedition was meditated against Pittsburgh, to be led by Sir John Johnson and Colonel Connelly, in connection with com- binations among the hostile Indians more extensive than any previously set on foot. Why these all failed is among the unsolved enigmas of the Revolution. If they depended on Gen. Haldimand, the explanation is clear. He had not sufficient activity, either of mind or body, to hold the wires, much less to pull them with the requisite energy. Although scarcely one hundred years have passed away since the events considered in this sketch, there are almost as conflicting accounts of the personal appear- ance of Sir John as there are antagonistic judgments in respect to his character. By some he has been repre- sented as over six feet in height ; by others as not taller than the ordinary run of men in his district. Doubtless in mature years he was a stout or stalwart figure, and this, always at least to some extent, detracts from height, and deceives unless everything is in exact proportion. The only likeness in existence, said to be of him, which is in accordance with descriptions, is a red stipple engraving of F. Bartolozzi, R. A., that appeared in some contemporary publication, representing him in uniform. It is not inconsistent with the pictures of him at a more advanced age, ordinarily produced in well-known recent works.
Sir John Johnson. Ixi
These, however, from the costume and expression, seem to have been taken at a much later date. *
By his inveterate hereditary enemies and historians, so styled, who have adopted traditionary bias as fact, Sir John has been ' ' described as cold, haughty, cruel and implacable, of questionable" courage, and with a feeble sense of personal honor. Mr. Willian C. Bryant, in his admirable biographical sketch, disposes of this repulsive picture with a single honest sentence : ' ' The detested title of Tory, in fact, was a synonym for all these uu- amiable qualities."
According to a recently found sketch of Charleston, South Carolina, published in 1854, it would appear that every American opposed to French Jacobinism was stig- matized as an aristocrat ; and when Washington approved of Jay's treaty of 1T95, six prominent advocates of his policy were hung in effigy and polluted with every mark of iudignity ; then burned. Even the likeness of Wash- ington, at full length, on a sign, is reported to have been much abused by the rabble. These patriots experienced the same treatment accorded to the character of Sir John. The procession at Poughkeepsie, in this State, to ratify the adoption of the Federal Constitution, came near end-
* Mr. de Lancey, at page 642 (Note lv.), Vol. 2, appended to Jones' "History of New York," &c., furnishes a description of Sir John, which tallies exactly with the colored engraving by Bartolozzi, in the writer's possession, which has been reproduced for this work.
" He was a handsome, well-made man, a little short, with blue eyes, light hair, a fresh complexion, and a firm but pleasant expression. He was quick and decided in disposition and manner, and possessed of great endurance."
Ixii Sir John Johnson.
ing in bloodshed. Any one opposed to slavery, when it existed, risked his life, south of "Mason and Dixon's line," if he uttered his sentiments in public. No virtues would have saved him from violence. On the other hand, there were classes and communities at the North who would not concede a redeeming quality to a slaveholder. Passion intensifies public opinion. The masses never reflect.
Here let a distinction be drawn which very few, even thinking persons, duly appreciate. The rabble are not the people. Knox, in his "Races of Men," draws this distinction most clearly. And yet in no country to such an extent as in the United States is this mistake so often made. Old Rome was styled by its own best thinkers and annalists "the cesspool of the world:" and if any modern State deserves this scathing imputation, it is this very State of New York. Count Tallyrand-Perigord said that as long a there is sufficient virtue in the thinking classes to assimilate what is good, and reject what is vicious in immigration, there is true progress and real prosperity. When the poison becomes superior to the resistive and assimilative power, the descent begins. It is to pander to the rabble, not the people, that men like Sir John Johnson are misrepresented. Such a course is politic for demagogues. To them the utterance of the truth is suicidal, because they only could exist through perversions worthy of a Machiavelli. They thrive through political Jesuitism. The Roman populace were main- tained and restrained by " panem et circences." The
Sir John Johnson. Ixiii
bulk of modern voters feed like them — to iise the Scripture expression — on the wind of delusion ; and it is this method of portraiture which enabled Local Committees to strike down Sir John Johnson, confiscate his property and drive him forth, and "Rings" to carry out their purposes in our very midst to-day.
People of the present period can scarcely conceive the virulence of vituperation which characterized the political literature of a century since. Hough, in his "Northern Invasion^"1 has a note on this subject which applies to every similar case. The gist of it is this : The opinions of local populations in regard to prominent men were en- tirely biased, if not founded upon their popularity or the reverse. If modern times were to judge of the character of Hannibal by the pictures handed down by the gravest of Roman 'historians, he would have to be regarded as a man destitute of almost every redeeming trait except courage 'and ability or astuteness ; whereas, when the truth is sifted out, it is positively certain that the very vices attributed to the great Carthaginian should be trans- ferred to his Latin adversaries.
Sir John was not cold. He was one of the most affec- tionate of men. Mr. Bryant tells us that he was not "haughty," but, on the contrary, displayed qualities which are totally inconsistent with this defect. "His manners were peculiarly mild, gentle and winning. He was remarkably fond of the society of children, who, with their marvellous insight into character, bestowed upon him the full measure of their unquestioning love
Ixiv Sir John Johnson.
and faith. He was also greatly attached to all domestic animals, and notably very humane and tender in his treat- ment of them." Another writer, commenting upon these traits, remarks : "His peculiar characteristic of tenderness to children and animals, makes me think that the stories of his inhumanity during the War of the Revolution can- not be true."
He was NOT "cruel." A number of anecdotes are re- lated to the contrary by those not peculiarly favorable to him. These in themselves, recorded as they are by partisans of a diiferent order of things to those repre- sented by the Johnsons, are sufficient to raise strong doubts of the truth of the charges brought against him, even if they do not positively disprove such a sweeping judgment.
The honest Bryant penned a paragraph which is perti- nent in this connection.
"Sir John, certainly, inherited many of the virtues which shed lustre upon his father's name. His devotion to the interests of his government ; his energetic and en- lightened administration of important trusts ; his earnest championship of the barbarous race which looked up to him as a father and a friend ; his cheerful sacrifice of a princely fortune and estate on what h,e conceived to be the altar of patriotism, connot be controverted by the most virulent of his detractors. The atrocities which were perpetrated by the invading forces under his com- mand are precisely those which, in our annals, have attached a stigma to the names of Montcalm and Burgoyne. To restrain an ill-disciplined rabble of exiled Tories and
Sir John Johnson. Ixv
ruthless savages was beyond the power of men whose humanity has never in other instances been questioned."
The majority of writers absolved Montcalm ; and Burgoyne disclaimed, and almost conclusively proved, that he was not responsible for the charges brought against him by the grandiloquent Gates and others, who did not hesitate to draw upon their imagination to make a point. Sir John, with his own lips, declared, in regard to the cruelties suffered by the Whigs during his first in- road, that "their Tory neighbors, and not himself, were blamable for those acts." , It is said that Sir John much regretted the death of those who were esteemed by his father, and censiired the murderer. But how was he to punish ! Can the United States at this day, with all its power, punish the individual perpetrators of cruelties along the Western frontier and among the Indians ? It is justly remarked that if the "Six Nations" had an his- torian, the Chemung and Genesee valleys, desolated by Sullivan, would present no less glaring a picture than of those of the Schoharie and Mohawk, which experienced the visitations of Sir John. He, at all events, ordered churches and other buildings, certainly the houses of nomi- nal friends, to be spared. Sullivan's vengeance was indis- criminate, and left nothing standing in the shape of a building which his fires could reach. Sir John more than once interposed his disciplined troops between the savages and their intended victims. He redeemed captives with his own money ; and while without contradiction he pun- ished a guilty district with military execution, it was not
Ixvi Sir John Johnson.
directed by his orders or countenance against individuals. Hough, for himself, and quoting others, admits that "no violence was offered to women and children." There is nothing on record or hinted to show that he refused mercy to prisoners; no instance of what was termed "Tarleton's quarter" is cited; nothing like the wholesale slaughter of Tories by Whigs at the South whenever the latter got the chance or upperhand : no summary hanging of prisoners as at King's Mountain ; and it is very ques- . tionable if cold-blooded peculation in the American ad- ministrative corps did not kill off incalculably more in the course of a single campaign, than fell at the hands of all, white and red, directed by Johnson, during the war.
As to the epithet "implacable," it amounts to nothing. To the masses, anyone who punishes a majority, even tempering justice with mercy, provided he moves in a sphere above the plane of those who are the subjects of the discipline, is always considered not only unjust but cruel. The patriots or rebels of Tryon county had worked their will on the liberties of the family and the properties of Sir John Johnson ; and he certainly gave them a good deep draught from the goblet they had originally forced upon his lips. He did not live up to the Christian code \vhich all men preach and no man practices, and assuredly did not turn the other cheek to the smiter, or offer his cloak to him who had already stolen his coat, "Will any unpreju- diced person deny that there was great justification for his conduct. The masses a century since and previous could understand nothing that was not brought home to them in
Sir John Johnson. Ixvii
letters of fire and of suffering. Their compassion and their fury were both the blaze of straw ; and their cruelty was as enduring as the ' heat of red hot steel, especially when their passions were thoroughly excited in civil and reli- gious conflicts.
There is only one more charge against Sir John to dis- pose of, viz., that "his courage was questionable." The accusation in regard to his having a ' ' feeble sense of per- sonal honor*' rests upon the stereotyped fallacy in regard to the violation of his parole. This has already been treated of and declared, by experts, to be unsu stained by justice. In fact, Mr. Edward Floyd de Lanccy has proved that he did hot do so. In this connection it is necessary to cite a few more pertinent words from the impartial William C. Bryant. This author says: "Sir John's sympathies were well known, and he was constrained to sign a pledge that he would remain neutral during the struggle then impending. There is no warrant for sup- posing that Sir John, when he submitted to this degrada- tion, secretly determined to violate his promise on the convenient plea of duress, or upon grounds more rational and quieting to his conscience. The jealous espionage to which he was afterwards exposed— the plot to seize upon his person and restrain his liberty — doubtless furnished the coveted pretext for breaking faith with the ' rebels. ' ' '
Mrs. Martha J. Lamb, whose ' ' History of New York' '
is one of the most remarkable productions of the age, writ
ing with the bias of an American, but nevertheless desirous
of doing justice to both sides, makes the following remarks
10
Ixviii Sir John Johnson.
in regard to Sir John Johnson.* "He was known to be a powerful leader of men ; he possessed the magnetism which inspired devotion." "Enough has been said about his own
* In regard to the personal appearance of Sir John, there are as wide discrepancies as in the opinions affecting his character. This, how- ever, should not be surprising to any close student of history. Greater divergencies present themselves in different accounts of the Earl of Bothwell ; some picturing him as strikingly ugly and boorish, others as eminently handsome and courtly; also of the Russian hero Suwarrow, who appears in one portrait as tall and commanding, in another as di- minutive and repulsive, in one an eccentric genius, but still a genius ; in another a buffoon devoid of even courage and ability. Where prejudice mixes the colors and passion holds the brush nothing like truth can be hoped for. " Homo solus aut deus aut daemon" and party or faction elevate a friend or an ally to the former, or sink an enemy or oppo- nent to the latter. This is particularly the case in civil wars. In them there is no juste milieu of feeling or opinion. Mr. Wm. C. Bryant, Sir John's most generous American biographer, presents him as six feet two, and large in proportion. This would almost make him gigantic. His kinsman, Edward F. de Lancey, Esq., historian, draws an entirely different portrait. It would be hard to reconcile such contrasts, were it not that some men, like the late General, our great George H. Thomas, are so erect and imposing that they impress beholders with the idea that their physical proportions are as mighty as their intellect and influence. A similar judgment — absit inmdia — is apposite, as to the moral characteristics of Sir John.
It has been remarked that failure is the greatest crime that mortal- ity recognizes, and that some of the most cruel tyrants would be ac- cepted as exemplars if they had not failed. Such is the opinion of Froude, in regard to the Duke of Alva. He justly remarks : " Re- ligious"— yes, more especially political history — " is partial in its ver- dicts. The exterminators of the Canaanites are enshrined among the saints, and had the Catholics come off victorious, the Duke of Alva would have been a second Joshua." The opinions of the people of this colony or State could scarcely be otherwise than unjust and injuri- ous in regard to a man who, to a most important portion of it, resem- bled a tornado or a phenomenal tropical storm. Such cataclysms are not instantaneous developments, but the result of a series of causes. Their immediate effects are never beneficial. Their ultimate effects are often eminently so. The idea that Sir William Johnson committed sui-
Sir John Johnson. Ixix
fearful losses and the unjustifiable sufferings to which his wife was subjected. She had escaped, thanks to God and herself (1776)." "Thus no restraint could now be imposed
cide to avoid the dilemma of casting his lot in with rebellion or against the crown is utterly preposterous — one of those insane self-delusions that the American people indulged in, blinded with the idea of their own self-consequence. That a man who owed everything to the King, who had pre-eminently distinguished and rewarded him, should go over to the enemies of that monarch, would have stamped him at once as unworthy of the very benefits he had received. Centuries since, the the people were not of the consequence in the eyes of the ruling classes that they have since become. In this remark there is no attempt to presume that the people do not deserve the consideration they are now enabled to exact. But the fact is indisputable that they did not then en- joy it. Washington and Jeiferson, and all the great lights of the Revo- lution, did not regard the masses as the politicians of this day are* com- pelled to do. If they could rise from their graves they would marvel at the almost incredible progress made by the mass of humanity, in wringing, even from despots, a consideration for their opinions.
It is just as ridiculous to imagine that Sir John Johnson would be false to his allegiance as to imagine that Sir William killed himself to avoid changing his uniform. None of the most ardent patriots, so styled, desired in 1775 that complete severance of ties between the mother country and the colonies which the success of the latter gradu- ally more and more concreted into a fixed determination. The wisest could not have foreseen the armed intervention of France and Spain, and yet, without this, independence could not have been secured. The event was still doubtful in 1781, and it was only a concurrence of cir- cumstances beyond mortal control that decided the struggle. For Sir John Johnson to have turned his back on all those characteris- tics which, by generous minds, are regarded as the finest qualities in man — gratitude, loyalty, consistency — might have made him popular with those who would have profited by his treason, but would have damned him in greater degree with those whose opinions he valued. It is just about as sensible to expect an impartial verdict upon Montrose and Claverhouse from the Whigs and Covenanters of Scotland as from the people of central New York upon Sir John Johnson. No man who is connected by the ties of blood or interest, or who has made up his mind, has a right to sit upon a jury ; and no one imbued with the prejudices of the Mohawk Valley, "or its historians, has a moral right
Ixx Sir John Johnson.
upon Sir John's movements, since his family were safe under British protection, and lie plunged into the strife with a bitterness scarcely to be equalled. And he was as
to sit in judgment upon the Johnsons. Again, Sir John Johnson did not desire to have anything to do with the manipulation of the In- dians. After his father's death he was offered the succession of Sir William, as Indian Superintendent under the Crown, and he refused it, and/, at his suggestion, it was given to his cousin Guy. These two have been often confounded : and, on one occasion, when a public de- fense of Sir John was being made, a descendant of sufferers at the hands of the Indians rose to objurgate Sir John, and had his whole ground cut from under him by the simple demonstration that the party inculpated by him was Colonel Guy, and not Sir John. Let no one think that this is an excuse of the latter at the expense of Guy ; but there is a proverb as old as language : " Let each man claim his own credit, or bear his own blame."
The Whigs, or Patriots, or Rebels, of 1774-6, made out a long list of grievances against the Crown, on which they founded the Revolu- lution. Among these, none was so prominent as the hated Stamp Act.
It has been justly said that, in carping or commending, the eyes of most critics are like the turbot's, both on one side. This has never been shown more clearly than the American consideration of the Stamp Act. William Edward Hartpole Lecky, in his " History of England in the Eighteenth Century," 1882, Vol. III., Chap. 12, p. 340, has summed up the whole matter conclusively against the Colonies, and his verdict is irrefutable :
"I have no wish to deny that the Stamp Act was a grievance to the American*-; bat it is due to the truth of history that the gross exaggerations which have been re- peated on the subject should be dispelled and that the nature of the alleged tyranny of England should be clearly defined. It cannot be too distinctly stated, that there is not a fragment of evidence that any English statesman, or any class of the English people, desired to raise anything by direct taxation from the colonies for purposes that were purely English. They asked them to contribute nothing to the support of the navy which protected their coasts, nothing to the interest of the English debt. At the close of a war which had left Englaud overwhelmed with additional burdens, in which the whole resources of the British Empire had been strained for the extension and security of the British territory in America, by which the American colonists had gained incomparably more than any other of the subjects of the crown, the colonies were asked to bear their share in the burden of the Empire by Contributing a third part— they would no doubt ultimately have been asked to contribute the whole— of what was required for the maintenance of an army of 10,000 men, intended primarily for their own defence. £100,000 was the highest estimate of what the Stamp Act would
Sir John Johnson. Ixxi
brave and energetic as he was vindictive, Jones says, that he did more mischief to the rebel settlements upon the
annually produce, and it was rather less than a third part of the expenses of the new army. This was what England asked from the most prosperous portion of her Empire. Every farthing which it was intended to raise in America, it was intended also to spend there.''
England (Great Britain) was right and just and the Thirteen Colo- nies were wrong and ungenerous ; and yet the best men in the Colonies suffered for their obedience to the orders of legally constituted authority. They were made to suffer officially and personally, in every line and every degree, in succeeding generations.
The Americans expend volumes of sympathy upon the victims of the British prison-ships. Are they aware that their own side had prison-ships, and on one occasion a number of captives perished in consequence, by a single accident ? Are they aware that there was a copper mine in Connecticut, to which respectable people were con- signed as laborers, with a want of feeling akin to that with which the Czar Nicholas and his predecessors sent off convoys of noble champions of what they deemed the right, to Siberia. Lynch law was as active among the Patriots as on the so-styled borders of civilization, and the term does not emanate from the semi-barbarous West, but from the anti- revolutionary times and centre of Vermont. As an honest descendant of one of the sufferers at Wyoming justly observed, upon the very spot and under the shadow of the commemorative monument : "The story has two sides, and I am not going to allow myself to be carried away by the prejudices of tradition." To exonerate Sir John Johnson is to condemn his opponents, and to him and them is applicable the sen- tence of the Highest Authority: " It must needs be that offences come ; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh." Sir John did not inaugurate the conflict. He was defendant, and not plaintiff, either in the courts of law or the ordeal of battle.
How many of those who stirred up the difficulty perished at Oris- kany, where first the wager of battle occurred, and how many were impoverished in the course of the conflict ? Again, the Scripture ob- serves : " Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee." Good, undoubt- edly> was evolved out of the evil that was done, but how many of those who were its agents lived to see the day ? " The mills of the gods grind slowly ;" and time with God is nothing. The grist can only be valued when His time has come. Piedmont or Sardinia, Italy, ex- pelled the Waldenses, and was compelled to permit them to return. Spain drove out the Moors, and accepted comparative ruin as the
Ixxii Sir John Johnson.
frontiers of New York than all the partisans in the British service put together."
The charge of "questionable courage " is utterly ridicu- lous.
It originated with his personal enemies, and, if such evidence were admissible, it is disproved by facts. There is scarcely any amount of eulogy which has not
price of bigoted oppression. France thrust out the Huguenots, and thereby enriched and fortified hereditary enemies. The Stuarts persecuted the Puritans, and. lo, the American Revolution ! France assisted a rebellion, and the retribution came within fifteen years. The Americans drove out the Loyalists.* and they constituted the bone and sinew, the industry and wealth of the Dominion of Canada.
The Seven United States, or Provinces of Holland, two hundred to three hundred years ago, were the "Asylum of Thought," the " Refuge" of persecuted mankind, and the freest country in the world. They fell before their time, from three causes, which are destined to wreck this country : centralization, the mistaking of national wealth for na tional greatness, and the mistaking of the virulence of political parti- sanship for the virtue of patriotism. These three disintegrated the whole structure of the body politic, and, when the storm arose and beat upon it, the condition of the fabric revealed itself in ruins.
The gods of Homer nod, and an a?on has passed away. God shuts his eyes to the evil, and centuries pass away before the expiation comes ; but it does come.
* "A number of Loyal Refugees had petitioned, and been permitted by Sir Henry Clinton to embody under proper officers, and to retaliate and make reprisals upon the Americans declared to be in actual rebellion against their sovereign. A party of them, who had formerly belonged to the Massachusetts, made an attempt upon Falmouth, in Barnstable county, but were repulsed by the militia. They renewed it, but not suc- ceeding', went off to Nantucket, and landed 200 men, entered the town, broke open warehouses, and carried off large quantities of oil, whalebone, molasses, sugar, coffee, and everything that fell in their way. They also carried off two brigs, loaded for the West Indies, two or three schooners, and a large number of boats. In a proclamation they left behind they took notice of their having been imprisoned, compelled to abandon their dwellings, friends and connections, had their estates sequestered, and been them- selves formally banished, never to return, on pain of death. Thus circumstanced, they conceived themselves warranted, by the laws of God and man, to wage war against their persecutors, and to use every means in their poiver to obtain compensation for their suf- ferings." 5th April, 1778. Gordon, III., 836-7.
Sir John Johnson. Ixxiii
been lavished upon Arnold's expedition from the Kenne- bec, across the great divide between Maine and Canada, down to the siege of Quebec, and the same praise has been extended to Clarke for his famous march across the drowned lands of Indiana. Arnold deserves all that can be said for him, and so does Clarke, and everyone who has displayed equal energy and intrepidity. It is only surprising that similar justice has not been extended to Sir John. It is universally conceded that, \vhen he made his escape from his persecutors, in 1776, and plunged into the howling wilderness to preserve his liberty and honor, he encountered all the suffering that it seemed possible for a man to endure. Even Napoleon admitted that Courage is secondary to Fortitude. As one, well ac- quainted with the Adirondack wilderness, remarked, " such a traverse would be an astonishing feat, even under favor- able circumstances and season, at this day." Sir John was nineteen days in making the transit, and this, too, at a time when snow and drifts still blocked the Indian paths, the only recognized thoroughfares. No man de- ficient in spirit and fortitude would ever have made such an attempt. Both of the invasions under his personal leading were characterized by similar daring. In some cases the want of intrepidity was assuredly on the part of those who hurled the epithet at him. American writers admit it by inference, if not in so many words.
One of the traditions of Tryon county, which must have been well-known to be remembered after the lapse of a century, seems to be to'the effect that in the last battle,
Ixxiv Sir John Johnson.
known as the fight on Klock's Field, or near Fox's Mills, both sides ran away from each other. In degree this was the case at Bull Rim 1st. Were it true of both sides, it would not be an extraordinary occurrence. Panics, more or less in proportion, have occurred in the best of armies. There was a partial one after Wagram, after Guastalla, after Solferino, and at our first Bull Run. But these are only a few among scores of instances that might be cited. What is still more curious, while a single personal enemy of Sir John charged him with quitting the field, his antagonist, Gen. van Rensselaer, was gene- rally abused for not capturing Sir John and his troops, although a court-martial decided that, while the General did all he could, his troops were very "bashful," as the Japanese term it, about getting under close fire, and they had to be withdrawn from it to keep the majority from going to the rear. The fact is that the Ameri- can State Levies, quasi-regulars, under the gallant Col. Brown, had experienced such a terrible defeat in the morning, that it took away from the militia all their ap- petite for another fight with the same adversaries in the evening. Sir John's conduct would have been excusable if he had quitted the field because he had been wounded, and a wound at this time, in the thigh, in the midst of an enemy's country, was a casualty which might have placed a man "fighting," so to speak, " with a halter around his neck," at the mercy of an administration which was not slow, with or without law, at inflicting cruelties, and even k ' hanging in haste and trying at" leisure. ' ' But Sir John did
Sir John Johnson. Ixxv
not quit the field prematurely. He was not there to fight to oblige his adversaries ; his tactics were to avoid any battle which was not absolutely necessary to secure his re- treat. He repulsed his pursuers and he absolutely re- turned to Canada, carrying with him as prisoners an American detachment which sought to intercept and im- pede his movements.
To qualify Sir John's evasion from Klock's Field as evincing want of courage, is to stigmatize as such the re- peated retreats of Washington, "the Father of his Coun- try," before superior enemies, or the withdrawals after Antietam and Gettysburg, or from Petersburg, of Lee, the idol of the South. A successful retreat or escape in desperate circumstances is credited to a general as equivalent to a victory. To bring such a charge against Sir John on this occasion is as just as to censure Frede- ric the Great for disappearing from the field of Liegnitz when he had made Loudon "get out of that," as did van Kensselaer's militia, and then did not wait to be fallen upon with crushing force by Daun and Lascy, re- presented in this case by Colonels Duboise and Harper, who had more men than he could oppose to them. Sir John's capture of Yrouman's detachment, sent to intercept him, will complete the parallel as a set off to Frederic's tricking Soltikoif, advancing for a similar purpose to complete the toils, in 1760.
"I know," said St. Paul (Phillipians iv., 12), "both how to be abased, and I know how to abound." This remark applies eminently to war. Alexander, Hannibal, 11
Ixxvi Sir John Johnson.
Caesar, Gustavus, Frederic and Napoleon knew when to retreat and when to fight— the latter never at the volition of an enemy. Some generals are known to fame by little more than successful retreats : those of Baner from Tor- gau, in 1637 ; Yaudomont before Villeroi, in 1695 ; Frede- ric before Traun, in 1744 ; Moreau through the Black Forest, in 1796, and a hundred others are cited as brilliant eiforts of generalship, better than victories, when a thou- sand successful battles are forgotten as unworthy of ex- emplary citation.
This little work, it is true, is treating of operations which are mere pigmies in comparison to the gigantic parallels cited, in connection ; but the trite remark must be remembered, that ' ' the destinies of the world were be- ing decided in America (during the Revolution) by colli- sions between mere detachments or squads of men."
While van Rensselaer, the scion of a race which dis- played uncommon courage in the Colonial service, was being tried and it was sought to make him a scape-goat for the shortcomings of his superiors and inferiors, Sir John was receiving the compliments, in public orders, of his own superior, Gen. Haldimand, to whom the German officers in America have given in their published corre- spondence and narratives, the highest praise as a profes- sional soldier, and therefore, professionally, a judge of military merit. What is more, as a farther demonstration of the injustice of ordinary history, the severe Governor Clinton was either with van Rensselaer or near at hand, and consequently as much to blame as the latter for the
Sir John Johnson. Ixxvii
escape of Sir John. Stone, who wrote at a time when as yet there were plenty of living contemporaries, distinctly says that Gov. Clinton was with Gen. van Bensselaer just before the battle, and remained at Fort Plain while the battle was taking place a few miles distant. Finally, the testimony taken before the court-martial indicates that the Americans were vastly superior in numbers to Sir John's Whites and Indians (if not treble or even quad- ruple his force), and it was the want, as usual, of true fight- ing pluck in the Indians, and their abandonment of their white associates, which made the result at all indecisive for the Loyalists. Had the redskins stood their ground some of the militia ought not to have stopped short of Schenectady. All accounts agree that the invaders had been over- worked and over-weighted, foot-sore and fatigued, having performed extraordinary labors and marches ; whereas, except as to ordinary expeditiousness, the Americans, quasi-regulars and militia, were fresh and in light marching order, for they were just from home. So much stress has been laid on this fight, because it has been always unfairly told, except before the court-mar- tial which exonerated van Rensselaer. Ordinary human judgment makes the philosopher weep and laugh: weep in sorrow at the fallacy of history, and laugh in bitterness at the follies and prejudices of the uneducated and unre- flecting.
Some of the greatest commanders who have ever lived have not escaped the accusation of want of spirit at one time or another. Even Napoleon has been blamed for
Ixxviii Sir John Johnson.
not suffering himself to be killed at Waterloo, thus ending his career in a blaze of glory. Malice vented itself in such a charge against the gallant leader who saved the ' ' middle zone" to the Union, and converted the despondency of retreat and defeat into victory. It is a remarkable fact that the majority of people always select two vituperative charges the most repugnant to a man of honor, to hurl at the objects of their dislike, perhaps because they are those to which they themselves are most open — falsehood and poltroonery ; forgetting that it is not the business of a commander to throw away a life which does not belong to himself individually but to the general welfare of his troops. Mere "physical courage," as has been well said by a veteran soldier, "is largely a question of nerves." Moral courage is THE God-like quality, the lever which in all ages has moved this world. Moreover it is the corner- stone of progress; and without it brute insensibility to danger would have left the nineteenth century in the same condition as the "Stone Age." A man, bred as Sir John had been, who had the courage to give up everything for principle, and with less than a modern battalion of whites plunge again and again into the territory of his enemies, bristling with forts and stockaded posts, who could put in the field forty-five regiments (?), of which seventeen were in Albany and five in Try on counties — the actual scenes of conflict — besides distinct corps of State levies raised for the protection of the frontiers — in which every other man was his deadly foe, and the majority capital marksmen, that could shoot off a squirrel's head at a hundred yards —
Sir John Johnson. Ixxix
such a man must have had a very large amount of the hero in his composition. Americans would have been only too willing to crown him with this halo, if he had fought on their side instead of fighting so desperately against them.
In conclusion, readers, your attention is invited for a short space to a few additional considerations. Sir William Johnson was the son of his own deeds and the creature of the bounty of his sovereign. He owed nothing to the people. They had not added either to his influence, affluence, position or power. If this was true of the father as a beneficiary of the Crown, how much more so of the son. The people undertook to deprive the latter of that which they had neither bestowed nor augmented. They injured him in almost every way that a man could be injured ; and they made that which was the most com- mendable in him — his loyalty to a gracious benefactor, his crime, and punished him for that which they should have honored. They struck ; and he had both the spirit, the power, and the opportunity to strike back. His retali- ation may not have been consistent with the literal admo- nition of the Gospel, but there was nothing in it inconsistent with the ordinary temper of humanity and manliness.
Some disciples of " Indifferentism" have argued that Sir John should have remained neutral, like Lord Fairfax, and retained his popularity and saved his property by the sacrifice of his principles. These forget the severe judg- ment of the ancient Greek philosopher and lawgiver on such as they.
Ixxx Sir John Johnson.
"It was a remarkable law of Solon, that any person who, in the commotions of the Republic, remained neuter, or an INDIFFERENT spectator of the contending parties, should be condemned to perpetual banishment"
The people of this era have no conception of the fear- ful significance of Loyalty, one hundred years since. Loyalty, then, was almost paramount to religion ; next after a man's duty to his God was his allegiance to his prince. "Noblesse oblige" has been blazoned as the high- est commendation of the otherwise vicious aristocracy of France. It is charged that when the perishing Bourbon dynasty was in direst need of defenders it discovered them * ' neither in its titled nobility nor in its native soldiers, ' ' but in mercenaries. Whereas, in America, George III. found daring champions in the best citizens of the land, and foremost in the front rank of these stood Sir John Johnson. Hume, who is anything but an imaginative or enthusiastic writer, couples LOYALTY AND PATRIOTISM together ; and with his philosophical words this vindication of Sir John Johnson is committed to the calm and unprejudiced judg- ment of readers :
"The most inviolable attachment to the laws of our country is everywhere acknowledged a capital virtue; and where the people are not so happy as to have any legislature but a SINGLE PERSON, THE STRICTEST LOYALTY
H, IN THAT CASE, THE TRUEST PATRIOTISM."
" Hopes have precarious life ; They are oft blighted, withered, snapt sheer off : But FAITHFULNESS can feed on SUFFERING, And knows no disappointment."
Sir John Johnson. Ixxxi
CONSIDERATIONS
BEARING UPON THE VIOLATION — SO-STYLED — OP A PAROLE (?) SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY SlR JOHN JOHNSON, BART.
(See text, page xl, supra.)
The plan on which turns the whole right or wrong of the parole story, as detailed in a letter to General Sulli- van, 14th March, 1776, frequently cited, emphasizes the directions to Dayton, that care must be taken to prevent Sir John Johnson from being apprised of the real design of his opponents. Fortunately the communication des- patched, although cunningly conceived, was not sufficient- ly ingenious to conceal the latent intention. As van der Does, in Leyden, wrote to Yaldez, the Spanish general be- sieging, and trying to delude him, its governor, into sur- rendering the town: "The fowler plays sweet notes on his pipe when he spreads his net for the bird" — even so the Loyalist leader was not deceived by the specious words of his enemies, seeking to enmesh him.
Lossing, who had all the original papers in his hands, admits (II., 69) a snare : "The wily baronet was not to be caught in the snare laid for him by Schuyler." — J. W. de P.'s "Sir John Johnson's Address," Appendix L, page vi., col. 1, 2.
Dr. F. H. Roof, of Rhinebeck, forwarded, 19th June, 1880, lo the writer, a copy of a letter, which is pretty good proof that, in the whole of the paroling business, the relative positions of the parties in anta- gonism, and the circumstances connected therewith, are not only mis- understood, but have been consistently misrepresented. To clear this up is impossible, because the documentary testimony on the loyal side
Ixxxii Sir John Johnson.
has almost entirely perished or disappeared. This letter was the pro- perty of Henry Loucks, a brother-in-law of Mr. Roof's father (formerly a law partner of Abraham van Vechten) both now deceased. Upon the back of the original was the following note by Mr. Loucks : *' Sir John Johnson's granddaughter, 1777, Helen McDonald ; presented me by a granddaughter of Jellis Fonda, Oct, 7, 1840. H. L." The date must refer to that of the letter, because Sir John could not have had a grand- daughter capable of writing any letter in 1777 ; but one of his grand- daughters did marry a Colonel McDonald, and the latter may have been a descendant, a relative, or a connection of the McDonell, or Mc- Donald, who was chief of the Highlanders dependent upon Sir John, who surrendered their arms 20th January (?), 1776, and was one of the six hostages for the rest, seized at that time.
COPY OF LETTER. — "Sin: Some time ago I wrote you a letter, much to this purpose, concerning the Inhabitants of this Bush being made prisoners. There was no such thing then in agitation as you was pleased to observe in your letter to me this morning. Mr. Billie Laird came amongst the people to give them warning to go in to sign and swear. To this they will never consent, being already prisoners of General Schuyler. His Excellency was pleased by your proclamation, directing every one of them to return to their farms, and that they should be no more troubled nor molested during the war. To this they agreed, and have not done anything against the country, nor intend to, if let alone. If not, they will lose their lives before being taken prison- ers AGAIN. They begged the favour of me to write to Major Fonda and the gentlemen of the committee to this purpose. They blame neither the one nor the other of you gentlemen, but those ill-natured fellows amongst them that get up an excitement about nothing, in order to in- gratiate themselves in your favour. They were of very great hurt to your cause since May last, through violence and ignorance. I do not know what the consequences would have been to them long ago, if not prevented. Only think what daily provocation does.
"Jenny joins me in compliments to Mrs. Fonda.
" I am, Sir,
" Your humble servant,
"CALLACHIE, 15th March, 1777. "HELEN MCDONELL."
" Major JEM-IS FONDA, at Caughnawaga."
In this connection nothing can be more pertinent than the remarks of " our greatest and our best," General GEORGE H. THOMAS, at the breaking out of the " Slaveholders' Rebellion," in 1861-2: " In a dis- cussion of the causes given for their action by some officers who de-
Sir John Johnson. Ixxxiii
serted the Government at the beginning of the Rebellion, I (a friend of Thomas) ventured the assertion that, perhaps, some of them at distant posts had acted ignorantly; that I had been informed that some of them had been imposed upon by friends and relatives, and led to believe that there was to be a peaceable dissolution of the Union ; that there would be no actual government for the whole country, and by resigning their commissions they were only taking the necessary steps towards re- turning to the allegiance of their respective States. . He replied, 'That this was but a poor excuse ; he could not believe officers of the army were so ignorant of their own form of government as to suppose such proceedings could occur ; and as they had sworn allegiance to the Go- vernment, they were bound to adhere to it, and would have done so if they had been »o inclined.'1 He said, ' there was no excuse whatever in a United States officer claiming the right of secession, and the only ex- cuse for their deserting the Government was, what none of them ad- mitted, having engaged in a rebellion against tyranny, because the tyranny did not exist, and they well knew it.' I then asked him ; ' Sup- posing such a state of affairs existed, that arrangements were being made for a peaceable dissolution by the Government, the North from the South, and that it was in progress, what would you have done ?' He promptly replied : ' That is not a supposable case ; the Government cannot dissolve itself; it is the creature of the people, and until they had agreed by their votes — that is, the votes of the whole country, not a portion of it — to dissolve it, and it was accomplished in accordance therewith, the Government to which they had sworn allegiance re- mained, and as long as it did exist I should have adhered to it.' "
There is in this extract a clear recognition of the obligation of his oath to support the Government, and at this very point the better class of Southern officers who joined the Rebellion, and who perhaps took this step with reluctance, made direct issue with Thomas. They claimed that their oath of office was obligatory only while they held office, and that all obligation ceased with resignation, especially when their resigna- tions were accepted. This assumption rests upon the supposed fact that supreme allegiance is due to a single State rather than to the Union of the States or nation represented by the General Government. The subtle logic, by which the doctrine of State Rights was carried to the complete negation of the national unity, or autonomy, had no force with General Thomas, although he greatly regretted the necessity of choosing between the General Government and his own State, in alle- giance with other Southern States. And although he had not enter- tained Northern views of the institution of Slavery, he did not hesitate to maintain his allegiance to the National Government ; and, in contrast 12
Ixxxiv
Sir John Johnson.
»
with those who claimed their freedom from the obligation of their oath of allegiance, when their resignations had been accepted, carrying this freedom to the extreme sequence, that they could legitimately array themselves in war against the Government that had just freed them. Thomas believed that there was a moral and legal obligation that for- bade resignation, with a view to take up arms against the Government. And from this point of view he condemned the national authorities for accepting the resignation of officers, when aware that it was their inten- ,.-r -• , j •* „ • tion to join the Rebellion as soon as they were in this way freed from the i— ».•*,*' f/»> obligation of their oath of allegiance. In his view, resignation did not -..«• give them freedom to take up arms against the General Government, and, resting upon this ground, he did not wait till his own State had seceded to make up his own decision, but made it in entire indepen- dence of her probable action in the national crisis." — Chaplain Thomas B. Van Home's "Life of Gen. George H. Thomas," pp. 26, 27.
" Against STUPIDITY the gods are powerless." — GOETHE.
" When through dense woods primeval bower'd A perfect hail of bullets shower'd, Where bold Thayendanega tower' d — Good old Harkheimer prov'd no coward, Commanding at Oriskany !
" True to his Teuton lineage, Foremost amidst the battle's rage, As bold in fight, in council sage, Most glorious as he quit the stage Of life, by the Oriskany !
"Although he felt the mortal wound. Though fell in swathes his soldiers 'round, Propp'd 'gainst his saddle, on the ground, He calmly smok'd, gave counsel sound, 'Mid war-whirl at Oriskany !
" War never fiercer sight has seen
Than when Sir Johnson's cohort green Charged on the Mohawk rangers keen ; The sole such strife Almanza 'd been As that on the Oriskany !
" New York's bold yeomen, Watts, at head, Breasted meet foes — New Yorkers bred — There, eye to eye, they fought, stabb'd, bled ; Bosom to bosom strove, fell dead In ambush of Oriskany !
Ixxxv
Ixxxvi The Battle of Oriskany.
"Alone can Berwick's shudder tell What fury rul'd that moment fell, When Frenchman's steel hiss'd Frenchman's knell ; Horrent made the sole parallel To battle of Oriskany !
" Teeth with like frantic fury set, * There Frank died on "Frank's bayonet —
Here neighbor death from neighbor met, —
With kindred blood both fields were wet, Almanza* and Oriskany !
"And, ceas'd the storm whose rage had vied, With ruthless shock of fratricide. There lay the Mohawk Valley's pride Just as they fought, stark, side by side, Along the red Oriskany !
" Though neither force could triumph claim In war's dread, dazzling, desperate game, Enkindled there, the smould'ring flame Of Freedom blazed, to make thy name All glorious, Oriskany!"
"ANCHOR"' (J. W. de P.), in Chas. G. Jones' Military Gazette, Nov., 1860.
These verses were exquisitely translated into German, and printed in Kapp's "Ein- •wanderung" I., 389, by Miss Marie Blode.
* The battle of Almanza, fought on the 25th April, 1707, was re- markable in two respects — first, for its result, in that it assured the crown of Spain to Philip V. ; second for a bloody episode, which it is said the Duke of Berwick, bigoted and pitiless as he always proved himself to be, qpuld never recall without a shudder of horror. In the midst of that conflict, John Cavalier, the expatriated French Protestant hero, with his battalion of fellow-exiles, the Camisards, or Huguenots of Languedoc, found themselves opposed to a regiment of French Roman Catholics, who it is supposed had been chiefly instrumental in applying the atrocities of the Dragonnades against their native Pro- testant brethren. No sooner had they recognized each other, than the two corps, without exchanging a shot, rushed to the attack with the bayonet, and engaged in such a mutual, inveterate slaughter that, ac- cording to the testimony of Marshal, the Duke of Berwick, not over three hundred survived of both corps. As the Camisards constituted a battalion of 700 men, and the Roman Catholics a full regiment of at least 1000 effectives, only one out of every six combatants survived the merciless conflict. Such a slaughter is almost unparalleled in history.
The Battle of Oriskany. Ixxxvii
England has never been prolific in great, nay in even moderately great generals, however exuberant in crops of the bravest soldiers. Since Marlborough, who culminated at Hochstedt or Blenheim, 13th August, 1704 — ITS years ago — there have been only three who stand forth as re- markable leaders — Wolfe, -Olive and Wellington. Olive was destined to the command against the revolted colonies, and if he had displayed in America the tremendous power, influence and fortune he exerted in Hindostan, the history of the American Revolution would have had a different termination. The name of Sir William Johnson, "a heaven-born general, " has been associated with that of Lord Olive by more than one English writer of distinction, and particularly by one of Great Britain's best military an- nalists, Sir Edward Oust. Lord Olive perished by suicide, 22d Nov., 1774, and Sir William Johnson, it is insinuated, but falsely, in the same manner on llth July, 1774. He died of chronic, malignant dysentery.
American affairs were desperate enough in 1776 and 1777, in 1780, and even in 1781, to need only a feather's weight in the scale to sink it into ruin. A breath of genius would have done this, but there was no one to breathe it. Cornwallis might have done so had he oc- cupied an independent position like Marlborough, Wolfe, Olive or Wellington, and have added his name to these illustrious four.
Unfortunately for England, and luckily for the United States, he was subordinate to successive superiors, who were his inferiors in everything but rank. Gage was
Ixxxviii The Battle of Oriskany.
weak and vacillating ; Howe indolent and self-indulgent ; Burgoyne vain, self-seeking and over-confident; Clinton nervous and afraid of responsibility. Carleton and Corn- wallis are the only two of high rank that relieve the picture. There were able men in lower grades, but they exercised only restricted influence. The American Revolution was a political quarrel between parties in England. It was fought out with so much bitterness that, to injure the Tories, the Whigs were willing to sacrifice the worth, wealth and welfare of the empire. Without this wordy fight in Parliament, the bloody conflict in America would not have lasted six months. It was the story of Hannibal over again. The violence of faction in the senate house of Carthage, at home, sacrificed the hero who was breaking down, abroad, the deadly enemy of his country, and the oligarchs in Africa carried this spite so far that, with the fall of the victimized hero, fell the commonwealth which he sustained. No wonder he burst out into a sardonic fit of laughter when he saw the oligarchs, ab- ject, broken-hearted, hopeless, weeping the bitterest tears on feeling the ruin they had caused when they beheld their own riches the prey of Roman flames. The Loyalists of America were representatives of the spirit of the Barcidse— faint imitations of the genius, but strong representatives of the feeling which lay beneath it. Like Hannibal they expiated their patriotism and loyalty — all in exile, some in poverty, many on foreign fields of battle, others in prison, not for crime but debt, when rebels were revelling in their sequestrated possessions — and all MARTYRS ; for there can
The Battle of Oriskany. Ixxxix
be no martyrdom without a full appreciation of the cause — a complete perception of the result and a perfect willing- ness to suffer for principle.
Tradition can scarcely be deemed worthy of satisfying legitimate importance, or perhaps more properly speak- ing of serious consideration, by a historian, unless sup- ported or corroborated by other irrefutable testimony, less susceptible of the influence of time and the weakness of the human structure. Even physical proofs, if they continue to subsist, are only trustworthy as to locality or results, but not as to the "why" and the "when," which, after all, to the philosopher, are of the most conse- quence. This remark as to the little weight that can be attached to human recollections, transmitted from genera- tion to generation, is particularly applicable to the Johnson family in the State of New York and especially respecting Sir John Johnson, the last of them who figured in con- nection with the affairs of the Mohawk Yalley. If ever a mortal has been the victim of bigotted prejudice and continuous misrepresentation, he is the man. The English translator of von Clausewitz's "Campaign in Russia," in 1812, remarks in regard to the action of the Prussian General York, on which hinged the fate of Napoleon, that, whether the Prussian general should be regarded as a traitor or a hero, was not dependent on what he risked or did, but upon subsequent developments based there- upon. The same doubt hangs over the memory of Wallenstein. That, the last, never can be cleared up, although with time York has received full justice. Sir
xc The Battle of Oriskany.
John Johnson belongs to the category of "Wallenstein, be- cause he failed, justifying the maxim — "to appear abso- lutely able a man must always be successful." Human success, as a rule, is the counterfeit of merit in the ma- jority of cases ; as regards the recipient of the re\vard, a sham. It is often the greatest of impostors. It has cer- tainly been so in American history. And, yet, it is the fallacy which is always accepted by the masses — who never reason — as the reality.
One of the closest students of American history, con- siders that the two men greatest in themselves who exerted an influence on the colonies were Sir William Pepperell, Captor of Louisburg, and Sir William Johnson, "the In- dian Tamer." In regard to the latter, public opinion has been led astray. It believes that he was little better than an adventurer, who owed his start in life to the accidental patronage of his uncle, Admiral Sir Peter Warren. For Sir William Pepperell the best informed would substitute Hon. James de Lancey, who for so many years was Lieutenant and acting Governor of the Province of New York. Of him the great PITT remarked, "Had James de Lancey lived in England, he would have been one of the first men in the kingdom."
William, afterwards Sir William Johnson, Bart., was more directly influential in the arrest which involved the overthrow of the French power in America than any other individual ; and that this does not appear in popular his- .tory is due to the local antagonisms, prejudices, and in- terests, which have obscured all the narratives of the
The Battle of Oriskany. xci
colonies or provinces that affected more or less closely the arrogant claims of New England. This is owing to the principle which is most evident in war, that while the purely defensive, or passive, is scarcely ever, if ever, suc- cessful, the offensive or aggressive, with any proportional power, is almost always so. Example, Alexander of Macedon. The offensive-defensive is likewise most ad- visable— witness the triumph of "Frederic II. of Prussia, the greatest man who was ever born a king."
When, nearly half a century ago, the writer first had his attention directed to American history, he placed great faith in standard works, accepted by older men, as un- questionable authority. As he investigated more closely this faith became gradually chilled and in many cases killed. Then he came to appreciate the force of the Latin proverb, " Hear the other side." A sterner scrutiny and harsher judgment was now applied to every book, nor were apparent facts alone subjected to microscopic exam- ination. Attention was directed to the motives which imperceptibly or visibly guided the pens or influenced the periods of our most popular and polished writers. With St. Paul he perceived that those ' ' who seemed to be pillars " were not stone or marble but deceptions, stucco or frailer material. All this led to the conviction tliat no one can prepare a satisfactory narrative, especially of a battle, who does not go back to original documents on both sides, or at least to the works in which they have been reproduced ; who has riot reflected upon the animus which did or might actuate the authors of such papers ; who has not 13
xcii The Battle of Oriskany.
weighed report against report ; and then, and only then, after a careful study of the character of the actors and consideration of time, place, and circumstances, has formed an opinion for himself. His first story of Oriskany was written in 1859; his second in 1869; his third in 1878; his fourth in 1880. In all these he continued to pin faith to the American side of the story. Subsequently he determined to investigate with equal care the Loyal story and British side, pure and simple ; this, with the discovery of Sir John Johnson's "Orderly Book," has brought with it a feeling that, although the moral effect of the battle, particularly upon the Indians, was to a great extent de- cisive, the physical circumstances were not so creditable. It was a sacrifice rather than a conflict ; an immolation, a holocaust which Heaven accepted, as the Great Ruler ever accepts, not according to what is actually given, but according as man purposeth in his heart to give. "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." As it was admirably put in his Centennial, by the Hon. Ellis H. Roberts, uIIerJcimer>8 glory is that out of such a slaughter he snatched the substance" This is a sentence Mnll live, for it is the concrete truth in a very few admir- able words.
In comparing Oriskany to Thermopylae, there is no intention to contrast the physical circumstances. In both cases, however, a heroic leader offered himself for the defence of his country and lost his life in consequence. In both cases a portion of the troops did their duty and
The Battle of Oriskany. xciii
another portion failed, ingloriously, to do so. Eventually, the Greeks, like the Mohawkers, were surrounded and few escaped death, wounds or captivity. A pass, whether across a marsh, or through a wood, or among mountains, any similar locality, in fact, is in a military sense a "defile." The moral similitudes between the 6th July, B. C. 480, and 6th August, A. D. 1777, resemble each other in many respects. Leonidas fell to save Attica and Athens ; Herkimer to relieve Fort Stanwix, and thus preserve his native valley.
A better parallel to certain phases of Oriskany is the battle of Thrasimene, B. C. 217. In the latter case the Gauls, like the Indians in 1777, rushed in too soon, and thus by their precipitation enabled a small portion of the Romans to escape. Another apposite example is the battle of Crevant, 31st July, 1423. The French and their Scotch auxiliaries were besieging Crevant, about one hun- dred miles southeast of Paris on the right bank of the Yonne, and the English and Burgundians advanced to relieve the place. In this case the result of Oriskany* was reversed under similar circumstances, and the besiegers were almost all slain or captured. During the Austro- Hungarian war Gen. Guyon nearly came to grief in a sim- ilar trap during the winter of 1848-9. Dade's massacre
* The fight, disastrous for Bale or Basel city, striving, in 1833, to maintown its ancient privileges or influence over the whole State, was a collision similar in many respects to Oriskany. It led to a rup- ture between the Past and Present, and ended in a division of the canton into two half -cantons, Bale Ville (city) and Bale Campagne (country) to the advantage of neither.
xciv The Battle of Oriskany.
by Seminole Indians, 28th December, 1835, in Florida, was a miniature of Braddock's overwhelming on the Monongahela, 9th July, 1755. The glory of this success belongs to Langlade, the famous French leader of Indians, who prepared a similar trap for Wolfe on the Montmorenci, in 1759. In the latter the great English leader was only saved by the supercilious self-sufficiency of the French re- gular superior officers, who rejected the proposition of the partisan.
It is somewhat curious that in the same way that the Provincials seemed to have better strategical as well as grand-tactical views than professionals, George III. was wiser in his views than his ministers and generals. He suggested a route for Burgoyne which, had fortune favored instead of thwarting it, would have been far more advan- tageous and would have enabled Burgoyne to reach his objective, Albany, without doubt. The movement on this point, in 1777, was simply reversing the plan which was triumphant against Canada in 1759. Alas for England, there was no Pitt at the head of military and colonial affairs in 1777, only a St. Germaine ; no Wolfe, but a Burgoyne ; no Amherst, but a Howe and then a Clinton ; no Prideaux or Sir William Johnson, but a St. Leger. Sir William Johnson's son might have rivalled his father's fortune had opportunity favored or circumstances per- mitted. Like that of 1759, the operations of 1777 were not simple, but complex, triple. In 1759, Quebec was the first objective. Against it Wolfe ascended the St. Law- rence, Amherst ascended the Hudson and descended Lake
The Battle of Oriskany. xcv
Champlain, and Prideaux, afterwards Johnson, ascended tbe Mohawk and captured Niagara. In 1777, Burgoyne as- cended Lake Champlain and descended the Hudson ; St. Leger ascended the St. Lawrence and descended the Mo- hawk ; and Howe (afterwards Clinton) was to ascend the Hudson. The Burgoyne of 1777,' would have reached his goal had he been the Burgoyne of 1762, and estimated, as then, the value of time, and remembered the orders of his great master in the art of war, Count de la Lippe, through which he avoided, in 1762, a catastrophe similar to that of Saratoga. Everything contributed to insure the Burgoyne h'asco. Where Carleton would have succeeded Burgoyne must have failed. The most important function was entrusted to St. Leger with the most inadequate means. St. Leger was greatly to blame because he did not listen to Sir John Johnson and Colonel Daniel Glaus, and because he underestimated the adversaries he had to encounter and the obstacles he had to overcome. The greatest culprit, however, was Sir William Howe, "the most indolent of mortals," apathy itself, who, with or- dinary judgment, energy, and even a spirit of lukewarm camaraderie, could have even remedied the shortcomings of Burgoyne and the blunders of St. Leger. If Howe had so manoeuvred in the Jerseys as to occupy the attention of Washington, simply demonstrating in his front with half his army, which half was fully equal to the whole force under Washington at this time, he could have dis- patched at least 7000 men up the Hudson to co-operate with Burgoyne. If Burgoyne had attended to his busi-
xcvi The Battle of Oriskany.
ness thoroughly, and acted with interprise and audacity, and if St. Leger had had from 1500 to 2000 whites, instead of about 400, the history of this continent would have been totally diiferent. All ho\vever hinged, first on Howe's paralyzing Washington, second on St. Leger' s cleaning out the Mohawk Valley. The campaign of 1777, as regards the British, was a glaring part of a tissue of blunders. The colonies were at their mercy, if they had used the forces, moral and physical, under their control with any judgment — simple common sense. The Duke de Lauzun and other competent military judges confirm these views.
It is ridiculous, however, in a mere military point of view, to claim that all the advantages in this contest were in favor of the British. They might have been, had they utilized the Loyalists, respected thttn, shown energy and activity, and forgotten professional conceit and iner- tion in zeal for the crown and patriotic desire to maintain and extend the glory of the imperial dominion. The British, like Napoleon in Russia, were conquered by space. Paradox as it may seem to be, discipline, rigid martinet regulation, may actually, under some conditions, become a disadvantage. Marksmen with some idea of drill may be better than strictly line regulars in a new, a wooded, and a rough or mountainous country. The range of heights extending from northeast to southwest across New Jersey, the broken elevations and extensive marshes around Morristown, as a central citadel, and the spur shot out into the plain opposite the elbow of the
The Battle of Oriskany. xcvii
Ilaritan, between Bound Brook and Middle Brook, with its gaps for sally-ports, saved the American cause. Num- bers and aim won the first fight at Hoosic (mis-named Bennington), and then, when indiscipline, dissolved in plundering, needed the support of discipline, in the second fight, Warner came in with his Continentals or regulars. Man for man, the colonists were as good as the best British, and, being willing, better than the Germans un- willing combatants. Why riot? They were all the same race, and the world has yet to see its equal as enduring and courageous soldiers.
And here it is pertinent to the occasion to remark^ that the declamation and shrieks of the Americans at tmr employment of the Indians by the British'is the sheeresr hypocrisy. They would have enlisted the tomahawk and scalping-knife without the slightest repugnance if they could have bid as high as the crown, or would have paid cash down as honestly. If the assistance of the savages was nefarious, the Americans would not have objected to its utilization on that account, if they could have con- tracted for, coerced, cajoled or controlled it. Lucky for the Americans a factious opposition in England and Par- liament used the American War as a weapon of oifence against the crown, just as the Whigs in America professed loyalty to the King, but opposition, nay bitter animosity, to the Ministry and Parliament. As Gen. C. S. W. wrote (from Innsbruck, 19, 7, 1882), "The English government, like our own, is a government of party ; and the consideration of gaining or losing party-capital out-
xcviii The Battle of Oriskany.
weighs all others." "Of course the thing [Egypt] was badly man aged in many respects." English faction nearly ruined Wellington in Spain and colonial congressional discordances and jealousies very nearly occasioned a worse fate for Washington. Even the liberally praised Chatham, in his hypocritical denunciation of setting the Indian bloodhounds upon the colonists, was reproved or shewn up by General, Lord Amherst, and rebuked by the pro- duction of his orders, when Prime Minister, for letting them loose upon the French. The Americans courted the assistance of the Indians with assiduity, but the latter foresaw the fate which would attend the success of the colonists, as their chiefs in council foretold, and remained faithful to the old country, which had always protected and fostered them and treated them with jus- tice and forbearance.
This fact — just referred to — in connection with the employment of Indians, which is too little known, is apposite to the support of the American Revolution in Parliament. The Earl of Chatham (Pitt) denounced in the House of Lords the employment of the wild Indians in conjunction with the British troops, although he himself, nineteen years before, had used Indians in the same man- ner against the French and the Canadians. In advocating his views he waxed still more loud and indignant, "pour- ing out fresh volumes of words. " " Ministers then offered to produce, -from the depository of papers in the Secre- tary's office, documents written by himself to prove the charge. The dispute grew still hotter; and at length
The Battle of Oriskany. xcix
Lord Amherst, Chatham's general, who had commanded our [the British] troops in that Canadian war, was so loudly appealed to on all sides, that he found himself compelled to acknowledge that he had followed the ex- ample of the French in employing savages, which he would not have done without express orders from government at home. He even offered to produce the orders, if his majesty would permit him."
Lord Denbigh rather happily called Chatham "The great oracle with the short memory," and stated that "Chatham, when in office under George II., had guided and directed everything relating to the war ; had monopo- lized functions which did not belong to him, and had been excessively jealous of any interference by others, whether boards or ministers."
The Lords who supported Chatham now seemed in- clined to lay the question by, as far as it concerned his veracity or correctness of memory. According to Lord Brougham, when Lord Bute heard what had passed on this occasion in the House of Lords, and that Chatham had denied his having employed the red men (or Indians), he exclaimed with astonishment, "Did Pitt really deny it ? Why, I have his letter still by me, singing lo Pceans of the advantages we were to gain through our Indian allies." As a political question, Whigs against Tories, the cause of the Colonies was fought with as much virulence with words, in Parliament, as, with weapons, in America, and in many cases with just as much principle.
Let the consideration, however, confine itself to Oris- 14
c . * The Battle of Oriskany.
kany. It was the turning point of the Burgoyne campaign and of the American Eevolution. Within the scope of the considerations before dwelt upon, it was the Thermo- pylae of the Colonies.
In regard to the numbers at Oriskany there are such discrepancies in the various accounts that it is almost impossible to reconcile them. The Americans exaggerate the English numbers to excuse Harkheimer's coming short of decided success, and to exalt the determination of the garrison. How many the latter comprised is by no means certain. Stedman (4to, I., 334) says 750 men, but Gen. Carrington, U. S. A., one of the most careful of investiga- tors, uses language (323) that would justify the belief that it consisted of 950 men. If only 750 ' ' under cover ' ' it ought still to have been a full match for the whole heterogeneous corps that St. Leger brought against it. The "Burgoyne scare " was upon the whole country and the garrison of Fort Stanwix felt the effects of it.
Prior to the discovery of Johnson's Orderly Book, it has always been stated that St. Leger had 675 white troops with him : the Orderly Book, however, distinctly shows that only 500 rations were issued. This demon- strates conclusively that the white troops, at most, could not have exceeded that number. The Americans, to swell the numbers of British and Loyal Provincials under Col. Ferguson, encountered at King's Mountain, 7th October, 1780, based their calculations on the Ration Returns found in the captured camp.
The same rule of judgment in justice should apply to the
The Battle of Oriskany. ci
force under St. Leger. The difference between 400 and 675 can be easily accounted for in various ways, even if exact proof did not exist to establish the smaller number. Ex- perts, including Napoleon, consider that an army of 100,000 on paper rarely can put 80,000 effectives in the field. In a new country subject to local fevers, when men are called upon to discharge the severest labors at the hottest period of the year, this ratio would, most likely, be greatly increased. Consequently, if St. Leger had 675 at Lachine, near Montreal, it would not be extraordinary if he left a number of invalids behind, besides those, especially indivi- duals foreign to the country and service, who dropped out on the road. There is no mention in this Orderly Book of a list of sick or casualties, and yet it is impossible but that there must have been both. A highly educated pedant argued that the Romans had no Medical Depart- ment, because Caesar does not mention one in his Com- mentaries. His reasonings were completely demolished by the observation that, on the same plea, Caesar had no dis- eases in his camp, because he does not allude to them in any of the accounts of his campaigns, which is what the scholars call an argumentum ad absurdum.
The statement attributed to St. Leger, that he had 675 white troops, he never made. It is a deduction of their own by American writers, to make good their case. Any reader desirous of investigating this can easily refer to the reports made by St. Leger to Burgoyne and also to Carle- ton. These figures are not in either : Where then are these numbers to be found ? In a letter from Lord
cii The Battle of Oriskany.
George Germain to General Carleton, 26th March, 1777, he says :
"From the King's knowledge of the great preparations made by you last year to secure the command of the lakes, and your atten- tion to this part of- the service during the winter, his Majesty is led to expect that everything will be ready for General Burgoyne's pass- ing the lakes by the time you and he shall have adjusted the plan of the expedition.
'• It is the King's further pleasure that you put under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel St. Leger,
" Detachment from the 8th Regiment, . . . 100 Detachment from the 34th Regiment, . . . 100 Sir John Johnson's Regiment of New York, 133
Hanau Chasseurs, 342
675
" Together with a sufficient number of Canadians and Indians ; and after having furnished him with proper artillery, stores, provisions, and every other necessary article for his expedition, and secured to him every assistance in your power to afford and procure, you are to give him orders to proceed forthwith to and down the Mohawk River to Albany, and put himself under the command of Sir William Howe."
Mark this : not Burgoyne, but Sir William Howe, who was expected to co-operate, but did not, partly because through the indolence of his superior, Lord St. Germain, he did not receive his orders on time.
On the 28th February, one month previous, Burgoyne considers that even a smaller force than the 675 assigned by St. Leger would be sufficient. He only mentions 233 white troops. These are his exact words :
" Not, to argue from probability, is so much force necessary for this diversion this year, as was required for the last; because we then knew that General Schuyler, with a thousand men, was fortified upon the Mohawk. When the different situations of things are con- sidered, viz., the progress of General Howe, the early invasion from
The Battle of Oriskany. cm
Canada, the threatening of the Connecticut from Rhode Island, &c., it is not to be imagined that any detachment of such force as that of Schuyler can be supplied by the enemy for the Mohawk. I would not therefore propose it of more (and I have great diffidence whether so much can be prudently afforded) than Sir John Johnson's corps, an hundred British from the Second Brigade, and an hundred more from the 8th Regiment, with four pieces of the lightest artillery, and a body of savages ; Sir John Johnson to be with a detachment in person, and an able field officer to command it. I should wish Lieutenant-Colonel St. Leger for that employment."
How many men, then, did St. Leger have? Stedman states he had " a body of light troops and Indians, amount- ing to between 700 and 800 men." Carrington calls it a "composite army of regulars, Hessian-chasseurs, Royal- greens, Canadians, axemen, and non-combatants, who, as well as the Indians, proved an ultimate incumbrance and curse to the expedition." St. Leger did not have 342 Hanau-chasseurs, nor anything like it. This is now known to be an error ; he had only one company. Why ? Be- cause only one company had arrived when he started. It was commanded by a 1st Lieutenant, Jacob Hilderbrand. There could be no mistake here, because Germans are the most methodical people, and the journals of many of their officers exist, which were written with no idea of their ever seeing the light in print, with no intent to deceive or to influence public opinion. What is more, a company at that time ranged from 50 to 80 ; in the English Guards, always kept full, 80 is the figure (1788) ; 50 to 120, num- ber never fixed (James, 1810, Hoyt, 1811). Had more than a company been sent, a higher officer than a 1st Lieutenant would have been placed' in command. Sir
civ The Battle of Oriskany.
John's regiment, or battalion, only numbered 133. The great mistake is the item generally quoted, 342, which should be under 50. If people would read carefully they would avoid many serious errors which serve to feed and stimulate popular vanity. Col. Glaus corroborates von Eelking. "And here [at Buck's Island] the Brig'r had still an opportunity and time for sending for a better train of artillery, and wait for the junction of the [Hesse-Hanau] Chasseurs, which must have secured us success, as every one will allow." Again below Glaus expressly mentions "# COMPANY of Chasseurs lately arrived. " Can language be clearer and more unmistakable. The proper, or real, not the intended, or ideal, enumeration would give St. Leger about 380 organized troops, besides Rangers. Here again people are led into a serious error because they desire so to be. Butler, and other officers belonging to the Rangers, did not have regular white commands at Oriskany, but, as officers, were distributed among the Indians to steady them. This was according to French military usage ; officers, in France, at this time, were often multiplied in certain regiments to insure solidity by example and influence. Such a course was much more a necessity among undisciplined savages. When Butler got back to Quebec he could only collect or muster fifty out of all he had had or had. There was, it is true, quite a numerous staff of Whites serving with the Indians. The discovery of the ' ' Orderly Book ' ' should settle the mat- ter. The number of rations issued would not have been falsified. This establishes the fact that there must have
The Battle of Oriskany. cv
been considerably less than 500 to receive them, since, before rations were commuted, officers were entitled to more than one, especially when they had servants to feed, and in those days no commissioned officer took the field without one or more servants. Colonel Clans, Deputy, Acting Superintendent of the Indians, is very explicit in his letter to Secretary Knox. He blames St. Leger for mis- calculating the force and efficiency of the enemy and for not taking with him more troops and more powerful artil- lery when he could have had a full sufficiency of both.* Undoubtedly there were detachments from the 8th (Major, afterwards Colonel, A. S. de Peyster's Regiment) and 34th (St. Leger' s own) Regiments, B. A. of 100 each ; Sir John Johnson's Royal-greens, 133; and a company of Chasseurs or Riflemen lately arrived in Canada, from Ger- many, which exactly tallies with von Eelking's published
* Col. Claus, in his letter of the 16th October, 1777, to Secretary Knox, shows that St. Leger himself alone was to blame for not having a sufficiency of artillery of the proper calibre in his expedition against Fort Stanwix. Col. Claus demonstrates that the Americans expected the siege which followed, and prisoners taken agreed in their story re- vealing the precautions necessary to insure success. St. Leger con- cedes that " if they [Americans] intended to defend themselves in that fort [Stanwix], our [British] artillery was not sufficient to take it." "The Brig'r." (St. Leger) had still an opportunity and time of sending for a better train of artillerj', and wait for the junction of the Chas- seurs (German Jaegers) which must have secured us success, as every one will allow." Here we have a repetition of the self-sufficiency of Braddock and the rejection of the wise counsels of Provincial officers like Washington, in this case represented by Sir John Johnson and Col. Daniel Claus. Oh hackneyed but eternally applicable truism of Euripides : " But the d;emon (directing spirit), when he devises any mischief against a man, first perverts (or stultifies) his friend."
cvi The Battle of Oriskany.
account. These are all the white troops he mentions. The best warriors of the Six Nations were with Burgoyne.- The sum total of the savages with St. Leger, according to Col. Daniel Glaus, their Superintendant in the absence of Col. Guy Johnson, was 800. Among these were 150 Mississaugues, who were accepted as a Seventh by the Six Nations, in 1746, but the alliance did not long continue. In 1755 the Iroquois Confederation found their Seventh member in the ranks of the enemy. The fact is there never were over Five Nations : even the Sixth, the Tuscaroras, did not stand on an equal footing with the original Five ; they were simply tolerated. The Mississaugues were afterwards expelled or dropped from the Confederation. They were a miserable set, "drunk and riotous from the start," unreliable throughout, robbers and murderers of the associated Whites at the end. They came from the neighborhood of Lake Nippissing, to the northward of Georgian Bay. Gordon (American) puts St. Leger' s In- dians "at 700 warriors, who, with their wives, children, other men and women, made up 1400." Deduct the non- combatants and Indians effectives and this, again, demon- strates the number of white soldiers, rank and file, repre- sented by 500 rations, less than 400. The Americans estimated the King's troops at King's Mountain at 1125, from the number of rations issued that morning according to the returns captured ; whereas, it is well-known, accord- ing to the Diary of Lieut. Allaire, recovered within two years, that Ferguson had only 906 or 907, of whom over 800 were raw militia.
The Battle of Oriskany. cvii
Why St. Leger took with him so few men and such inadequate cannon is due to the supercilious disregard manifested by professional British officials for the advice of American provincial officers. All the ability he did show was due to the advice of Sir John Johnson (Stone's "Brant," I., 226). Wherever he did so, he was successful, and where he did not, he failed. Had Braddock followed the councils of Colonel Washington, he would have escaped the catastrophe in which he fell, in July, 1755. Had St. Leger listened to the suggestions of Colonel Glaus,* he would have succeeded in August, 1777. Could Colonel (acting Brigadier) Fergusonf have divested himself of his
* Col. Daniel Glaus, writing to Secretary Knox, 6th November, 1777, shows how the jealousies affecting the supersedure of Sir Guy Carleton by Burgoynewere fatal to all the operations of this campaign. Col. Claus, on applying to Sir Guy for orders, was told he had none to give, and that he (Claus) might do as he pleased. This was a curious re- mark for a chief to make to a subordinate. One fact of interest is dis- closed by this letter, viz., that Sir John Johnson, after the failure at Fort Stanwix, was to proceed to join Burgoyne. Why he did not is explained by the concluding sentence of this paragraph of the commu- nication of Col. Claus: "Such friques [freaks?] and jealousies I am afraid have been rather hurtful to our Northern operations last cam- paign." Verily ! (Col. Doc., VIII., 725.)
f Johnson and Claus told St. Leger what he wanted and what to do, and he would not hearken, and did not succeed. De Peyster advised Fer- guson as to the character of his opponents, and he was not listened to. Americans knew Americans better than Britishers. The result was, St. Leger failed and Ferguson fell, and with the failure of the one and the fall of the other, it was not the interests of England that suffered only, because the " mother country " came out of the war richer, greater and mightier than ever, but the Loyalists, dupes of their faith in the Home Government, her ability to conquer, and her determination to preserve the rights of all, to punish the guilty and to recompense the faithful.
15
cviii The Battle of Oriskany.
contempt for the Mountain-men he would not have sacri- ficed his detachment in October, 1780. Captain (acting Col- onel) de Peyster, an American Provincial, his second in com- mand, knew the value of the exquisite picked sharpshooters who were about to assail his superior, in far preponderating numbers. He indicated the course which would have secured immediate relief and eventual success. Ferguson was too fearless or perhaps reckless to listen to his sub- ordinate and the result was a defeat from which the Eng- lish never recovered at the South. It was exactly the same with the French regulars. They would never pay the slightest heed to the warning of the Canadian provin- cial leaders, experts in forest-craft and Indian fighting, and thus the Bourbons lost New France. Arrogance in epaulets will never listen to exoteric experience. Mem- bers of a caste or hierarchy never pay due attention to the sagacity of intuitive external practical observation which does not exhibit the tonsure or the shoulder-strap. West Point and the regular army pooh ! pooh ! silently or audibly, everything that is not stamped with their cabalistic emblems or has not joined in the chorus "Benny Havens, Oh !" It has been so since the world began, and brave men will be massacred through ' ' red tape ' ' until the era of common-sense arrives, if it ever does come, to bless mortality — until the descent of the New Jerusalem.
How many men had Harkheimer ? Estimates vary from 800 to 1000. There were four regiments of militia, some faithful Oneidas, numerous volunteers of all ranks, a bloom of colonels and officials, and a few mounted men. By how
The Battle of Oriskany. cix
many was Harkheimer ambuscaded at first ? Not near as many as he himself had. St. Leger says that, when Sir John was allowed to plan and trap the Americans, he had not 200 of the King's troops in camp, and he could only spare to the Baronet 80 white men, Rangers and Troops, Sir John's Light Company, the Hanau Riflemen, and But- ler with a few Officers and Rangers and the whole corps of the Indians. Here again is incontrovertible circumstantial proof that St. Leger's white troops, present and detached, assembled and scattered between his camp and his depot, or base, at Fort Bull on Wood Creek, did not exceed from 350 to 400 men. After the Indians had flunked and be- haved so badly the remainder of the "Royal Greens n were quickstepped into the fight, which would not have added. 100 to the force besetting Harkheimer. Consequently the latter could not have been engaged at any time with as many as 200 whites.*
* Mr. Stone (pages e and/) emphasizes the fact that Stephen Watts is only mentioned as Captain in the " Orderly Book," whereas he was generally known as Major. If he had turned to his own note on the sub- ject of English rank, the discrepancy would at once be explained. It is very unlikely that a man's brother, at a period when the lines of titular distinction were firmly drawn and closely observed, would not have known the rank borne by a brother of whom he was proud, or the name of the corps to which he belonged. Stephen Watts, of Oriskany, was a great favorite in his family, and designated by the most affectionate epithets. What is more, there were a variety of titles of rank in the British Army at that time, two or more of which were often borne by the same individual. A man might be a "line" Captain, very likely "brevet" Major or Lieutenant-Colonel, a "local," "temporary" or "provincial" Colonel or Brigadier, and a militia Major-General. In some cases he did not receive an actual commission, but was delegated in writing to act as such or thus. Sir John Johnson, Bart, held com-
ex The Battle of Oriskany.
'As to how .many the Americans lost is another disputed point. St. Leger says in his different reports that not over 200 (out of 800 or 900) escaped. The smallest list of their casualties comprises 160 killed and about 200 wounded and prisoners.
In some respects, Gordon, take him all in all, is the best authority for the American Revolution when in ac-
missions as Major-General of Militia, as Brigadier-General of the Pro- vincial troops (21st October, 1782), and the date of his commission as " Superintendent-General and Inspector-General of the Six Nations of Indians and their Confederates of all the Indian nations inhabiting Our Province of Quebec and the Frontiers," is of March 14th, 1782. In 1777, as Lieutenant-Colonel, he was commanding his regiment.
Here again Mr. Stone is emphatic. " He says that this regiment is nowhere mentioned as the " Koyal Greens." They must have been . known as such or else they would not have been thus designated in the histories written Highest to their period. Any discrepancy here again is susceptible of lucid solution. At first it was determined to uniform the Provincial corps in green, and some were originally clothed in this color, but had it changed ; others, exceptions to the rule, retained it to the end of the war. Doubtless for valid reasons, not now known, it was found more advantageous or economical to issue to the Provincials clothes of the sam,e color as those worn by the Regulars, but with distinctive facings. The same process is now going on throughout the whole British Army, and evoking a perfect wail of indignation and grief from corps which had won renown in dresses and facings of exceptional color and cut.
"We" [English], observes the author of "'International Vanities" (No. III., Titles), in BlackwoocTs Magazine, " have carried this adoring love of variety of names and titles even into our army, where we have created five kinds of rank altogether irrespective of military grades pro- perly so called ; our army rank may be [1] Regimental (substantive), [2] Brevet, [3] Local, [4] Temporary, or [5] Honorary, and we might almost add [6] "Relative" to this absurd list, which no other nation can understand. In our navy, at all events, rank is rank ; there our officers are in reality what they say they are." — LitteWs Living Age, No. 1556, 4th April, 1874, p. 14.)
The Battle of Oriskany. cxi
cord with Stedman ; but unquestionably Mercy Warren— daughter of James Otis — political dissertationist, poetess and historian, who wrote in the light and memories of contemporaries, presents facts not to be found elsewhere : Paul Allen's "American Revolution" is the most philosophi- cal work on this subject. Here let it be remarked, that Mrs. Warren says: "Their danger" — that is the peril of the garrison of Fort Stanwix — "was greatly enhanced by the misfortune of General Harkheimer, who had marched for the relief of Fort Stanwix, but with too little precau- tion. At the head of eight or nine hundred militia, he fell into an ambuscade consisting mostly of Indians, and . notwithstanding a manly defence, few of them escaped. They were surrounded, routed, and butchered, in all the barbarous shapes of savage brutality, after many of them had become their prisoners, and their scalps carried to their British allies, to receive the stipulated price."
The Americans claimed a victory because the survivors were allowed to retire unmolested. This was due to the fact that the Indians had long since "voted themselves out of the fight," and because the white troops, misled by the false reports of "a cowardly Indian," were recalled to the defense of their camp. There is no intention in this little work to detract from the glory of Harkheimer or of his Mohawk men; but the best regular troops have fallen victims to ambuscades from the time of Caesar, and, doubt- less, long before, judging from analogy, clown to the pre- sent day. "Eternal fitness of things " is the pertinent phi- losophical sneer of Sardou. Harkheimer against his better
cxii The Battle of Oriskany.
judgment was plunged into a deadly trap and he suffered awfully, as is the universal result under such circumstances.
Personal enemies, with the presumption of ignorance and the bitterness of spite, have presumed to