The Iroquois in the American Revolution 0815600836, 9780815600831

Examines the military and political aspects of the Iroquois' role in the American revolution and describes the impa

297 108 11MB

English Pages [373] Year 1972

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD PDF FILE

Table of contents :
Contents
Illustrations
Preface
Prologue
I The People of the Longhouse
II Forging an Alliance
Ill Hold Fast to the Covenant Chain
IV An Uneasy Neutrality
V Take Up the Hatchet
VI The Tree Uprooted
VII A Scourge Unleashed
VIII Our Children Trembled
IX The Path of Vengeance
X Peace Comes to the Longhouse
Epilogue
Appendix A
Appendix B
Notes
Bibliographical Essay
Index
Recommend Papers

The Iroquois in the American Revolution
 0815600836, 9780815600831

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

lA N O m iK IR

N R ita in o R S

The Iroquois in the American Revolution BARBARA GRAYMONT

SYRACUSE

UNIVERSITY

PRESS

Copyright © 1972 by Syracuse University Press Syracuse, New York 13244-5160 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

First Paperback Edition 1972 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 987654 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of Amer­ ican National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Graymont, Barbara. The Iroquois in the American Revolution. An Iroquois Book Includes bibliographical references. 1. Iroquois Indians—History. 2. New York (State)— History—Revolution. I. Title. E99.I7G67 973.3'43 73-170096 ISBN 0-8156-0083-6/GRIA ISBN 0-8156-0116/GRlAP(pbk.)

An honorary member of the Indian Defense League of America, B a r b a r a G r a y m o n t first became interested in the Iroquois ex­ perience in the American Revolution through her acquaintance and work with present-day Iroquois. She has taught at Bates Col­ lege in Maine and is now professor of history at Nyack College, Nyack, New York. Professor Graymont received the Ph.D. de­ gree from Columbia University and has written articles for such journals as New York History.

Manufactured in the United States o f America

Contents

PREFACE

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X



Prologue 1 The People of the Longhouse 5 Forging an Alliance 26 Hold Fast to the Covenant Chain 48 An Uneasy Neutrality 86 Take Up the Hatchet 104 The Tree Uprooted 129 A Scourge Unleashed 157 Our Children Trembled 192 The Path of Vengeance 223 Peace Comes to the Longhouse 259 Epilogue 292 a p p e n d ix A Treaty of Fort Stanwix 297 a p p e n d ix B Haldimand Grant 299 notes 301 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 327 INDEX 345

Illustrations

Sir William Johnson 31 Samuel Kirkland 35 Colonel Guy Johnson 51 Joseph Brant 54 Philip Schuyler 77 Sir John Johnson 83 Daniel Claus 119 Fort Stanwix 130 Peter Gansevoort 133 Oriskany Battlefield Monument 137 John Stuart 148 Cornplanter 170 Red Jacket 173 Sir Frederick Haldimand 176 Sir Guy Carleton 177 John Sullivan 198 Fort Niagara 202 James Clinton 205 George Washington 221 Governor Blacksnake 271 The Marquis de LaFayette 275 Grave of John Skenandon 289 Monuments to Kirkland and Skenandon

MAPS

Iroquois Country, 1776 xii St. LawrenceChamplain Region 153 SullivanClinton Expedition

289

195

Preface

T h e r e has b e e n an increasing awareness in recent years that our minority

peoples have an important but long-neglected history. The role that var­ ious minorities have played in and the impact they have made on Ameri­ can life is just now becoming the subject of serious historical study. Amer­ ican Indians, the original inhabitants of the North American continent, were very rapidly engulfed by the flood of Europeans who moved steadily into their homelands. No white government— whether Dutch, English, or French— could ever ignore the Iroquois. Based in what is now central New York State, the Iroquois were the most powerful Indian group on the continent. Their Confederacy, while it did not always work perfectly and with unanimity, nonetheless gave them security within their own territory. Outside their territory, it made them nearly invincible. They held sway over the Indians to the west and the south. Their geographical location meant that they formed a bulwark against white advancement and also made them masters of the important waterways westward and northward. Clearly, they would be valuable allies and formidable enemies for any Eu­ ropean colonial power. When the American colonies split from Great Brit­ ain, a rivalry ensued between the American and British partisans to win the favor of the Iroquois, for both claimed to be heirs of the old BritishIroquois alliance. This book is the first full-length study of the Iroquois in the American Revolution. It examines in detail the diplomatic negotiations between the Six Nations and the British and American antagonists during the early years of the Revolution and reveals the severe pressures placed upon the Indians by their warring white neighbors. To understand why it was al­ most an impossibility for the Iroquois to remain neutral and why their Confederacy finally fragmented, one must examine the long and intricate relations of the Six Nations Indians with the whites and take into account the impact of white contact and culture upon Iroquois society. But this is only half the story. A full understanding of Iroquois history vii

viii

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

can be achieved only through a comprehension of the cultural foundations of the Iroquois people. The way of life and the governmental concepts of the Iroquois were as important as their changing economy for shaping their reactions to the tensions they experienced as a result of the American Revolution. How and why their kinship state, represented by the famed Six Nations Confederacy, broke apart as a result of the white man’s con­ flict and thrust the Iroquois into civil war are questions considered in the following pages. The symbol of the venerable League was still so strong at the end of the war that it served as a unifying force as the constituent tribes attempted to put together the pieces of their shattered Confederacy. Myth, tradition, and symbol played a significant role in the history and destiny of the Iroquois. Because of the nature of the topic, the emphasis of this study is strongly military and political, but not in the traditional sense. This is, rather, an ethnohistory, which relates the Indians’ culture to their attitudes and actions. Given the current emphasis in American historical writing, growing out of the present socio-political situation in the United States, some readers may be disappointed that this study does not discuss racial at­ titudes more fully. This is such a complex subject that I have chosen not to deal with it as a specific theme. It deserves an independent study of its own. Without a means of writing, the Indians of what is now the United States and Canada could record neither their ancient history nor the ac­ count of their confrontation and continuing relations with the European immigrants. Their history was oral, depending largely upon such mne­ monic devices as pictographs, notched reeds, and wampum strings and belts, as well as the memory of the elders. As a result, when one turns to writing the history of any of the Indian nations north of the Rio Grande, one is confined almost wholly to documents written by whites and from the white point of view. A few Indians in the Colonial and Revolutionary periods became liter­ ate in their own languages as well as English and French as a result of the linguistic work of the early missionaries. Some of these Indian documents survive, but it is unfortunate that there are so few of them yet in existence. Both in personal letters and brief memoirs and in the records of councils, the Indians tell their own story. Some of the letters of such significant fig­ ures as Mary Brant, Joseph Brant, David Hill, and John Deserontyon are available. Complanter and Blacksnake both dictated brief memoirs. The

PREFACE

IX

sentiments of Indians on issues of the times are also recorded in the letters and reports of army officers, Indian agents, and missionaries. The minutes of Indian councils are invaluable for learning the attitudes of the Indians and their responses to the pressures they were under. But, save for Blacksnake’s sometimes rather confused narrative of his war experiences, there is no comprehensive memoir of the war by an Indian author. One can only regret that the brilliant and literate Joseph Brant was never inspired to write his autobiography, or that Sayenqueraghta or Skenandon or Colonel Louis Atayataghronghta never had an amanuensis. Since history is the art of the possible, historians must work with the materials available and not spend too much time bemoaning what might have been. The Indian per­ sonal documents that do survive, though sparse, are immensely rewarding and help to give a new perspective to the story. The spelling of Indian names always poses a problem. There was no accepted standard of transliterating Indian words throughout the Colonial and Revolutionary periods, and even throughout much of the nineteenth century. The name of any particular individual or village or geographical location might be spelled several different ways, according to the prefer­ ence of the writer. There are sounds in the various Iroquoian languages which are impossible to represent exactly by using the ordinary English, or Roman, alphabet. Also, confusion arises when the English recorded the name of an individual from one tribe according to its pronunciation by an­ other tribe. For instance, the name of a particular Seneca would be pro­ nounced one way by his own people and another way by the Mohawks. Whenever Indian names occur in quotations, they are given exactly as written in the documents. In other instances, they are generally spelled ac­ cording to the standard established by Frederick W. Hodge. I have made some exceptions where I felt that another spelling was either more familiar or would be more understandable to the general reader. Also, where no modern spelling of an Indian name is available, I have retained the older form. Much more could be done toward a linguistically accurate rendering of some of these names, and perhaps some scholar, working with Iroquois informants, will undertake the task. I have made a compromise with the spelling of Kanowalohale, the Oneida castle. In this case, one of the older spellings has been retained rather than one which would please linguists. The English used a w in the middle of this word, probably because they did not know how to indicate the more correct glottal stop. The standard adopted by modern anthropologists is to use the collective singular form of the noun with the plural verb when designating an Indian tribe: thus, “the

X

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Mohawk are,” not “the Mohawks are.” Rather than follow the general an­ thropological usage, I have retained the ordinary English plural of tribal names throughout— first of all because it is the preference of the Indians themselves, and secondly because it seems more natural to me. The regular plural form was constantly used in the quoted documents. It would there­ fore be rather confusing to have two standards of terminology side by side in the pages of the same book. Thanks are due to those who shared with me their time and wisdom in the making of this book. Merle H. Deardorff of Warren, Pennsylvania, gave continued encouragement throughout all stages of this study and of­ fered important suggestions for the use of sources. Donald H. Kent of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and William N. Fenton permitted me to consult their files of documentary material gathered dur­ ing the course of their researches. Conrad M. Arensberg and Henry F. Graff of Columbia University, William N. Fenton of the State University of New York at Albany, and Chilton Williamson of Barnard College read the text and gave invaluable criticisms. Richard B. Morris and Alden T. Vaughan of Columbia University gave good counsel and encouragement in full measure. My thanks also go to the many librarians of the institutions cited in my Bibliographical Essay for their knowledgeable assistance, and to the American Philosophical Society for a grant from the Phillips Fund, which made possible travel for research.

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Prologue

W h en England and the American colonies came to the parting of the ways

in the mid-1770s, each realized the importance in any future conflict of the Indian nations who lived on the borders of the white settlements. To pre­ serve the friendship, or at least the neutrality, of these Indians became a major aim of the diplomacy and military strategy of both sides. One of the most significant of these Indian groups was the famed Six Nations Confed­ eracy, or League of the Iroquois. Both their military prowess and their strategic location made the Confederacy Indians an object of continued white importunity during the early years of the British-American struggle. For over a century, the Iroquois had been accustomed to thinking of the English as one people— the children of the Great King beyond the sea. Now that English unity had been shattered, the Indians had to make a seri­ ous adjustment in their own relationships with their white neighbors and carry on diplomacies with two governments, where only one had existed previously. Their task was a nearly impossible one. Any attempt on the part of the Iroquois to maintain friendly relations and trade with both sides only aroused the jealousy and suspicion of each side equally. If the Iroquois seemed to lean, or a portion of them did lean, more to one side than to the other, then the neglected party strongly reprimanded the way­ ward Indians, reminded them of past agreements, and warned against fu­ ture misdeeds. In these circumstances, isolation was impossible. The whites would not leave them alone, and, because of both historic economic dependence and geographic contiguity, they could not withdraw com­ pletely, ignoring the whites and their quarrel. When Europeans and Iroquois first met, they were as unlike in thought and culture as two peoples can be. The Iroquois way of life had, however, been severely modified in many respects by over a century of association with Europeans. The Indians were now strongly dependent upon the whites for trade goods and other benefits. Despite these ties, they still maintained many of their traditional ways, looked upon themselves as an

1

2

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

independent people, and sought to preserve their communities and terri­ tory against continuing white encroachments. Their government, both on the local and the Confederacy level, was based upon kinship ties. This type of government was now about to face its most severe crisis as it was subjected to intolerable stresses and strains because of the strife within the white man’s political state. Rivalry between warriors and sachems was an additional factor that would threaten the traditional kinship government. The business of the sachems lay in the realm of peace and civil affairs. The restless energy of the warriors and their constant seeking after prestige and power would fur­ ther overtax the structure of the Confederacy. Even as the Iroquois were products of their past, so, too, were they victims of the present. To the whites who dealt with them, they were fre­ quently inscrutable in their thoughts and unreliable in their commitments. Not surprisingly, the Indians held a somewhat similar view of the whites. Self-interest and cultural conflict played a continuing role in the relation­ ships between the two races. One cannot understand the Iroquois mind without understanding the historical and cultural forces that formed it. Though they had long been in contact with their white neighbors, they clung to many of the traditions of their forefathers, achieving through this heritage a common unity. Those whites upon whom they had become so dependent were not only a neces­ sity to them but, ironically, also a constant threat to their unity and contin­ ued security. The steady loss of their land aroused in the Iroquois a perva­ sive anxiety that they might one day be reduced to the humiliating circumstances of the remnant Algonkian tribes to the east of them. Cou­ pled with this anxiety was a resolve that this fate should never befall them. Unfortunately for the Iroquois, they were trapped by history and by their own limited vision. They never fully understood the whites with whom they dealt; and, in the end, they were unable to maintain their unity. When their land and power were gone, they turned back upon their culture and traditions to sustain them in their loss. The white man had won, but not entirely. He was never really able to overcome the Indian’s determination to be an Indian. The term “border” as used in this study refers to the boundary of set­ tlement between whites and Indians on the New York and Pennsylvania frontiers during the Revolutionary years. This border can be roughly de­ lineated by the “Old Treaty Line” drawn at Fort Stanwix in 1768. The fa­ mous Proclamation of 1763 established the Appalachian Mountains as the

PROLOGUE

3

line of demarcation between white and Indian settlement in an attempt to protect the Indians from the persistent encroachments of their white neigh­ bors. The proclamation thus attempted to secure the Indians in the posses­ sion of such of their lands that had not been duly ceded to the king or pur­ chased at his direction by his representatives. This geographical boundary as described in the proclamation was rather vague. Sir William Johnson therefore kept urging upon His Majesty’s government the negotiation of a more specific boundary, based upon the proclamation line. The result of these urgings was the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, presided over by Johnson as Indian superintendent. In exchange for lavish presents, the Six Nations agreed to make the British crown an enormous cession of land in central New York, Pennsylvania, and southward. The resulting boundary, which was supposed to protect the Indians, was also greatly beneficial to Johnson and his fellow land speculators. The border between whites and Indians was thus pushed farther westward as this newly acquired territory was gradually opened up for white settlement. The area of white habitation west of Albany County was organized on March 12, 1772, as Tryon County, named in honor of the royal governor of the Province of New York. White advancement westward had also en­ veloped the Mohawk Indians who lived along the Mohawk River. Their country now lay entirely to the east of the 1768 treaty line and “within the limits of New York,” as Guy Johnson expressed it when he drew his map of the Six Nations Indian Country in 1771. A pprtion of Oneida territory was now also inside Tryon County. This new county was subdivided into five districts from east to west as follows: Mohawk, Palatine, Canajoharie, Kingsland, and German Flats. On March 8, 1773, the areas of Kingsland District and German Flats District were interchanged by act of the legisla­ ture so that Kingsland then became the most westerly border of Tryon County. It was the tract along the Mohawk River that the immigrant settlers first sought out and cleared for farming. This region was therefore the area of densest white settlement in the county. Here was to be found some of the richest land and most productive farms in the whole Province of New York. It was primarily the area along the “Old Treaty Line” and the Mo­ hawk River that would bear the brunt of the border conflict during the American Revolution. Tryon County, with its numerous farms, rich grain fields, and thriving communities, was an inviting target for the Indian and Tory raiding parties that swept incessantly across its length and breadth

4

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

throughout the war. Then, after a brief but bloody existence, Tryon County as such passed into history on April 2, 1784, as the area it encom­ passed was given the more patriotic name of Montgomery County by the victorious Americans. So, too, the “Old Treaty Line” disappeared forever as whites pushed onward in ever increasing numbers after the war to fill up the former terra incognita that had once been the domain of the Six Nations. The Iroquois had tried and failed to keep their homeland forever inviolate. Confined to small reservations, they could but brood upon the infidelity of the Euro­ pean immigrants who had once sought their friendship and catered to their power and then had walked away with nearly their whole country.

I

The People o f the Longhouse

T he I roquoian - spea k in g p e o p l e s of the Northeast lived in a large ex­

panse of territory stretching from Lake Nipissing in the present Province of Ontario southward to the Susquehanna region of Pennsylvania. East and west they ranged from the Adirondack Mountains to the shores of Lake Erie. Some scattered bands of Iroquoian wanderers and hunters had pushed farther westward along the Ohio River and settled in that region, frequently intermarrying with their Algonkian neighbors. The Iroquoian ancestral homeland was completely encircled by peoples of Algonkian stock. So different were these Iroquoian groups in language and political structure from the surrounding tribes that they seemed to later white ob­ servers like a cultural island in the midst of an alien territory. The Hurons occupied the most northerly regions of any of the Ir­ oquoian peoples. Their home was south of Lake Simcoe in the peninsula region of Ontario. Immediately to the west of them, along the south shore of Georgian Bay, dwelt the Petun or Tobacco Nation; or, as they called themselves, the Tionontati. Farther to the south, along the Grand River and spreading east of the Niagara River, were the Neutrals or Attiwandaronk. They were “considered an old and parent body of all the Huron-Iroquois. Within one of their villages near the Niagara lived Ji-gon-sa-seh, ‘The Mother of Nations,’ a woman who was a lineal descendant of the ‘first woman of earth.’ ” 1 The Wenro were a very small Iroquoian group inhabiting western New York between the Niagara and Genesee Rivers. After 1638 they probably migrated westward and joined the Hurons. Along the southern shore of Lake Erie lived the Erie or Cat Nation, a group little known to whites because the Iroquois League destroyed them as an independent entity before any Europeans could reach their habita­ tion. They may have lingered on, however, as the group later known as Black Minquas.2 South of Lake Ontario were the five tribes comprising the Iroquois Confederacy or Five Nations. From east to west they were the 5

6

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Mohawks,* Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. The most south­ erly of the northeast Iroquois were the Susquehannocks or, as they were sometimes called, the Conestogas or Andastes. These eleven groups com­ posed the Iroquoian linguistic and cultural area of the Northeast. Far to the south there were other offshoot Iroquoian groups. The larg­ est were the Cherokees, inhabiting parts of Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. They were the most different culturally and linguistically from all other Iroquoian groups. Their material culture strongly reflected the in­ fluence of their southeastern environment, and their language bore the least resemblance to that of their northern brethren. The depth of this cleavage between the Cherokees and the northern Iroquois indicated a lengthy separation, of perhaps 3,500 to 3,800 years.3 The Tuscaroras, Nottaways, and Meherins occupied parts of North Carolina and southern Virginia. After their disastrous wars with the col­ ony of North Carolina in the early eighteenth century, the Tuscaroras gradually drifted northward and were adopted as the sixth nation of the Ir­ oquois Confederacy. When Jacques Cartier first explored the St. Lawrence River in 1535, he encountered an Iroquoian-speaking people living in the area of present Quebec City and Montreal. When Samuel de Champlain visited the same region in 1603, these Iroquoian people had vanished from the St. Law­ rence Valley. What became of them and why they left has been a problem which has given rise to many subsequent theories. The identity of these Laurentian Iroquois has always been debatable. They have been variously classed as Huron, Petun, Tuscarora, Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, and Onon­ daga by puzzled scholars. The archeological evidence for the area points toward a proto-Onondaga-Oneida culture, but the vocabularies collected by Cartier indicate a group distinct from either Oneida or Onondaga. It is possible that these Laurentian Iroquois were a small group living in close cultural relationship with the protohistoric Onondaga and Oneida but ethnically distinct from them. The Iroquois in the St. Lawrence Valley may have been driven out by the Algonkian hunters who had access to Eu­ ropean trade goods, especially weapons. The motive of the Algonkians could have been their desire to control the fur trade. Or, it is possible that these Laurentian people were driven out by other Iroquois who were eager to eliminate rivals in the fur trade.4 Undoubtedly repeating an Indian tradition which he had heard, the * “Mohawk” was an Algonkian term meaning “man eater.” The Mohawks’ term for themselves was Ganiengehaga, “Flint People.”

THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE

7

French coureur de bois Nicolas Perrot stated that the Iroquois country “was formerly the district of Montreal and Three Rivers” and that they had been driven thence southward after a quarrel with their Algonkian neighbors. Later generations of scholars accepted the Perrot narrative as verification that the Iroquois were not indigenous to the New York area but had migrated there from the St. Lawrence region. Still another view gave the Iroquois a southern origin. All the theories, however, favored a migration hypothesis to explain the Iroquois presence in the New YorkOntario region.5 It was not until most recent years that the development of a systematic archeological chronology for the prehistoric occupation of New York and more extensive excavations throughout the state began to reveal a grad­ ually emerging pattern of cultural continuity in the area of Iroquois occu­ pation. Finally in 1952, Richard S. MacNeish proposed a new hypothesis based upon the archeological evidence,- which has since become known as the in situ theory of Iroquois origins. According to MacNeish, the Iro­ quois had not migrated into the Northeast bringing an alien culture with them as they replaced the original Algonkian inhabitants. All the evi­ dence, rather, demonstrated that Iroquois culture was indigenous to the northeast area of their historic occupation and evolved over the centuries out of the preceding cultures in the same area. Subsequent excavations in both New York and Ontario have strongly reinforced the theory of local development of Iroquois culture.6 There were cultural affinities and kinship ties among all the northern Iroquois despite their shifting military alliances and intermittent hostili­ ties. The Oneida reminded the Huron about these old ties after the disas­ trous defeat of the latter: “Thou knowest, thou Huron, that formerly we constituted but one cabin and one country. By some chance we separated. It is time to unite again.” 7 These similarities can be detected in various aspects of the material and spiritual life of the Iroquois. The several lan­ guages spoken by all Iroquois tribes, for instance, have an obvious rela­ tionship, even though Cherokee is more remote.* Between some tribes, these linguistic relationships were almost as close as fraternal twins; be­ tween others, they were as remote as fifth cousins. The tribes of the Five Nations showed closer similarities in speech to each other than they did to the Huron. Even within this grouping, how­ ever, there were closer and more distant similarities. Mohawk and Oneida were the most closely related at the east end of the Confederacy and Ca* Cherokee was proved to be an Iroquoian language by J. N. B. Hewitt in 1887.

8

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

yuga and Seneca at the west. A Mohawk would not have too much diffi­ culty in understanding an Oneida, but he would most definitely need an in­ terpreter to understand a Seneca speaker. All of them would need an interpreter to understand the Huron. Huron and Petun spoke the same language. The Hurons, who called themselves Wendot, referred to the Neutral as Attiwandaronk, “people of a slightly different language.” The Neutrals reciprocated by also calling their Huron neighbors Attiwandaronk. The term used for those speaking an unintelligible language was Akwanake, “strangers.” 8 Iroquoian languages are what linguists term polysynthetic and incorpo­ rating. A number of words are merged into one, giving a composite word which signifies an entire idea. Consider the following examples from Oneida and Tuscarora. In Oneida, the word for fo x is skuhnaksw>. It may be analyzed as follows: skuhnaksu?— “the one it skin bad is” (the bad-skinned one) s— one characterized by ku— it (i)hn— skin aksu— bad ?— the glottal stop, which indicates verbal aspect, in this case the perfective aspect which signifies a certain state of being. The Tuscarora word for lantern is yachihri vthrat'ah. yachihri?thrat'ah— “one drags light with” (a light-holder or-carrier) ya— one (third person pronoun, singular, indefinite) chihri? (uhchihrah)— a light thra— drags t‘ah— in which, or, with (suffix). These samples may suffice to illustrate the amazing complexity of the Ir­ oquoian languages.9 The Iroquois lived in stockaded villages located usually in easily de­ fensible high places, near a supply of water. The log palisades were from fifteen to twenty or more feet in height, in single, double, triple, or quad­ ruple lines, interlaced, and then reinforced with heavy bark. A deep ditch might surround the palisades with the dirt being thrown up to form an em­ bankment next to the palisade. A bark battlement might also run along the top and, in time of war, be supplied with piles of stone to hurl down upon the enemy and jars of water to extinguish fires started by burning arrows. After 1600, when the power of the Iroquois Confederacy was at its height,

THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE

9

and particularly after 1700, with the end of the Iroquois wars, fewer of the inner villages of the Five Nations were heavily palisaded. A more modest type enclosure was all that was needed to keep the forest animals from scavenging in the village. Longhouses were the typical dwelling unit in Iroquoia, from Ontario through New York State. They might house single families or, more com­ monly, a number of families. A small hamlet might have only four or five of these bark lodges, whereas a large village might contain as many as one hundred twenty or more. The largest Huron village was reported to have had two hundred longhouses. The smallest houses seem to have been about twenty feet long, sixteen feet wide, and fifteen feet high. The average mul­ tiple-family dwelling was approximately sixty feet long, eighteen feet wide, and eighteen feet high. Many larger houses existed, however, especially in the more populous villages. The largest longhouse yet discovered was lo­ cated in a community in Onondaga County, New York, and measured three hundred thirty-four feet long by twenty-three feet wide.10 The houses consisted of a row of forked poles fastened into the ground about four or five feet apart. Cross poles were then secured to the forked tops of the uprights so as to form an arching roof. Rafters consisting of more slender poles were affixed to the roof frame, and the whole overhead was further strengthened by the addition of transverse poles. Large sheets of bark, which had been stripped from the trees in the spring when the sap was flowing, were now tied upon the frames, rough side out. The most fre­ quently used types of bark were cedar, elm, ash, basswood, fir, and spruce. An outer set of poles along the roof and sides of the house held the bark firmly in place. There were smoke holes in the roof at regular intervals, usually twenty feet apart. These were covered with a moveable piece of bark which could be opened or closed with a pole from below. The hearth on the ground below each smoke hole was shared by two families. “Big hearth” or “big fire” is the expression used even today by Tuscaroras to designate a big family. At each end of the house there was a door either of animal hide or of hinged bark which could be lifted up. Bunks along the inside wall served as beds at night and as benches during the day. An overhead shelf was used for storage. Braided strings of corn, dried fish, and other dried foods also hung on poles overhead. The house within was divided into a series of compartments to accommodate each family. Storage space was found in comers and in closets separating the compartments. The front of the house, over the door, was frequently adorned with carved or painted like-

10

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

nesses of the clan symbols of the families living within. These dwellings housed an extended matrilineage, that is, those clan members related on the mother’s side, with their spouses and offspring.11 Toward the end of the eighteenth century, the Iroquois began to build the same type of log houses used by the white frontier settlers. An occa­ sional well-to-do Indian would even build a frame house in imitation of his more affluent white neighbors. Bark houses survived to some extent well into the middle of the nineteenth century but gradually gave way to the sturdier dwellings copied from the whites. Among the Iroquois, agriculture was a woman’s business. The men co­ operated with the women in clearing the fields of trees and stumps, taking most of the heavy work upon themselves, but the responsibility for plant­ ing and harvesting rested entirely with the women. Corn, beans, and squash were the traditional Indian fare. Wooden and stone implements were the common tools for planting and tilling until, with the coming of European settlers, the Indian could obtain metal utensils. Large quantities of maize were grown, both for immediate use and for drying and storing for the winter and even for future years when the crop might fail. Corn was also an important item of trade with other tribes. The soldiers on Sul­ livan’s expedition through the Iroquois country in 1779 were constantly amazed by the extensive acreage and luxuriant growth of Indian crops. The Indian cornfields were particularly impressive to the American sol­ diers. In addition to maize, beans could also be easily dried and stored for future use. Squashes and pumpkins were either stored in a cool place or cut into strips and dried. The women and girls also gathered many wild berries, fruits, nuts, roots, fungi, and other edible woodland products. Sassafras roots, birch bark, spicewood, and hemlock twigs were steeped in hot water for use as beverages. Maple sugar or syrup were used as sweeteners. Sunflowers were raised to obtain the oil from the seeds. This oil had a variety of uses in cooking, as a hair dressing, as an aid in mixing pigments for tattooing, and for rubbing on the wooden masks used in the religious rites. Tobacco was also extensively grown and much prized, not only for smoking but for use in the religious rites. The masks used in the ceremoni­ als were consecrated by attaching small bags of tobacco to them. Also, to­ bacco was burned as an incense, carrying the prayers of the petitioners to the Creator. Tobacco also had the power to ward off evil. By the use of this plant, the Indian had communication with the spirit world. Hunting was the domain of the men, though wives frequently accompa-

THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE

11

nied their husbands on their hunting expeditions to attend to camp duties. The hunting season began in the autumn and continued until midwinter. There was also another hunt which took place in the early spring. Fre­ quently the men had to travel great distances away from the village on these expeditions and were gone for long periods of time. Deer, moose, bear, beaver, and elk were the popular game animals and were hunted with bows and arrows, hunting tomahawks, traps, and snares. Deer drives were also common and involved several hundred hunters at once. Hunters would march with great hullabaloo through the woods and chase the frightened deer into a stream or blind, where waiting hunters could easily pick them off. Small animals and birds were taken either with the bow and arrow or with snares. Fishing was an occupation of spring, summer, and fall. The men used either lines, weighted nets, weirs, or harpoons. Fish were dried and smoked in great quantities for winter use. Mussels were also dug and were an important item of Iroquois diet. The Iroquois recognized the existence of numerous supernatural beings. The two major forces in the universe were the famous Twin Boys. Creator, or Upholder of the Skies, was the Good Twin, who had brought forth all the good things upon earth— the cultivated plants, rivers, animals, and man. In translating his name into English, the whites called him the Great Spirit. The Evil Twin, or Flint, had created the poisonous plants, monstrous animals, and all sorts of impediments upon the earth. The Iro­ quois also recognized the existence of numerous' lesser spiritual beings. Some were good spirits, the servants of the Creator. Others were the sub­ ordinates of the Evil-Minded One. There are at least twenty-five recorded versions of the Iroquois Creation Myth. The first was recorded from the Hurons by Gabriel Sagard in 1623. J. N. B. Hewitt, ethnologist of the Smithsonian Institution, reproduced it in an extended version toward the end of the nineteenth century.12 With the exception of the Midwinter Rite, all the festivals of the Iro­ quois ritual calendar centered around the agricultural cycle. From the time the maple gave forth its sweet liquid in the early spring till the gathering of the harvest in the fall, the Iroquois had a series of thanksgiving obser­ vances to express gratitude for the gifts of the Creator. It was their belief, and a belief which endures to this day, that they had received supernatural direction to hold these ceremonials. One modern Seneca Faithkeeper ex­ plained the origin of the Green Corn Ceremony as well as the closeness that the Iroquois still feel to nature when he described the visit of one of

12

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the supernatural beings sent by the Creator to the people: “He told them that when the corn and other garden crops are usable, they must have a meeting and notify all the people to come and return thanks with dances for the green corn. . . . When you see that every crop is doing well, then set the date. They say that the people and the corn are sisters; now we like to be in the fields where the corn whispers to us as we work among it hoeing.” 13 In his thanksgiving rituals, the Iroquois spoke feelingly of the many gifts from the Creator which sustained him in his life. Our Grandparents the Thunderers bring the gift of rain. Our Grandmother the Moon is a helper to the Creator to light the path of people who are lost in the dark­ ness and to help them to measure time. Our Elder Brother the Sun warms the earth and gives beautiful daylight. Our Life Supporters, the Three Sis­ ters, the Spirit of Corn, the Spirit of the Bean, and the Spirit of the Squash, strengthen and sustain us. All these things our Creator did. We give thanks and “ask that it will continue in the same manner for the pe­ riod of another year.” 14 The Midwinter Rite, or “most excellent faith,” marked the beginning of the new year. It was held around the first part of February and lasted several days. All houses in the villages were visited in turn. This was the time of the stirring of the ashes upon the hearth in each house, perhaps symbolizing a new beginning. It was also the period when the dream­ guessing and dream-fulfillment ceremonies took place. In later years, a white dog sacrifice came to be associated with this festival. The practice was later discontinued. An animal pure white and without blemish was given to the Creator to demonstrate to him the continued faithfulness of his people. There is some indication that the white dog sacrifice was not originally associated with this rite, but was performed separately at other times of the year, to ward off sickness, or as a petition when starting off to war or as an offering of thanks when returning therefrom. The merging of the two ceremonies may have taken place at Onondaga in the mid-seven­ teenth century and diffused from there to the other tribes.15 All Iroquois society was divided into clans named after certain ani­ mals. The members of the clan did not consider themselves descended from their totemic symbol, so, the killing of this animal was not prohib­ ited. Descent was reckoned matrilineally and children belonged to their mother’s clan. Marriage within the clan was forbidden, for one would be marrying one’s relation. This prohibition extended even across tribal lines. A Seneca Bear clan member might not marry a Bear clan member from

THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE

13

any of the other Iroquoian tribes, for all those in the same clan were counted as brothers and sisters. There was thus a firm bond of brotherhood across tribal lines. The Turtle, Wolf, and Bear clans seemed to have been common to all the Iroquoian nations. Indeed, these were the only clans the Mohawk and Oneida possessed. Deer and Beaver clans were shared by the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Tuscarora. Various clans such as Heron, Hawk, Eel, and Snipe were present in some tribes but not in others. There is no known information available on the Susquehannock, Erie, Neutral, and Wenro tribes. The Jesuits made only oblique references to clans among the Huron, but they must have existed.16 The practice of matrilineal descent gave women a unique position. Each clan was entitled to a certain number of chiefs, and the matrons of the clans could appoint and depose these chiefs. The white wampum belts which indicated the hereditary names of the chiefs were kept by the women. When a chief died, he did not pass his title on to his son, for titles were hereditary only in the clan; the son belonged to his mother’s, not his father’s, clan. The chief’s title would be inherited by one of his brothers, or one of his sister’s sons, or another male member of his clan matron’s li­ neage. The mothers also had much influence with the warriors. During the American Revolution, Mary Brant, Mohawk widow of Sir William John­ son and herself a clan mother, was able to sway the wavering warriors and keep them loyal to the British. The women, usually through a warrior cho­ sen as their speaker, could always make their wishes known in council. Even an esteemed white woman living in Indian country could exercise un­ usual prerogatives, as did the Tory Sarah McGinnis when she prevented a wampum belt bearing news of an American victory over the British from going farther than her village. When the council could not agree on a cer­ tain issue, they referred the problem to the council of clan mothers. Among the Iroquois, the women thus had greater status and more control over the affairs of their nation than did the women of the European coun­ tries and their colonial settlements.17 The famous League of the Iroquois formed by the five tribes of New York State was an extension of the kinship principle to a larger group. It was a confederation based on kinship— a symbolic household. They called their confederation Ganonsyoni, which means “The Lodge Extended Lengthwise,” that is, a lodge that is “spread out far.” All the individuals and all the tribes of the Confederacy were considered as one family living together in one lodge. The Mohawks, dwelling farthest east, were Keepers

14

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

of the Eastern Door of the lodge, while the Senecas were the Keepers of the Western Door. The Onondagas, situated in the center, were the Fire Keepers as well as the Wampum Keepers. Onondaga was, therefore, the capital, where the Grand Council was held and the wampum records were kept. The local clan chiefs of each tribe meeting together as a unit were the federal chiefs of the League. The Mohawks, Onondagas, and Senecas were the Elder Brothers; the Oneidas and Cayugas, the Younger Brothers. The younger and elder brethren sat on opposite sides of the lodge and counseled across the fire with each other. The Onondagas sat in the middle and kept the balance between the two sides.18 The date of the founding of the League is lost in antiquity. Historians and anthropologists have made estimates that range all the way from 1450 to 1660.19 Indian tradition follows the earlier date and assigns the found­ ing to the work of two remarkable individuals. One was Deganawida, a Huron Indian adopted by the Mohawks. The other was Hiawatha, his spokesman, an Onondaga who was also adopted by the Mohawks. Hiawa­ tha bears no relationship to Longfellow’s fanciful hero. This chiefly title, which means, “He Was Awake,” is still hereditary in the Turtle clan of the Mohawks. These two leaders persuaded the Five Tribes to unite in a league of peace and friendship rather than to continue their destructive, in­ ternecine wars. The Tuscaroras were taken into the League in the early eighteenth century, making it the Six Nations.20 The League was organized with fifty chiefs whose titles have remained hereditary in the chiefly lineages of their respective clans. The civil chiefs are usually called sachems to distinguish them from the war chiefs. Some authorities claim there were only forty-nine rather than fifty chiefs.21 These chiefs were to be confirmed in their offices by the General Council of the League. Each tribe had an equal voice in the Grand Council even though the number of chiefs varied from tribe to tribe. Over the years, the council became more involved in matters of diplomacy, including war and peace, alliances with other tribes, and treaties with the European settlers on their borders. Chiefs were raised to office by means of the condolence council. Among the Iroquois, the condoling of those who had suffered loss by death was a profoundly meaningful and required ritual. It was performed in its simplest form on the family level to comfort the grieving members. The necessary “three words,” accompanied by wampum, were spoken by the ritual leader to wipe away the tears of the bereaved that they might henceforth see clearly, to unstop their ears that they might once more hear

THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE

15

the sounds of the world about them, and to remove the obstruction from their throats that they might be able to speak and eat normally. Then, with more wampum, the ritualist calmed the minds and soothed the aching bod­ ies of the grieving ones, covered the grave of the departed to protect it against the weather and the ravages of the forest animals, and replaced the light in the sky. Both the living and the dead were thus recipients of the loving care of the community. The condolence for a Royanehr, as a sachem chief was termed, embodied the same principle but was far more complex. A lord of the League had been lost but now was about to be re­ placed so that the Confederacy might endure.22 The Clear-Minded ones— the tribes who were to condole the brothers who had lost a chief—began their journey at their own longhouse and pro­ ceeded along the trail to the longhouse of the grief-stricken ones. During the journey, the singer intoned the Hai Hai, “the chant for going on the road,” naming all the chiefs who had been founders of the League. When they approached their destination, they halted at the clearing, and waited for the reception by the representative of the grieving tribes. There fol­ lowed the ceremony known as the Welcome at the Wood’s Edge. The mourners then proceeded to comfort the Clear-Minded with the “three words,” the first part of the Requickening Address. The Clear-Minded in turn comforted their grieving brethren with the same “three words.” Inside the longhouse of the Mourning tribes, the Roll Call of Chiefs was repeated and several hours of ritual followed. The Six Songs, including the Hymn of Farewell to the Dead Chief, were recited. Then came the chant, Over the Forest, calling upon the founders of the League and looking forward to the continuance of their great work: Hail, Grandfathers. Isn’t this what you decreed: In the far future this institution shall be carried on, that the law shall be continued by our grandchildren? Hail, Grandfathers! The second part of the Requickening Address was then recited so that the mourners might be comforted and that life might be restored to the dead chief in the form of the clansman who would take his place and bear his name. Finally, the new chief was installed in his office. The Confederacy was thereby strengthened. The League would endure. “Thus in the civil polity of the Iroquois peoples an office never dies; only its bearer dies. The name is one; the bearers are many.” 23

16

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

The condolence council eventually became the necessary ritual for the opening of all treaties. No diplomacy could be conducted, whether with other Indian nations or with the whites, until each side had been condoled for the loss of its dead. Then with their sorrow removed and their minds set at ease, they could proceed with the business which had called them to­ gether. Ideally, the League was supposed to act with one mind, but in practice, the strong pull of locality often prevailed. The League had been formed on the basis of the family, the clan, and the community. This was both its strength and its weakness. There were times when one or more of the con­ stituent tribes of the Confederacy would go their own ways and the princi­ ple of unanimity would consequently break down. Local autonomy was al­ ways preserved within the League, and upon occasion this autonomy would assert itself with unfortunate results. It has always been the fate of federalism to be plagued by the problem of states’ rights.24 One important aspect of Iroquois culture which must be noted is the use of wampum. These shell beads, in either white or purple, were used by the Indians variously as a mnemonic device, as a pledge of truthfulness, and as an indication of sacredness. Sacrificial victims captured in warfare were decked with wampum. Messengers from one tribe to another always spoke upon a wampum belt to indicate the truthfulness and official nature of their words. No formal message was acceptable without the accompany­ ing wampum. Strings of these beads were also used in the condolence rite. Both chiefs and clan mothers held wampum signifying their official titles. In formal negotiations between Indian nations or with representatives of the various colonial governments, wampum strings and belts were always exchanged. The white man found it necessary to adopt the Indian’s method of diplomacy in dealing with him. Wampum records, deposited at the League capital, were in the keeping of one of the Onondaga chiefs whose special function it was to care for them. Various officials were designated to remember the meaning of the different belts so that the speeches and agreements these records repre­ sented might never be forgotten. The wampum belts at Onondaga thus were the national archives of the Confederacy. There came a time, how­ ever, when the Iroquois found wampum belts and strings to be inadequate in their negotiations with the whites. At the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784, the Indians were extremely frustrated in their attempts to secure a written copy of the American commissioners’ speeches and the treaty, for the commissioners insisted that the wampum they had presented in council

THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE

17

should be sufficient. The use of wampum in their rituals, however, contin­ ues to be essential to the Iroquois down to the present day. The few wam­ pum belts that have survived the ravages of war and time are also still carefully preserved and their messages repeated from time to time. A more ferocious side to Iroquois nature was revealed in their warfare and particularly in their torture of prisoners. Types of warfare varied from that of the small war party seeking either prestige or revenge to the fullscale invasion of enemy territory by the warriors of one or more of the tribes acting in alliance. As agriculture was the affair of women, so hunt­ ing and fighting were the occupations of men. Skill in hunting, oratory, and warlike courage were the ideals of Iroquois manhood. From his earli­ est years, the Iroquois male had been trained in these skills. Young boys would spend their time practicing with toy bows and arrows, throwing hatchets, and playing at war and hunting. The men of the village fre­ quently occupied their leisure hours with athletics, hatchet throwing, and other amusements that would sharpen the eye, harden the muscle, and pre­ serve the skill of the warrior and hunter. In the field, whether hunting men or game, the Iroquois male was enured to hardship and displayed a stam­ ina and endurance that belied the epithet of indolence affixed to him by Europeans who watched him idling away his time in the village while his women worked. Cruel upon the warpath, he himself expected no quarter if captured and was prepared to suffer with equanimity the same tortures that he had meted out to prisoners in the past. Adoption of prisoners was a common practice among all Iroquoian peoples. The clan mothers played an important role in deciding whether captives would be adopted or killed. Adoptees took the place of lost rela­ tives and were treated as true members of the family. During the Iroquois wars of the seventeenth century, the tribes of the Five Nations adopted hundreds— even thousands— of alien captives, sometimes whole villages at a time. Hurons, Eries, Neutrals, and Susquehannocks, as well as various Algonkian tribes, mingled their blood with that of the Five Nations. Thus naturalized, these people became one with their former enemies. It was not only a means of replenishing a population depleted by war, but also of es­ tablishing a more lasting peace and ensuring the security of the League tribes by making their erstwhile enemies a part of their family. Sometimes an adoptee rose to a position of prominence and leadership in the tribe. The French Jesuit missionary Milet was adopted into the Wolf Clan of the Oneidas in 1689 to replace their sachem Hodashateh. The priest was also granted the sachem’s title and replaced him in the council.

18

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

He explained how the leading women of the tribe helped him to attain this high office: “Through the influence of the chief women, they showed me the friendship of giving me the place of a sachem who had died long be­ fore of disease, rather than of one killed in the attack on the French.” Very few adoptees wanted to return to their former people, since they had become fully integrated into the community. One of the most famous examples of a contented captive was Mary Jemison, “the White Woman of the Genesee.” Taken prisoner as a young girl during the French and In­ dian War, she was given by her Shawnee captors to the Senecas. There she was adopted and later married twice, the first time to a Delaware and after his death to a Seneca. She was thoroughly happy with the Indian mode of life and in later years preferred to remain among the Senecas rather than be repatriated to white society.25 The Hurons also adopted prisoners, particularly women and children, and treated them like their own offspring. These adopted captives showed great loyalty when grown, even to going out to war against the tribe into which they had been born. There was also a type of mock adoption among the Hurons which was really a preface to torture. A bereaved family would be given a prisoner to replace a lost member. This family would then, if it chose, “caress” (torture) the unfortunate victim, all the while ad­ dressing him with terms of kinship and endearment.26 The captive not fortunate enough to be incorporated into the tribe faced the most horribly excruciating death imaginable. The torture of pris­ oners and the cannibalism which followed the death of the victim were part of a religious ritual which was characterized by a fairly uniform pat­ tern from tribe to tribe. The variety of torments was restricted only by the ingenuity of the captors. A common and essential element was the plat­ form on which the victim was placed to be tortured. This was typical throughout Iroquoia, as were the death by knife just before the victim ex­ pired, and the eating of his body. This type of execution had certain paral­ lels to Aztec methods of torture, particularly in regard to the use of the platform, use of the knife in the final deathblow, and the interest in the victim’s heart.27 Burning was a common element in torture. The victim was frequently made to walk barefoot over fires, as well as being slowly roasted in other ways. Hot knives and hatchets would be applied to his body till his skin was in shreds. His muscles would be pulled out and pierced. Hot irons or splinters would be thrust through his limbs. His fingernails would be wrenched out, his fingers crushed, his flesh cut, his scalp removed. The

THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE

19

whole village— men, women, and children— would usually participate in torturing the prisoner. Most of the warriors bore up under these tortures courageously, some even hurling insults and defiance at their captors during the ordeal. If a man could endure his trial without shrieking out, he infuriated his tormen­ tors, who considered his silence a bad omen. After the death of a particu­ larly brave captive, the torturers sought his heart to eat and his blood to drink that they might also share his strength. A victim’s body was cut up after his death, cooked, and eaten in a ritual feast. Although these ritual tortures were always very shocking to the whites, the Europeans of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries still indulged in some severe practices of their own against condemned prisoners, such as drawing and quartering a victim and burning at the stake. Among primitive tribes that practiced cannibalism, the act was re­ stricted to special circumstances particularly relating to the destruction of enemies. Human bodies were not commonly consumed as food in the same manner as, or as a substitute for, animal flesh. Only in a time of extreme crisis and general starvation are there recorded instances of a resort to cannibalism to obtain food. After the destruction of the Huron villages by the Seneca and Mohawk warriors in 1649, a large body of refugees fled to Christian Island against the advice of the Jesuits, who saw that the mission could not possibly support the more than six thousand Indians who settled there. The winter took terrible toll, with disease and starvation causing hundreds of deaths. Some of the Hurons, in these distressing circum­ stances, turned to cannibalism to survive. In such extremities, however, even civilized people have resorted to this gruesome practice. A similar event took place in Jamestown colony during the great starving time. The resemblance between the human sacrifice and the white dog sacri­ fice is very close. The victim in either case was offered up on a pole or platform, had a collar of wampum hung about his neck, was burned, and was finally eaten in a ceremonial feast. An interesting account of the sub­ stitution of a dog for a human victim is recorded in the Jesuit Relations for 1642. A Huron warrior had dreamed of being captured and tortured by the enemy. To relieve his mind of the burden of the dream and cause its fulfillment by substitutionary means and thereby preserve the life of the warrior, a mock capture and torture was practiced on him. He was then al­ lowed to escape. “As he went out he seized a dog which was held there all prepared for him, put it at once upon his shoulders, and carried it among the cabins as a consecrated victim of which he made a public offering to

20

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the Demon of War, praying him to accept this semblance in place of the reality of his dream. And that the sacrifice might be fully consummated the dog was killed with a club, and then was scorched and roasted in the flames, and after all this was eaten at a public feast in the same manner as they are accustomed to eat their captives.” There is some indication that during the eighteenth century, the white dog sacrifice may have gradually been replacing human sacrifice.28 Methods of warfare changed over the years in response to changing conditions. While on the warpath, the Iroquois, including the Huron, wore armor made of wood. This protection was quite effective against primitive weapons of wood and stone, but became outmoded when the Europeans introduced iron-tipped arrows and firearms. The tribes of the Confederacy were able to adapt to changing military conditions, altering their tactics ac­ cordingly, and thus achieving a superiority in the field. In the early years, they had depended on protective body armor and bows and arrows. The use of firearms by their enemies forced the development of new tactics. They would pretend a retreat, thus drawing the enemy into a trap, turn and rush their foes before the latter could discharge their weapons. During this period, they retained their armor and used assault weapons such as short spears and war clubs for the charge. They also resorted to guerrilla warfare to waylay and destroy parties of the enemy. After 1640, the Confederacy Indians began to obtain firearms in small quantities from the Dutch. The Mohawks were particularly fortunate in this respect, being closest to the Dutch settlements. The Indians would charge down upon the enemy with these firearms, discharge them, and then pursue the scattering warriors who had been dispersed by the onslaught. The arquebus also proved to be a deadly weapon for devastating the trad­ ing canoes of the Huron. A few warriors, hidden along the banks, could send chain shot into the defenseless craft in the river and cause utter havoc to the Huron trading enterprise. With both sides increasingly using firearms, the Iroquois began abandoning their body armor. Later in the seventeenth century, the League Indians were obtaining more firearms from the English, who had seized New Netherlands from the Dutch. These Indians now developed a new method of warfare to adapt to new condi­ tions. They would strip down to loincloth and moccasins for battle to allow for greater freedom of movement, and would resort to sniper fire and extended battle lines, the better to envelop and demolish the enemy.29 War gave rise to the prominence of men who achieved their fame by ability rather than by inheritance. The title of sachem, the peace chief, was

THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE

21

hereditary within certain chiefly lineages of the various clans. Prestigious titles were thus restricted to certain reigning families. An ordinary man, however, might rise to note by merit alone if he had the proven qualities of courage and shrewdness required of a warrior. His achievements on the warpath would gain him much popularity at home as well as fame abroad among other tribes. The Iroquois Confederacy had only two hereditary war chieftainships, and these two titles belonged to the Senecas. They were Tawannea?rs, “Needle Breaker” or “Chain Breaker,” belonging to the Wolf Clan, and Sonosowa, “Great Oyster Shell,” of the Turtle Clan. Etym­ ologically, the word Sonosowa can also mean “Great Burden Strap.” When the League was organized, these war chieftainships were assigned to the Seneca tribe because, as Guardians of the Western Door, this nation would be the first to face the danger of an attack on the far frontier. These two men were in charge of planning the military operations of the League. They did not necessarily have to assume command in the field, however, unless they so wished.30 Once war had been decided, any ambitious individual was free to form a war party. Since the Iroquois were theoretically at war with any tribe not in alliance with them, small independent war parties were frequently form­ ing for individual action against stray members of these non-allied tribes. In such cases, a formal approval of the council for their endeavors was not sought by the warriors. An aspiring war leader or an already famous war chief would go throughout the village sounding the war cry. Then he would strike his hatchet into the war pole, recount his deeds of valor, and begin his war dance. Those who wished to follow him joined in the dance. A war feast followed. It was a sacred meal whose symbolism depicted the triumph of the warriors over their enemies. Fenton has pointed out that the eating of an animal head harkened back “to an earlier ceremonial cannibalism.” 31 The women had significant influence with the warriors and could fre­ quently make or break a war party either by their support or disapproval of the warriors’ enterprise. It was the women who provided the warriors with moccasins and charred corn pounded into meal and sweetened with maple sugar for their journey. The women also had the power to veto a war declaration by withholding these supplies.32 Indian warfare was, as a rule, very individualistic. In this respect, it contrasted sharply with the pattern of the whites, where soldiers recog­ nized obedience to superior officers and accepted the necessity of taking orders from those superiors. The highest white military officers, in turn,

22

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

took their orders from the rulers of the state. In white society there was thus a hierarchy of command. The Iroquois war chief, in contrast, ruled by persuasion, if at all. No better example of the rule of independent judg­ ment on the warpath can be pointed to than the behavior of the warriors in altering the defenses and tactics of their leaders just prior to the Battle of Newtown in 1779 (see Chapter VIII). The concept of authority in Iroquois and in white society thus differed radically. Among the Iroquois, there was more permissiveness from child­ hood up, and more inclination to recognize the merit of individual judg­ ment. Localism prevailed both politically and personally. This was not an­ archy or chaos, however, even though it often seemed so to frustrated white officers who had to depend upon Indian auxiliaries. Ritual and cere­ mony strongly reinforced Iroquois traditions to the extent that the latter had the force of law for the individual. External enforcers of law such as police and jails, which the whites depended upon, were lacking in Iroquois society. Obedience to the ethic and morality of the Iroquoian community was obtained through inner acceptance by the individual, whose decisions were always strengthened and guided by a knowledge of the traditions and a disinclination to face the disapproval of his neighbors. Whites who often despaired at what seemed to them the unpredictability of Indian allies failed to recognize that they and the Indians frequently had different mo­ tives for engaging together in a particular war and different goals to ful­ fill.33 The individualistic nature of the military enterprise was in contradis­ tinction to the over-all cooperative tenor of Iroquois culture. Nationally, the League was organized for the good of the whole and built on the theory of the mutual cooperation of chiefs, tribes, villages, and clans. De­ cisions in the Grand Council had to be unanimous. Civil leadership, how­ ever, was restricted to a very few. When the League was organized, the local clan chiefs of each tribe were made the Confederacy chiefs. The Mo­ hawks and Oneidas had nine chiefs apiece; the Onondagas, fourteen; the Cayugas, ten; and the Senecas, eight. The disparity was not recognized in the Grand Council, however, for there each tribe had one vote. Each one of these sachems was entitled to a sub-chief, who stood behind him, ready to act for him in event of emergency, but who had no voice in council. Theoretically, sachems and chiefs were supposed to be the most noble, the most virtuous, and the wisest men of their respective clans and tribes. As with any hereditary principle, however, this was only theoretical. The clan matron had a certain flexibility of choice, in that she could designate

THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE

23

any one of her sons, brothers, grandsons in the female line, maternal un­ cles, or sisters’ sons, to serve as sachem or sub-chief. Even with this lee­ way, the laws of genetics not infrequently worked to render all the eligible males in a certain chiefly lineage somewhat less than mediocre. It was par­ ticularly frustrating to men of ability to be cut off from positions of lead­ ership because of an accident of birth and to see leadership going to men with slighter talents than their own. Morgan believed that the most capable were deliberately barred from becoming sachems in order to keep this of­ fice from becoming too powerful and dictatorial. Talented individuals could, however, gain recognition and prestige on the warpath. To make a place for outstanding orators, war leaders, and other men of high ability, the sachems were finally prevailed upon to share some of their prestige by creating the office of Pine Tree Chief. This was an elective office and not hereditary like that of the sachems. Initially, Pine Tree Chiefs were to serve as advisers to the sachems, but gradually through the years began to extend their influence. Many of them, like Red Jacket, became far more noteworthy than the sachems. A successful war­ rior who had become a war chief enjoyed great popularity and great influ­ ence within his tribe and across clan lines, for military activity was not cir­ cumscribed by clan affiliation. Under the impact of European contact, the Confederacy was subjected to new stresses and strains. Rivalry with surrounding tribes was intensified; and the Five Nations, either individually or collectively, were pressured to join in alliance with one European power or another. Militarism then be­ came a way of life for the Iroquois, and the old cooperative principle began to break down. During this period, the war chiefs came into pre­ dominance over the sachem chiefs. It was the war chiefs that the Europe­ ans regarded as tribal leaders, and it was usually the war chiefs, not the sachems, who affixed their marks to the treaties with the respresentatives of the colonial powers.34 The coming of the Europeans wrought profound changes in the lives and attitudes of the Iroquois. These Indians were in the Stone Age when the European settlers first met them and had developed skills that well adapted them to their way of life. With the acquisition of superior Euro­ pean metal implements, the Indians rapidly lost their old skills in fashion­ ing stone and bone implements. The metal knives, axes, hoes, awls, nee­ dles, and kettles of the whites were fast becoming necessities. No longer did the Indian need to fell trees by the laborious method of girdling and burning. The nearly unbreakable brass and iron kettles meant an end to

24

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the formerly important occupation of pottery making. Muskets and rifles seemed to have become essential for hunting as well as for warfare, and unfortunate indeed was the tribe that was lacking in these weapons when attacked by well-armed enemy Indians. As he lost his old skills, the Indian leaned more and more heavily on trade with the whites to secure his needs. In truth, not only did he now need these goods, but he needed the white man with his skills to repair his guns and hoes and sharpen his axes. The frontier blacksmith and gunsmith performed an essential service not only for the Indians but for the white community in keeping the neighboring Indians loyal. It was no longer pos­ sible for the red men to go back to the old way of life, for the old way had been severely modified. The white man had now become a necessity for the Indian. The relationship, however, was a reciprocal one. The Indians were en­ listed as allies in the European imperial struggles and as trappers to secure furs to meet the demands of European fashion. The red men traveled far afield to bring in peltries to the trading centers and receive valued com­ modities in return. The intense rivalries for trapping and trading rights now caused fierce struggles among the various tribes. When the beaver supply was exhausted in the country of the Confeder­ acy after 1640, the Iroquois were in difficult straits. After several years of scattered raiding and fruitless negotiations, the Mohawks and Senecas, in an attempt to open up new fields of supply, turned upon the Hurons in 1649 in a concerted attack that thoroughly demoralized this populous tribe and sent it into a rapid decline. It was the misfortune of the French to be allied with the Hurons rather than the Five Nations, and the demise of France’s red allies could only strengthen the European power fortunate enough to hold the friendship of the Iroquois Confederacy. Throughout the mid-seventeenth century, the Confederacy tribes waged war on all the non-League Iroquoian tribes, either to protect their trade or to secure their borders against aggressive enemies. The Confederacy Iro­ quois were in a geographically favorable position, wedged as they were be­ tween the French in the North and the Dutch, and later the English, in the East, and commanding the waterways both northward and westward. Their location thus allowed them to act as middlemen in trade between the far western and northern Indians and the European settlers. Their own wealth and power increased accordingly. Their easier access to firearms as a result of their closeness to Albany also gave them a military advantage over their Indian rivals and even made their white neighbors uneasy. The Dutch au-

THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE

25

thorities of New Netherlands had attempted to discourage the trade in firearms with the Indians to the extent of making it a capital offense. Favored as they were by geography and internal unity, the Confeder­ acy tribes were destined to increase in power and in military importance. In the seventeenth century, the Confederacy destroyed, dispersed, or incor­ porated the Hurons, Petuns, Neutrals, Eries, and Susquehannocks. The military successes of the Five Nations left them in a strategically strong position. They were thus able to play an immensely important role in the European power struggle. Even their neutrality in any specific conflict was significant, for it removed a potential menace from the frontiers of one or the other contending European powers.35 After the British colonies had raised the standard of revolt in 1776, the Iroquois were subjected to intolerable pressures to choose sides. In so choosing, they tore their Confederacy apart. It was the tragic paradox of the Iroquois that they could no longer do without the presence of the white man, but in that dependence lay the seeds of their destruction.

II Forging an Alliance

W h en the English took over the colony of New Netherlands from the

Dutch, they also inherited the friendly relations the Dutch had maintained with the Iroquois. The proximity of the English to the Six Nations coun­ try, the importance of Albany as a trading center with the Indians, and the lower cost of English goods as compared with French manufactures were factors of prime importance in drawing the Iroquois into the English orbit. For the next century, until the close of the French and Indian War in 1763, the Iroquois were profoundly involved in the imperial rivalries be­ tween the English and French. Both these European powers sought alli­ ances with the Iroquois, who held a central and strategic position on the continent and who held sway over the tribes to the west. The Iroquois themselves were not hesitant to make alliances first with one then the other of these European nations, in an attempt to keep the balance of power for themselves and secure favorable trade arrangements. The major diplomatic tactics used by both the French and the English to keep the Iroquois in alliance involved trade and religion. Trade was ab­ solutely essential to both whites and Indians. The whites desired primarily the peltries, which the Indians exchanged for the goods that had become requisite to their way of life. In this politico-economic struggle, the mis­ sionaries were looked upon by both French and English as ambassadors for their respective countries to the Indians. They were expected to be not only spiritual mentors but patriotic propagandists and persuaders for the countries they represented. Religion was thus made to serve the imperial ambitions of the European powers.1 Iroquois relations with the French and with the Indians in alliance with the French caused a condition of alternate peace and war as both the French and Iroquois sought to control the fur trade with the western Indi­ ans. In 1666 the French were at war with the Mohawks and even invaded their country. At the conclusion of peace, the Mohawks requested that the French send missionaries to their village. This was the beginning of Jesuit 26

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

27

missionary endeavor not only among the Mohawks, but also among the Onondagas, Oneidas, and Cayugas. Despite the peace and the missionary efforts, however, the French found that they were still unable to control the Iroquois or to break their middleman status in the fur trade with the western Indians. Valued peltries were going to Albany instead of Montreal in exchange for trade goods which the Iroquois carried from the English to these far Indians. The Iroquois also in 1679 and 1684 had placed themselves and their country under the protection of the British. This arrangement gave rise to later misunderstanding, since the British placed the broadest possible meaning on it by considering the Iroquois to be “subjects” of the king. For the Iroquois, the action symbolized a protective military alliance only and was not meant to deprive them of their territory or independence. In 1687, Denonville, the governor of Canada, conducted a retaliatory raid into the Seneca country but succeeded in nothing more than destroy­ ing the Seneca castle. Two years later, fifteen hundred Iroquois warriors retaliated for this raid by destroying the settlement of Lachine near Mon­ treal, slaughtering the inhabitants, and devastating the countryside all along the river. Further French raids into Iroquois country were made in 1690 and 1696. After 1697, however, with the end of King William’s War, the Iro­ quois could no longer depend upon British support against the French. They therefore sought treaties of peace and friendship with both sides and achieved a satisfactory rapprochement with both the French and English in 1701. The French invited the Iroquois to trade at Detroit, and the Iro­ quois promised in return to be neutral in any war between France and England. An Iroquois delegation at Albany also conducted negotiations with the English which resulted in the noted “Deed from the Five Nations to the King of their Beaver Hunting Ground.” This was the land north and northwest of Lake Erie, which the Iroquois claimed to have conquered eighty years previously. The king of England, in exchange, was to protect and guarantee the hunting in that area to the Five Nations, their heirs and descendants, forever. The compromise meant that the French no longer disputed Iroquois right to the beaver-hunting territory and would refrain from invading Iroquois country in any future war with England if the Five Nations maintained their promised neutrality. On the other side, the Eng­ lish agreed to protect this land for the Iroquois against the French and even drive the French out for the benefit of the Iroquois. The Five Nations

28

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

thus achieved a balance of power between the French and English by means of these 1701 treaties.2 The English saw that much political benefit was to be derived from having a mission among the Iroquois to counteract the influence of the Jes­ uits. In 1704, accordingly, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG) sent Thoroughgood Moore as the first Anglican missionary to the Iroquois. His work would be among the Mohawks— the most easterly of the Iroquoian tribes. The Mohawks, however, delayed over a year in giv­ ing Moore permission to settle in their country, and the missionary became so discouraged that he asked the SPG for a transfer to a more promising field. Despite this inauspicious start, this was to be the beginning of an ongoing Anglican mission to the Mohawks which exists to the present day. This early effort was eventually to result in the conversion of large num­ bers of this influential tribe and to play a significant role in their subse­ quent attachment to the British.3 In 1710 came the famous visit of the Indian chiefs to England and their reception by Queen Anne. Among them was Thoyanoguen, or Hen­ drick, one of the most outstanding Mohawk leaders. The others were John Brant, and Etowa Caume. The latter was a River Indian, from one of the Algonkian tribes. Brant was believed to have been the grandfather of the noted Revolutionary warrior, Joseph Brant. The visit was significant in that these chiefs pledged their support to the English and also requested that the queen send them missionaries. The latter request was approved and passed along to the SPG for action. The queen also made the Indians a gift of four Bibles and a prayer book. She likewise donated a set of com­ munion plate for the Mohawk Chapel which she had ordered built. The plate, still preserved among the Mohawks, was engraved with the mon­ arch’s cipher and coat of arms and the notation, “The Gift of Her Majesty Anne, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland and of her Plantations in North America, Queen, to her Indian Chappel of the Mohawks.’’ A fort was later built for the protection of the chapel and its mission­ aries from hostile Indians and was named after Governor Hunter of New York. The fort and chapel stood beside the lower Mohawk castle called Teyawendarokough. A school was connected with the mission so that chil­ dren could be taught to read and write in their own language. This mission served all four of the Mohawk communities, with a total population of about five hundred eighty. William Andrews, missionary to the Mohawks in 1713, listed their villages and respective populations at that time as fol-

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

29

lows: Teyawendarokough, three hundred sixty; Canajoharie and Anadagie together, about one hundred eighty; Eskahare, about forty. Canajoharie and Anadagie were four miles from each other. Eskahare, or Schoharie, was twenty-four miles from Fort Hunter.4 During the three intercolonial wars of the eighteenth century, (Queen Anne’s War, 1701-13; King George’s War, 1744-48; French and Indian War, 1754-63), most of the Iroquois preserved a neutrality. Never at any time was the Confederacy to act in complete unanimity in these wars be­ tween the French and English until toward the end of the French and In­ dian War, and even at that period, the cooperation with the British was not always wholehearted. Only the Mohawks seemed to be thoroughly de­ pendable as British allies. The British were able to prevail upon some of the Mohawks to take up the hatchet during Queen Anne’s War. The Sene­ cas remained strongly under the influence of the French. The same pattern was repeated during King George’s War. Toward the end of this latter conflict, however, a young Irishman named William Johnson came into prominence in Indian affairs. His knowledge of the Iroquois and his influ­ ence over them would be one of the greatest factors in securing the alle­ giance of the Six Nations and particularly of the Mohawks to the English crown. William Johnson had come to America at the age of twenty-three to manage the estates that had been purchased by his uncle, Admiral Peter Warren. Warren’s lands were situated just south of the Mohawk River. This happy coincidence would bring the young Johnson into close associa­ tion with the Mohawk Indians. He learned their customs and their lan­ guage, and even took to himself a series of Mohawk women by whom he had a number of children. Johnson had taken as his concubine his inden­ tured servant, Catherine Weisenburg, by whom he had three children. He marrièd her on her deathbed. His Indian wives were probably married to him according to Indian custom. Johnson never recognized the legality of these marriages, however. In his will, he referred to his last “wife,” Mary Brant, as, “my House Keeper.” In naming his Indian children in the same will, he used such expressions as the following: “I Devise and Bequeath unto Peter Johnson my natural Son by Mary Brant, my present House­ keeper. . . . To George my natural Son by Mary Brant.” 5 In 1746 Johnson was made Commissary for Indian Affairs. On Au­ gust 28 of that year, he was made “Colonel of the Forces to be raised out of the Six Nations.” Through his persuasion, several Mohawk war parties went to Canada. A few years after the end of the war, he was appointed to

30

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the Provincial Council, the upper house of the legislature, and thus became an influence in white man’s politics as well as in Indian diplomacy. It was probably sometime in 1753 that he first met and courted young Mary Brant, granddaughter of Chief Hendrick. She was from one of the very prominent Mohawk families and was later made a clan mother— or one of the female governesses of the nation. It was through her and her family connections that Johnson was enabled to manage the Six Nations so successfully in subsequent years.6 During the French and Indian War, which was the last of the great in­ tercolonial wars, the Iroquois showed strong reluctance to break their neu­ trality. Despite their old alliance with the British, there was no immediate inclination to join with them in warring against the French. Indeed, if any­ thing, there was a tendency to accommodation with the French as a result of the early successes of that country against the English in America. The defeat of General Braddock in July of 1755 was especially impressive to the Iroquois. William Johnson, who had been appointed superintendent of Indian af­ fairs by Braddock, succeeded in overcoming Iroquois reluctance to the ex­ tent of getting them to contribute four hundred warriors to his expedition to Lake George. They were led by the faithful Mohawk chieftain Hen­ drick, then approaching his eightieth year. Johnson also had with him thir­ ty-four hundred militia. The French commander, Baron Dieskau, headed a force of thirty-two hundred French and Indians, intent upon stopping the English. With fifteen hundred men he set out to take Fort Edward; then, hearing of the English army at Lake George, modified his plans and pre­ pared to attack this force instead. Johnson dispatched a thousand men under Colonel Ephraim Williams and two hundred Indians under Hen­ drick to intercept Dieskau. With eloquent brevity, Hendrick protested: “If they are to fight, they are too few; if they are to die, they are too many.” His counsel was overridden, and the relief column proceeded to Fort Ed­ ward. Both Williams and Hendrick met their deaths in that battle. Johnson and his reserves held firm against the French assault, however, and finally gained the victory. Dieskau was captured. As a reward for his services in this campaign, Johnson was made a baronet and had his superintendency of Indians confirmed by the crown. Johnson’s modest victory did not send the Iroquois rushing to arms for the English. In December of 1756, a delegation from all the Iroquois tribes except the Mohawk went to Montreal to reaffirm their friendship with Onontio, as they called the Governor of Quebec. The French had

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

31

S ir W illiam Johnson. Painted by Edward L. Mooney in 1838, after an origi­

nal by Thomas Mcllworth. During his lifetime, no white man had a greater influence with the Six Nations Indians than Sir William. C o u r te s y o f T he N e w - Y o r k H is to r ic a l S o c ie ty , N e w Y o rk C ity

32

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

even greater success with the Senecas for they had built a fortified trading post at Niagara and were thereby able to hold this nation very much under their sway. Some of the Seneca warriors had even taken up the hatchet against the English. Johnson despairingly wrote to Edmund Atkins on June 21, 1757, “Our 111 Success hitherto hath intimidated them. . . . In short, without some striking Success on our Side, I believe they will not join us.” 7 The Iroquois were willing to join in the war on either side but wanted the battles fought far from their homeland. They were opposed to any ex­ pedition through their own country. By 1759, all this had changed and the Iroquois were eager to welcome a British expedition through their lands to conquer Niagara. The reduction of Louisbourg, Fort Frontenac, and Fort Duquesne by the British all helped the Iroquois to reassess their position. A French ship laden with Indian trade goods had also been lost at sea while English goods were still available at Albany. During the twilight of French power in the New World, it seemed wise to be on the winning side. The Iroquois thereupon joined in the expedition against Niagara. Even at this battle, though, only the Mohawks held firm to the British throughout. The other tribes who were present as British allies hesitated joining actively in the hostilities until they were certain what the outcome of the battle would be.8 The defeat of the French and their withdrawal from Canada at the end of this war left the Iroquois with little choice but to attach themselves un­ reservedly to the English. They could no longer play the two European na­ tions off against each other to their advantage. The British rather than the French now held the forts to their rear. They were gradually becoming en­ circled by the English with no counterweight save their own Indian allies. There was no immediate threat from the British in the minds of most of the Confederacy, however. In April of 1762, Sir William Johnson held a congress with the Six Nations at Johnson Hall. He offered to them a huge belt of wampum rep­ resenting “the Antient Covenant Chain” between the Six Nations and the English, promising that the English would keep it “entire and unbroken” so long as the Indians held fast to their old promises to be faithful allies of the king. The Senecas asked forgiveness for their past behavior in being led astray by the French and promised future fidelity to the British. The other nations likewise pledged their continued support to their British brethren.9 The Senecas let go the Covenant Chain the very next year. They did

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

33

not easily give up their French predilections or their attachment to the western Indians. A portion of them joined with Pontiac in his war against the English in 1763-64. The uprising failed, and in 1764 the Senecas came to the great congress at Niagara to make their peace and receive a strong rebuke from Sir William. Again they took hold of the Covenant Chain. The noted Seneca warrior Sayenqueraghta addressed Johnson in the formal and traditional council style as he buried the axe forever in obliv­ ion: “Our Younger Brothers of Cayuga yesterday buried the Axe they had struck you with, but they did not cause a Stream to run under the Tree so as to carry it away, we now take the Axe with which we Struck you at the instigation of the French, and we bury it under the same tree with that of the Cayugas causing a Great Stream to run under the Tree; and Carry the Axe into the Ocean, so that it may no more be found.” 10 Pontiac came to Oswego in 1766 to make his peace with the English. Johnson would now be able to conduct his Indian diplomacy in tranquility in the years ahead. The French had been defeated and deprived of control of Canada. The threat to the northward was thus removed. No longer would the British colonies be in danger of French invasion and no longer would the Indians be enticed by the French to strike their English neigh­ bors. All signs ostensibly pointed to a firm alliance of the Iroquois with the British in the future. Certain unforeseen factors would cause a breach in this alliance and even disrupt the Confederacy itself. The groundwork for this division was laid with the introduction of New England missionar­ ies among the Iroquois. Missionaries from New England labored among the Oneida and Tuscarora nations beginning in the 1760s. A mission was also established at New Stockbridge when the remnants of the Moheconnuck or Stockbridge Indians were granted permission by the Oneidas to settle in their territory. Onoquaga, a Tuscarora-Oneida-Mohawk settlement on the Susquehanna River near the Pennsylvania border, the main Oneida castle of Kanowalohale,* New Stockbridge, and later Brothertown were the New England mission stations among the Iroquois and transplanted New England Indi­ ans. The so-called Brothertown Indians were the remnants of six New England and Long Island tribes. Their missionary was the Mohegan, Sam­ son Occum. Indians trained at Eleazar Wheelock’s school in Connecticut * “Kanowarohare” is the way Kirkland, James Dean, William Johnson, and others wrote the name of the Oneida castle, though this is more closely the Mohawk than the Oneida pronunciation. In Oneida, the r becomes an /. More accurately, it is: Kanö?alohale?, “skull impaled on end of a pole."

34

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

as well as whites were sent among the Iroquois to preach the Gospel and establish schools. One of the most noteworthy and influential of these missionaries was Samuel Kirkland, a native of Connecticut and a protégé of Eleazar Wheelock. Kirkland had been trained both at More’s Indian Charity School in Lebanon, Connecticut, and at the College of New Jersey. He was a “Pres­ byterian,” as the Connecticut Congregationalists called themselves, and a strict adherent of New Light principles.* His early desire to be a mission­ ary among the Indians of the Six Nations was enthusiastically endorsed by Sir William Johnson. He began his work among the Senecas in 1764. After nearly two years with this far nation, he went to live with the Oneidas where he spent the remainder of his life. Kirkland once confessed to a friend, “I have from my youth up had a peculiar affection for Indians.” 11 This love of his adopted people was the strength that was to carry him through many years of trial and discourage­ ment among them. His labors among both the Oneidas and their depen­ dents, the Tuscaroras, would gain him much affection among these people and make him a key figure in Indian diplomacy just prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution and during the early war years. This New England Puritan with Patriot sympathies who was held in such high es­ teem by a large section of the Six Nations would then become a cause of great anxiety to Sir William and his successors in the British Indian de­ partment. When Kirkland first arrived among the Oneidas, he was provided for by the Montauk Indian schoolmaster David Fowler and his wife Hannah. The Fowlers were both Christian Indians who had received their education at Wheelock’s school. Fowler acted as Kirkland’s interpreter until the min­ ister learned the Oneida language. Kirkland was not long in making his influence felt among the Oneidas. One of the major problems of the Indians was drunkenness. So serious was the Oneida behavior in this regard that Kirkland laid down an ultimatum only a few months after his first arrival among them. On December 13, 1776, he assembled the members of the village and proposed that they henceforth eschew their tippling and agree to certain control measures. He proposed a committee of six or eight of the chief men to assist him in en­ forcing temperance. These men would be empowered to seize any liquor * After the adoption of the Saybrook Platform in 1708 and the establishment of a semi-Presbyterian consociation form of church government, the Connecticut Congre­ gationalists commonly referred to themselves as Presbyterians.

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

35

Samuel K irkland. Long-time missionary to the Oneidas and Tuscaroras, he challenged the Johnson dynasty as the war approached and succeeded in keeping a large part of these two tribes loyal to the Americans. C o u r te s y o f H a m ilto n C o lle g e , C lin to n , N e w Y o rk

imported into the community and to destroy it. If the Indians did not agree to his request, he would terminate his mission with them. The Oneidas discussed the measure for four days and, finally esteeming their minister's services and his desires for their welfare more highly than their attachment to firewater, they acceded to his demands and unani­ mously appointed eight men nominated by the missionary as guardians of the sobriety of the village. The plan commenced with every promise of suc­ cess as the Indians proved resolute in resisting the temptations of De­ mon Rum. Some eighty kegs of the potent liquid were carried through the town from time to time in the few months following the agreement, of­ fered for sale, and, upon occasion, even offered free of charge to the Indi­ ans. With Spartan courage, they stoutly declined, informing their would-be temptors: “It is contrary to the minister’s word, and our agreement with

36

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

him.” There would be serious lapses in the future, but the arrangement demonstrated the strength of Kirkland’s influence even in the early years of his ministry.12 In 1769 Kirkland married Jerusha Bingham, a niece of Wheelock’s, and took her with him to Oneida in January of 1770. The Indians came from great distances to greet her and, with affectionate humor, to congrat­ ulate her on having become the mother of a whole nation in such a short time. Her work among the women of the tribe in the succeeding months and years was particularly outstanding. As a help-meet to her husband both in the home and in his ministry, she was indispensable, and the Indi­ ans developed a great attachment to her.13 Both the Oneidas and nearby Tuscaroras showed great interest in the Christian religion, and the congregations more than once found Kirkland’s sermons moving to the point of tears.14 Numbers often came from other villages to hear him preach. On one Sunday in February 1770, for in­ stance, the missionary had a congregation composed of Indians from five different villages, representing three different dialects. One Indian had traveled eighteen miles to be there for morning worship. So crowded was the place of meeting that a number were compelled to stand outside in the snow during the three-hour long worship service.15 Nor was this inconven­ ience an unusual occurrence. By 1771, Indians from seven different villages were attending Kirk­ land’s meetings, and he himself had a circuit of five or six villages where he preached. The meetings were frequently crowded. On communion days, there were three or four hundred present; because of Kirkland’s strict ad­ missions policy, however, the actual number of communicants always re­ mained very small. Only regenerate persons were admitted to church mem­ bership, and only those in a state of grace were permitted to receive communion.16 Kirkland’s strict standards on baptism caused uneasiness and resent­ ment later on among those Indians who had previously been taught by Roman Catholic and Anglican missionaries that baptism was essential to salvation. He insisted that only the regenerate and the children of the re­ generate were fit subjects for baptism. Good Puritan and adherent of New Light principles that he was, he would never be swayed on this point, even when an infant was on the point of death. The minister regularly preached three times on Sundays, unless too ex­ hausted from his morning labors to give the evening lecture. He also preached and catechized several times throughout the week. The meetings

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

37

were often long and frequently fatiguing— to the minister if not to the con­ gregation. A sample of Kirkland’s religious labors was recorded in his Journal for Monday, December 26, 1774: Preached both parts of the day by the desire of some from John 3-19. . . . I also lectured between meetings. I have had but half an hour re­ treat from eight in the morning to ten in the Evening— yet I feel as if I had done nothing for God— am not only an unprofitable but an unskilful servant.17 The endurance of the Indians must have been monumental. These eve­ ning gatherings were very often prolonged until midnight.18 Kirkland’s su­ periors, in reading these accounts in his Journals, censured him for sub­ jecting the Indians to meetings of intolerable length. The Indians, however, assured Kirkland that since the followers of the traditionalist religion spent many hours at a time attending their ceremonies, Christians could not do less to honor their God. The minister attempted to explain to his overseers the Indians’ feelings regarding these long discussions: “These nocturnal conferences will undoubtedly be condemned by those who are unaquainted with Indians, and my situation among them. When their minds are more than usually engaged to inquire into any important subject, their feelings would be very much hurt by my refusing to discuss it with them as long as they desired; and the subject itself perhaps would never after be revived.” 19 Not only were the Oneidas and Tuscaroras receptive to adopting Christianity, but to education and improved agricultural techniques as well. Deacon Thomas, one of Kirkland’s Indian assistants, catechized in Kanowalohale and two other villages. He also taught school for a while at the Tuscarora settlement of Kanadesko. The members of the latter village were eager to have their children taught in their own language and toward the end of December 1770, petitioned Kirkland for a regular schoolmaster and catechist. The people at Kanowalohale also were being educated by Kirkland along other than religious lines. The minister had purchased both carpenter’s tools and farming implements, not for himself alone, but with the intent of encouraging the Indians in these pursuits. He had the satisfac­ tion of seeing his desires become a reality. These utensils were used in common by the whole town. More use was made of them by the Indians in a week or a month than Kirkland himself had “occasion for in a whole year.” 20 The importance of Kirkland’s ministry was also manifest on the per-

38

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

sonal level. He was kept busy in settling quarrels and in counseling those in distress because of personal enmities. “Every little petty difference in family, or between Relations must be brought to me” for reconciliation, he commented. The frequency with which the Oneidas resorted to the minis­ ter’s services would indicate a lack of any means in the culture of coping with these problems. The clan had traditionally been the vehicle of right­ ing wrongs, particularly in regulating and diverting blood revenge. But for settling family difficulties and personal differences, neither the clan struc­ ture nor the Iroquoian religious system was adequate. Kirkland affirmed that dealing with the “complaints, injuries, and affronts” among his people and soothing over the bitterness caused by such disagreements were “the most disagreeable and difficult” part of his work. He noted significantly: “their civil polity affords no one aid and every such affair is brought to me to decide.” 21 The missionary was also called upon to minister to the temporal needs of the communities he served. There were many appeals to him for food and clothing from families and individuals in straitened circumstances. Often the Indians were reduced to poverty by their proverbial hospitality. Kanowalohale was on the principal road leading through the Iroquois country and was a center for travelers going back and forth. It was Indian etiquette never to turn away a guest. Lewis Henry Morgan has given the following description of this custom: “Among the Iroquois hospitality was an established usage. If a man entered an Indian house in any of their vil­ lages, whether a villager, a tribesman, or a stranger, it was the duty of the women therein to set food before him. An omission to do this would have been a discourtesy amounting to an affront. If hungry, he ate; if not hun­ gry, courtesy required that he should taste the food and thank the giver. This would be repeated at every house he entered, and at whatever hour in the day. As a custom it was upheld by a rigorous public sentiment.” 22 The leading families at Kanowalohale were particularly subject to the demands of this type of hospitality, and many were impoverished because of it. Many in desperation appealed to Kirkland, begging his “assistance for Christ’s sake” and informing him that the last handful “of Corn they had in the world was already in the kittle over the fire.” Their entreaties were moving and gave much insight both into their nature and their worldly condition: We know not where to go for subsistence tomorrow, unless you can relieve us. The fishing season is not yet come on and good hunt-

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

39

ing is no more known amongst us, since the encroachments of the white people. You have often exhorted us to be charitable to our Neighbours and hospitable to our Foreign Brethren, when they came this way, and if it be near the end of the week invite them to tarry over the sabbath, and hear Christ’s gospel, or good news. We do ac­ cordingly, and many of our Brethren you see by this means, are very inquisitive to know the Nature and design of our Religion. . . . You are sent here by the Ministers of Christ and good people of God, to teach us the way to heaven, to feed our Souls with spiritual food. They (the Ministers) support you, and supply the necessities of your Body, and we pray You, in a case of extremity, to uphold our Bodies, our lives, lest our souls should unexpectedly leave both you and us, before we have time to set them in the right way.23 Such petitions no minister could deny. Kirkland gave freely; and when he himself was reduced to want, he borrowed money, even on credit, to supply them in their distress. He also, as he was able, provided clothing for the poor, particularly the widows and orphans. It was almost more than he could bear to see some of these wretched souls attending divine service in the midst of winter with no other covering in the world save “an old worn out Blanket without any shirt, or even shoes to cover their feet.” 24 Thus was Samuel Kirkland grafting himself onto Oneida and Tuscarora society, becoming in his own person an indispensable member of the com­ munity. Despite the enemies he made because of his Puritan conscience and adherence to New Light principles, he had enough friends among them and rendered sufficient significant service to become a highly re­ spected and necessary part of their life. In October of 1770, after two years of strained relationships with Eleazar Wheelock and his son Ralph, Kirkland broke his connections with the Wheelocks and put himself under the Boston Board of Commissioners for the London Company for the Propagation of the Gospel in New Eng­ land and Parts Adjacent in America. The Corporation of Harvard College also agreed to contribute to Kirkland’s support.25 The move was an impor­ tant one for helping to shape future events, for it focused the attention of the Oneidas and Tuscaroras on Boston. It was in Boston that their fathers the commissioners lived and from Boston that the support for their church and schools came. When, a few years hence, revolutionary sentiment and activity would center in Boston and all opponents of the king in the colo­ nies would be nicknamed “Bostonians,” the majority of the Oneidas and

40

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Tuscaroras could not be persuaded to believe that Boston was actually the fount of all evil. Sir William Johnson was perceptive enough to see trouble ahead as a result of New England influence among the Indians. In 1761 he had much approved of Eleazar Wheelock’s Indian school in Connecticut and young Samuel Kirkland’s early plan to be a missionary to the Mohawks, who were then without a minister. “Kirtlands [the original spelling of Kirk­ land’s name] intention of learning ye Mohawk language I much approve of,” he wrote, “as after acquiring it, he could (when qualified) be of vast service to them as a Clergy man which they much want, and are very de­ sirous of having.” 26 As late as 1764, he had given Kirkland every assis­ tance in his mission to the Senecas. With the changing relations between the colonies and the mother country by 1771, however, he attempted to block the progress of the Oneida mission in order to prevent any close at­ tachment of the Indians to an interest antipathetical to that of England and the king. Since 1764, Johnson had observed revolutionary stirrings in America. Although opposition to the British colonial tax measures known as the Grenville Plan and the Townshend Acts was fairly generalized in the colo­ nies, an undue amount of rebellious leadership seemed to belong to New England; and it was in the latter colonies that much of the initiative was taken to oppose the parliamentary measures. The Sugar Act of 1764, which had hit New England particularly hard, prompted Samuel Adams to propose in the Boston Town Meeting on May 24 of that year a theory of no taxation without representation and a united colonial front against the act. Such defiance deeply disturbed a loyal servant of the crown like Sir William Johnson. The following year, he saw Boston again taking the initi­ ative by opposing the Stamp Act when James Otis made his motion in the Massachusetts General Assembly that a congress be held in New York in the fall to make known the negative feelings of the colonies against this piece of British legislation. The formation of the Sons of Liberty organiza­ tion in western Connecticut in 1765 also greatly alarmed Johnson, for this direct action group often resorted to violence in giving vent to grievances. The crowning insult to royal authority came that same year when a Boston mob wrecked the home of the appointed stamp collector, Andrew Oliver, then turned its rage upon Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson, de­ stroying not only his home but his extensive library and manuscript collec­ tion. In writing to both Cadwallader Colden and General Thomas Gage in

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

41

September of 1765, Johnson acknowledged that “The Stamp Dutys may in some respects be distressing to ye present Generation,” but felt that the Act would in the long run “produce the much wanted spirit of Industry & frugality” throughout the colonies. While understanding the distaste of the populace for another new tax, he was firm in his conviction that there was no other way to raise wanted revenue. The “Government at Home well knew from experience that it was vain to expect by an application to the Divided Colonies any fund adequate to answer their purpose.” The violent turn the protest had taken he blamed on the “Independent Gentry” who had “resolved to make themselves conspicuous under the feigned name of Patriots, at the expense of their Country.” It was these “pretended Pa­ triots” who had “always been remarkable for opposing Government in every Article, & its Officers in every Character, & have propagated their Republican principles amongst an Ignorant People, whose Religious & Civil tenets incline them to embrace that Doctrine.” He ended by affirming his love for the British Constitution and urging both Colden and Gage to hold firm and refuse to be intimidated by the “popular Clamor.” 27 The calm which settled over the colonies after the repeal of the Stamp Act was shattered once again by colonial resistance to the Townshend Acts in 1767 and 1768. Sir William Johnson was not too far removed in his Indian domain to keep abreast of affairs and to watch with growing concern and distress the lead taken by Boston in opposing this latest legis­ lation. The plan to ban importation of all British goods and boycott arti­ cles taxed under the Townshend Acts had its genesis in Boston. The Mas­ sachusetts Circular Letter of 1768 further challenged British authority by denying the right of Parliament to tax the colonies and by claiming that the British government was in the wrong in paying salaries of colonial governors and judges independently of colonial legislatures. To Johnson, who was a representative of the crown in America, these sentiments were dangerous and disloyal and a threat to royal authority and Parliamentary government. Writing to General Gage on November 18, 1768, he encour­ aged a firm stand against colonial insubordination: “I hope you find Mat­ ters go on quietly at Boston, I believe you know my Sentiments of these people. They never expected that the Government would have adventured to [find] fault with their conduct & their Mortification is equal [to their] disappointment.” 28 Johnson knew that the rebellious spirit generated by these controver­ sies could well lead to further disruptions and outright flouting of British control. Should such notions come to prevail, they would undoubtedly in

42

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

time undermine his own authority as Indian superintendent. Britain’s whole Indian policy might well come to be at the mercy of the colonial legislatures, whose designs upon the Indian country were frequently at var­ iance with the desires of the imperial administration. Whereas Johnson had once been favorable to the ministries of Eleazar Wheelock and Samuel Kirkland, he now began to recall that New England­ ers had always been a recalcitrant lot. It seemed to be a part of their heri­ tage. Throughout the seventeenth century, Massachusetts Bay had carried on a running feud with the British government over the liberties it was taking with the terms of its charter. In the seventeenth century also, New Haven Colony had harbored the murderers of King Charles I. History very clearly seemed to be repeating itself. Thoughts of past and present New England rebelliousness would be uppermost in the superintendent’s mind in his future dealings with Wheelock’s missionaries. He would also do his best to impress upon the Oneidas his uneasiness about their missionary.29 A further instance of Boston’s intransigence and hostility came on March 5, 1770, when a rowdy mob accosted a group of British soldiers and hurled epithets and missiles at the hapless redcoats. The soldiers, goaded beyond endurance, fired into the mob, killing five and wounding six. Almost immediately after the calamity, the Bostonians published broadsides containing a largely distorted version of the event and accusing the king’s troops of perpetrating a massacre against innocent citizens. Johnson and his friends looked on with alarm.30 Four years later, on May 27, 1774, Sir William wrote to London mer­ chant John Blackburn expressing candidly his feelings about the Boston Tea Party, colonial opposition to taxes, and the Boston Port Bill: There is no certainty of Genrl. Gages being as yet landed, I am in hopes he will bring these refractory People to their Duty, for be as­ sured they are not as formidable at bottom as is I believe imagined by the People of England, their boasted Virtue is better understood here, even by those who are interested in speaking on their behalf. And altho the natural genius of the People, & the republican turn of their Charters incline them to exonerate themselves from all Taxes if possible, yet perseverance in the Government will I persuade myself bring them to at least a different way of Acting— they have but too many busy People in England as well as here, who impose Misrepre­ sentations on the Public, and appear warm in their behalf, otherwise I dont think they would have proceeded the lengths they have done.31

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

43

If Sir William Johnson had not become firmly convinced by these mel­ ancholy events that all Puritans were congenital rebels, he had but to ap­ peal to his own experience with the New England ministers at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768. Two of Eleazar Wheelock’s missionaries— Jacob Johnson, who had temporarily replaced Kirkland for a few months during the latter’s sickness in 1768-69, and David Avery— opposed the moving of the boundary line between the white and Indian settlements too far westward because it would, by depriving the Indians of more territory, in­ terfere with their future missionary plans. Not only did they memorialize Johnson on this subject, but they worked assiduously among the Oneidas to persuade them not to agree to the proposed treaty line. Johnson was fu­ rious. Although the embarrassed Wheelock apologized profusely to Sir William for this unauthorized meddling, the seeds of distrust had already been sown. Johnson was quite certain that the only thing which would se­ cure the position of the Anglican Church in the future and avert a reli­ gious war in the colonies was the establishment of an American episco­ pate.32 The issue of an episcopate for the Anglican Church in America had, by the 1760s, become fused with the political controversy between the col­ onies and the mother country. Although Virginia Anglicans were disinter­ ested in an episcopate because the vestries had, in the absence of bishops, already gained great power, the Anglicans in the northern colonies pushed aggressively for an episcopate. Their actions drove the New England Congregationalists and the Middle Colony Presbyterians into a counter-union to oppose the Anglican plans. They feared that the introduction of an epis­ copate would lead to political powers exercised by American bishops simi­ lar to those of the English bishops and a consequent restriction of the rights of other denominations. They managed, through the Dissenter Com­ mittee in London, to make their desires and fears known to the ministers of state.33 Johnson accordingly felt he was well justified in discouraging the Onei­ das from erecting a new meeting house under the auspices of the Boston commissioners. Their church building could accommodate barely half of the total congregation and was rotted at the foundation. A more commo­ dious structure was obviously needed for the comfort and health of the at­ tendee. They had therefore petitioned the Commissioners of the Boston Board in the fall of 1770 for a new meeting house, and the ministers in Boston had approved. Kirkland had suggested that a sawmill be erected

44

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

first, in order to assist in the building of the church, and the Indians agreed.34 Sir William, however, brought strong pressure to bear upon the sa­ chems of the Oneidas when they visited him .early in 1771 to revoke their re­ quest to the Boston divines and instead direct their petition to the king. It was more fitting and honorable, he explained, to ask such matters of the king. The inhabitants of Boston were not only rebellious but seditious and great enemies to all proper government. Using a historical anachronism, Johnson informed the sachems that these Boston people had killed their king, and then had fled for their safety. This base murder was the cause of the present division among the white people. The superintendent was ap­ pealing to the Indians not only to uphold their longstanding covenant with the king of England, but to choose the side of law and order. Johnson’s of­ fice, prestige, and words carried great weight. The superintendent had also heard of Kirkland’s strict insistence upon regeneration before baptism and his rigid examination of candidates and promised the sachems that the Anglican ministers would prove far more reasonable in accepting candidates for baptism. Johnson used every political and theological argument available to ap­ peal to the Oneidas to bring them more closely into an alliance with the British government. It was no new tactic. Both the French and English had used religion as a branch of diplomacy for years in bringing the Indian tribes within their respective orbits of influence. A loyal Anglican cleric among the Oneidas would be the best assurance that the Indians would re­ ceive both the proper religious and— when needed— political instruction. He would be the link which would bind the Oneidas as firmly to their alli­ ance with the king as were the Mohawks. As a concluding reminder of their responsibility toward him as the king’s representative, Johnson impressed upon the Oneida sachems the propriety of their first asking his advice and obtaining his approval in whatsoever they desired to have done for them.35 The chiefs returned to their village and presented Sir William’s admo­ nitions at a council held on Saturday, February 1, 1771. On Monday, an all-day council of the people, to which Kirkland was invited, was held to determine what reply to give to the sachems’ speech. During this confer­ ence, it was obvious that there was a chiefs’ party and a warriors’ party in the village and that the warriors favored Kirkland. Kirkland had had the very good fortune to have converted several of the head warriors of the Oneidas, and these men became staunch in the

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

45

faith. In addition to this happy turn of events, Kirkland also noted as an aside that the warriors were largely “uncontrouled by the Sachems.” This historic phenomenon in Iroquois culture which had resulted in a long­ standing rivalry between the warrior element and the peace chiefs and a consequent decline in the influence of the latter would redound to the favor of the Puritan religion among the Oneidas. This rivalry between sachems and warriors, and the tendency of the latter to usurp the functions of the former, was expressed very bluntly by a Seneca war chief at a conference of the Six Nations held at Johnson Hall in April of 1762. Johnson had expressed surprise and disappointment that so few Seneca sachems were present. The Seneca speaker replied: The Reason that you do not see many of Our Sachems at present here is that the Weather & Roads having been very bad, they were less able than we to travel, & therefore, we the Warriors, were made Choice of to Attend you & transact business; and I beg you will Consider that we are in fact the People of Consequence for Manag­ ing Affairs, Our Sachems being generally a parcell of Old People who say Much, but who Mean or Act very little, So that we have both the power & Ability to Settle Matters, & are now determin’d to Answer you honestly, & from our hearts to Declare all Matters fully to you.36 The support the warriors gave Kirkland exceeded his “most sanguine expectations.” Their attachment to their minister and their religion re­ mained unshaken, even under pressure from so weighty a personage as Sir William Johnson. “Numbers of them,” reported Kirkland, “said they would go with me to prison or death— where I followed Christ, they would follow me.” Many of them commented on the theological and per­ sonal laxity of Episcopal ministers they had known. They reiterated that baptism should signify a changed life and deplored the feasting and drink­ ing allowed by the king’s ministers at the ceremony for dedicating chil­ dren. They assured the missionary that they would have continued in their miserable, benighted condition, well along the road to destruction, had they not had any other minister to instruct them in the way of “Regenera­ tion, Repentance, and Faith.” 37 In their reply to the sachems, the warriors considered with great care all the objections and suggestions previously presented. They dismissed as beneath serious comment the charge that the Bostonians had murdered their king. They emphasized the great amount of prayer and discussion that had gone into their decision to petition the Boston commissioners for

46

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

assistance in building a church and felt certain that the Lord had placed his blessing on their endeavors. They remarked what a shameful act it would be if they were to dismiss their minister after his long and devoted labors among them. “What would be said of us, not only here, or in Boston— but in England should we do such a thing?” And in the firmest Free Church tradition, they insisted upon a strict separation of church and state. “We fully agree with you, that all our affairs respecting government should be laid before Sr. William. But in church affairs, & even all that immediately respects the Kingdom & government of Jesus Christ, we must go directly to God, by his word & ministers. & we judge it as proper & no less honble that the House of god should be built by the Ministers of the great King Jesus, as by the King of England himself.” They concluded with a plea for unity: “Let us all go on with one heart and one mind and then look out for gods blessing.” 38 Surprisingly, perhaps, the sachems “cheerfully agreed” and returned the warriors a very handsome speech. Despite their frequent lack of politi­ cal control, the sachems were true realists and diplomats and determined to preserve whatever influence they did possess by avoiding an open rup­ ture with the warriors. They had taken note of the strong effect Kirkland’s sermon had had on the people the day before and had been well advised thereby of the affection which the congregation had for him. They there­ fore determined among themselves to agree to the warriors’ terms, what­ ever they might be. One of the sachems confided this information to Kirk­ land on the morning of the conference.39 The conflict was thereby amicably resolved to the satisfaction of all save Sir William. Two years later, with the assistance of a professional carpenter and his two helpers, the Oneidas raised their church and became the talk of the Confederacy. It began to be noised abroad in Iroquoia that the Oneidas now would “come to something.” In 1774, a year after the church was raised, the Oneidas built a large steeple over it. Kirkland had protested that a steeple was unnecessary for “religion loved simplicity” and God would “sit and dwell in the meanest cottage if there was but a humble and penitent inhabitant.” The Oneidas, however, were determined. If the white people could have steeples over their churches, so could they. Indian religion was worth no less than the white man’s religion. Even the humble Indian was entitled to honor God in a respectable house. That steeple was their pride. They now had their own meeting house, their own minister, and the religion of their choice.40 Thus it was that in a contest between the warriors and sachems, Kirk-

FORGING AN ALLIANCE

47

land and Johnson, Puritanism and Anglicanism, the influence of the war­ riors and the Puritan missionary prevailed. This crisis and its outcome were a harbinger of a more serious crisis yet to come. In a few short years, when the American colonies would separate from Great Britain, the reper­ cussions would be felt in Iroquoia. Then the influences and connections that had been built up over the years would be decisive. The Oneidas again would make a choice based upon loyalty, but the result would be shattering to their community. In surveying the relations of the Iroquois with the whites throughout the eighteenth century, we can determine the factors that drew the tribes of the Confederacy this way and that. Trade relations and, more recently, re­ ligion, had been used by the whites to cement the friendship of these na­ tions. William Johnson had attached the Mohawks to himself and the Brit­ ish by intermarriage, or less formal connections. No one can now tell exactly how many Indian children he had. According to gossip of the day, the number was considerable. Mary Brant was a woman of great prestige in her nation and throughout the Confederacy. Through her, as well as through his own talents, he extended his influence very widely over the In­ dians. The Anglican missionary to the Mohawks, John Stuart, who also exercised great influence in the tribe, was a staunch royalist. The forts es­ tablished in Indian country would also be of great value in diplomacy. First the French, then the English, were able to sway the western end of the Confederacy through control of Fort Niagara. The sentiments of the missionaries, the influence of the Johnsons, the supply of trade goods, the control of military posts, the old covenants with the whites, the rivalry be­ tween warriors and sachems, and the structural weakness of a kinship state would all combine to pull apart the famous old League founded by Deganawida and Hiawatha.

I l l H old Fast to the Covenant Chain

/ do therefore by this Belt in the name o f your Father the great King o f England, in behalf o f all his American Sub­ jects renew and confirm the Covenant Chain subsisting be­ tween us, strengthening it, and rubbing o ff any rust which it may have contracted that it may appear bright to all Nations as a proof o f our love and Friendship, and I hope that all o f you, sensible o f the advantages o f this union, will after the example o f the English have it always before you, and keep it fast that it may remain firm and un­ shaken, so long as Grass shall grow or waters run. S ir W illiam Johnson to the Six N ations Treaty o f Fort Stanwix, O ctober 26, 1768

T he y ea rs 1774 and 1775 would be a period of great tension for the

League of the Iroquois. As the American colonies and the mother country traveled a path leading directly to conflict, the Johnson family struggled to keep the Iroquois loyal to their old alliance with the English. The revolu­ tionaries in America who were challenging the king and Parliament also attempted to secure the loyalty of the Iroquois by claiming to be the de­ scendants of those with whom the Indians had made their ancient cove­ nants. Both Loyalists and Patriots put themselves forward as the legitimate heirs of the traditional Iroquois-English alliance. For the Indians, it was a strange and puzzling sight to see the English quarreling among themselves. More puzzling still was any attempt to determine just who it was that held the other end of the covenant chain. In the early stages of the controversy, the Iroquois arrived at a temporary solution by telling each side, “We love you both.” Sir William Johnson died on July 11, 1774, in the midst of a council with the Iroquois at Johnson Hall. During the course of this conference, the Indians had been pressing Johnson to explain why the whites were not abiding by their former agreements, why they were thronging into Indian territory in the Ohio region and pushing the Indians out. It was indeed an 48

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

49

embarrassing question, and one which was deeply complicated by motives of greed on the part of the great land speculators and the restless urge of the frontiersmen. The Proclamation of 1763 was supposed to secure the land west of the Appalachians to the Indians and keep the white settle­ ments on the east side of the mountains at least temporarily contained until a more orderly land policy for the western regions could be devised. By keeping whites from encroaching on Indian lands, the British policy was also designed to keep the two groups from each other’s throats. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 was meant to confirm this policy and settle new problems of white encroachment by establishing a definite boundary between the two races. The British government three thousand miles away was, however, at a disadvantage in attempting to enforce both the proclamation and the treaty against the land-hungry frontiersmen and avaricious speculators. Nor could it always control its own royal servants in the colonies. Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, was vigorously aggressive in ignoring the pro­ clamation line and in encouraging western settlement. Neither was Dunmore averse to making money for himself on these restricted lands. By 1773, two settlements, Harrodsburg and Louisville, were already established down the Ohio. In 1774, the Shawnee Indians, being rapidly dispossessed by the whites moving into their territory, took up the hatchet against the Virginians. The Shawnees were the dependents of the Iroquois and appealed to them for assistance in righting the wrongs inflicted upon them. The Six Nations had every reason to be alarmed, for many of their own people were also settled in the Ohio country. Also, the whites around Fort Pitt had just recently murdered nearly thirty Indians, including sev­ eral Senecas.1 There was war talk in the Confederacy. Sir William attempted to calm the fears and resentments of the Iroquois by assuring them that the various outrages committed were perpetrated by lawless individuals whom the king would soon seize and punish. He reminded the Six Nations of their cove­ nant chain of friendship with the king, and requested them to refrain from hostilities. Sir William was well aware of the grave importance of keeping the Iroquois friendly. Should they join the Shawnees, the other western na­ tions would be certain to follow their lead; and a bloody war would ensue. Johnson, therefore, put forth his most strenuous efforts to avert such a ca­ lamity. The exertions of the conference and his feeble health proved too much for the old superintendent. He expired while the council was still in session, leaving the assembly in a state of stunned awe by his sudden de-

50

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

mise. Guy Johnson, who was both Sir William’s nephew and son-in-law, having married the younger of Sir William’s white daughters, stepped into his uncle’s place and resumed the council the next day, reassuring the Indi­ ans of the king’s concern for them and reaffirming the late superintendent’s cautions.2 Because he had been in failing health some time prior to the confer­ ence, Sir William had written to the Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary of State for the colonies, in April of 1774, recommending his nephew as the per­ son most fit to succeed him. In this choice, he was not only expressing his own desires but the wishes of the Indians also, for Guy had served a long apprenticeship under his uncle and had the confidence of the Six Nations. General Thomas Gage, the commander in America, after receiving news of Sir William’s death, approved of this appointment and requested Guy Johnson to carry on the work of the Indian department until official ap­ pointment could come from England. In submitting the news of William Johnson’s death to Lord Dartmouth, Gage added his own approval of Guy Johnson as being “both capable and fit for the Employment.’’ 3 In September, the Six Nations, assembled again in conference with Guy Johnson to discuss the problem of the western lands, held a formal condolence ceremony for him to commiserate with him on his uncle’s death and, in conformity to their ancient custom, to choose a new name for him in consideration of the office which he now held. Henceforth he would be called Uraghquadirha, or Rays of the Sun Enlightening the Earth. A chief representing each nation repeated the name as Colonel Johnson stood before them, and the Onondaga speaker then directed “that the same might be proclaimed in Every nation of the Confederacy.” This was the ceremony by which a new chief was raised to office.4 The Indians had also brought with them to this council “the Great Old Covenant Chain Belt,” a large wampum belt twenty-one rows of beads wide, signifying the chain of friendship between the English and the Six Nations. To the Indians this covenant was a sacred trust, ever to be re­ membered. It was, they assured Johnson, the firm link between the two peoples, “which we have kept clean from rust, and held fast in our hands. This makes us remember the words that were told us when it was given, and which we always look upon, if any one offers to disturb that peace, and harmony subsisting between us. This we now. shew you, that you may know the bad words of the Shawanese have no effect upon us.” 5 Thus in the language of forest oratory did the Iroquois renew their tra­ ditional alliance with the English. Although grieved over the murders of

C olonel G uy J ohnson. Painting by Benjamin West. Both nephew and son-in-law of

Sir William, after the latter’s death. Colonel Guy Johnson took the famous man's place as superintendent of Indian affairs for the northern zone. His clothing reflects the blend of Indian and white culture that was typical of the British Indian depart­ ment. C o u r te s y o f th e N a tio n a l G a lle r y o f A r t, W a sh in g to n , D .C ., A n d r e w M e llo n C o lle c tio n

52

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

their relatives and of their younger brothers the Shawnees by treacherous settlers, though continually cheated out of lands they had been assured would be theirs forever, though even now hard pressed by the Albany Corporation in unjust encroachments upon their territory, yet they would be patient and trust their superintendent and their father the king. Soon the king would right the wrongs inflicted upon his Indian allies by his wicked subjects and the Indian homeland would once more be undisturbed by rapacious intruders. It was an amazing example of longsuffering loy­ alty. This was a matter of great weight, however, and must needs be brought into full council of the entire Confederacy, meeting at their capital of Onondaga; otherwise, the separate nations of the Confederacy or pri­ vate war parties might well act as they pleased and thus cause a disruption in the generally peaceable disposition of the League. This Grand Council would be, as Samuel Kirkland aptly commented, “one of the most impor­ tant meetings that the Six Nations have had for many years— and the con­ sequences more extensive.” 6 There was every likelihood that calmer heads would prevail and that order and regularity in the Confederacy would win out over local spontaneity and the youthful exuberance of fledgling war­ riors anxious to make a name for themselves. The war chiefs had recently agreed not only to consult with the sachems as formerly but to be bound by their decisions. By this agreement, warriors were to report pertinent news to the war chiefs of their tribes or villages and the latter in turn would carry the intelligence to the sachems. Thus the warriors were not to act in­ dependently as they so often had done in the past, but to wait for the ma­ ture judgment of the council. Once more the traditional controls of the kinship state were to function in the manner conceived by the ancient founders. So different was this concept from that of the political state, however, that the effectiveness of control depended entirely upon the will­ ingness of a significant sector of the community to obey the counsel of the elders. Once the willingness was gone, the old controls broke down.7 The council met in October of 1774 and sat for nearly a month. Guy Johnson had sent Joseph Thayendanegea, a younger brother of Mary Brant, to the conference to take notes and report back to him. Johnson was greatly apprehensive lest the Six Nations should stray from their alli­ ance with the British and join the Shawnees in a general war against the Virginia frontiers. In Thayendanegea, he had a highly intelligent and trust­ worthy emissary. Joseph Brant, or Thayendanegea, was a man of exceptional ability,

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

53

high character, and strong convictions. He was born about 1742 in one of the Iroquois settlements somewhere in the Ohio region and died November 24, 1807, in Wellington Square, Ontario. All sources save one important one agree on his Ohio birthplace. Daniel Claus, who knew him well, stated that he was bom at the upper Mohawk castle of Canajoharie. He probably received his earliest formal education at the Anglican Mohawk mission, for he wrote his native language fluently in the style taught by the British missionaries. It is known that he also attended an English-language school somewhere in the vicinity of the Mohawk River. As a young man, he re­ ceived further education at Eleazar Wheelock’s school for Indians in Leba­ non, Connecticut. According to tradition, Brant went on the war trail when only thirteen, serving with William Johnson at Crown Point. Brant was an Anglican and a Freemason and also worked upon a translation of the Gospels into the Mohawk language. He was a steady family man with a prosperous farm and a good reputation in both the Indian and the white community. Margaret, Brant’s first wife, was the daughter of the Oneida leader Skenandon. The latter was a highly respected person and one of the pillars of Kirkland’s church at Kanowalohale. By this wife, Brant had two children— Isaac and Christina. After Margaret’s death, he married her sis­ ter Susanna, who died shortly thereafter and by whom he had no issue. His third wife, by whom he had several children, was Catherine, the Mohawk daughter of the noted trader, Indian agent, and land speculator, George Croghan. Brant spoke at least three, and perhaps all, of the Six Nations languages and frequently had been useful as an interpreter in the Indian department. His attachment to the Johnsons and his devotion to what he considered to be the best interests of his Indian people were factors that would make him a valuable ally for the British in the years ahead. In 1774, Brant stood on the threshold of a great career.8 At the October Grand Council at Onondaga, each of the nations re­ newed its pledge to remain peaceable and to persuade the Shawnees to settle their differences with the Virginians. A small war party had gone forth from the Cayuga nation before the council met. For this violation of the general unanimity of the Confederacy, the Cayugas were severely cen­ sured. The Confederacy, which so many times in the past had seen its member nations go their independent ways, was now acting as a unit. It would be the last time for many years that it would do so.9 When Joseph Brant returned, he brought the good news of the Confed­ eracy’s peaceful intent back to Guy Johnson. The new superintendent must have breathed more easily at this auspicious beginning to his administra-

54

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

J oseph B rant . Painting by Gilbert Stuart. Brother-in-law of Sir William Johnson,

the famed Mohawk war chief played a prominent part in breaking the neutrality of the Six Nations Confederacy and recruiting warriors for the British cause. C o u r te s y o f N e w Y o rk S ta te H is to r ic a l A s s o c ia tio n , C o o p e r s to w n , N e w Y o r k

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

55

tion. Had the Six Nations not stood firm, the far western nations, poised for war pending the decision of the Iroquois, would have set the whole frontier in flames. In his report to Secretary of State Dartmouth, Johnson could not help reminding both himself and his superior of the importance of the Iroquois decision: “The Six Nations alone can muster 2000 fighting Men without taking in their dependent Tribes in Canada, or about the Lakes who would for the most part follow their fortune and who lately sent them Messages to that effect.” 10 It was particularly comforting that the Senecas were agreeable to peace in conformity to the rest of the Confederacy. That nation, farthest re­ moved from British influence, had always been the most fluctuating in their loyalty to the English crown. When the French were in control of Ni­ agara, they were able to wield a considerable amount of control over this very consequential tribe, even detaching a portion of them to their interest during the late French and Indian War. The Senecas also played an impor­ tant role in Pontiac’s war against the English. As Keepers of the Western Door, the Senecas held sway over the Indian nations to the west. They were, in addition, the most populous tribe of the whole Confederacy. Had they chosen to go their own way and seek revenge for the murders of their kinsmen, the results would have been grave indeed for the English.11 Now that war had been averted, Johnson could give his attention to another matter of increasing seriousness. The difficulties between the colo­ nies and England were growing worse instead of better. Already the disaf­ fected Americans had formed an extralegal sort of government termed a Continental Congress. The dissenting missionaries who were serving the Oneida, Tuscarora, and Stockbridge Indians were in a position to undo any of Johnson’s efforts at keeping these tribes loyal to England, if they should be so inclined.* Kirkland was a particular thorn in the flesh be­ cause he was the most capable and experienced of the missionaries and carried great weight with the Indians. Already in a controversy with Sir William Johnson in 1771 he had come off the victor. Guy Johnson thus paid very close attention when a delegation of Oneidas led by the sachem Conoghquieson t brought a long list of complaints to him concerning their missionary at a conference in January 1775. This * Aaron Crosby was stationed at Ononquaga; John Sargent at New Stockbridge; and Samuel Kirkland at Kanowalohale. t So it is spelled in the J o h n so n P a p e rs. Kirkland spelled it Kanaghgwasea, and Kanaghwaes. The method of transliteration of Iroquoian sounds used by the early English missionaries was awkward. The aspirate was usually rendered by g h ; and the nasal vowel, which English lacks, by ea. The French missionaries usually used h and o n for these respective sounds.

56

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

sachem did not live at Kanowalohale, where Kirkland was stationed, but at another village several miles distant. Nor were his visits to Kanowalohale very frequent. He nonetheless brought much gossip and many grievances to Johnson.12 He presented himself as a spokesman for the dissidents and recited a parcel of truths, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods to the superintendent. First of all, a number of Oneidas had begun to long for the more generous Catholic and Anglican missionaries who would baptize the children regardless of the type of life the parents lived. The only requirement was for dissolute parents to secure a reputable godparent to stand sponsor for the children. Kirkland was more particular and would baptize only the children of regenerate parents. This caused some apprehension among the Oneidas whose children were thus denied the Christian sacrament for they had evidently learned from their previous missionaries that baptism was a guarantee of salvation for those who died in infancy. The concern of the parents and others, therefore, was great, for nearly thirty children had died without baptism during Kirkland’s tenure, so it was claimed. In keeping with the theology of the Reformed and Puri­ tan tradition, of course, Kirkland denied that baptism was, of itself, any guarantee of salvation. The other complaints had little or no truth in them. Kirkland was ac­ cused of running a store and being “concerned in trade,” which was un­ true. He was further accused of minding “public affairs more than Reli­ gion, for he is always collecting news and telling strange matters of the white people, whilst he endeavours to represent us [Indians] as a people of no consequence to them.” There was only a small germ of truth in this statement. Kirkland had received a copy of the proceedings of the Conti­ nental Congress and, at the request of the Oneidas, had interpreted the document to them and explained the quarrel between Great Britain and the colonies— in terms favorable to the colonies. Kirkland, in a letter to Guy Johnson concerning this controversy, repeated the gist of Conoghquieson’s complaint as follows: “he [Kirkland] also meddles with civil af­ fairs, and opposes our methods of government— and the transaction and deliberation of our Cabinet council he transmits to N. York Boston and England, upon the first intelligence he gets.” Kirkland did relay news of the decision of the Indians not to join with the Shawnees against the Eng­ lish. The charge emphasizes the jealousy of some of the Indians, which Kirkland was well aware of, because the missionary often knew too well what had been decided in council. It was for that reason that he was glad to be late in returning to Kanowalohale the past September so that he

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

57

would not excite anyone’s jealousy by learning the results of the council too early. Conoghquieson had concluded his list of complaints with an ap­ peal to Johnson to remove Kirkland.13 The Onondaga speaker added his report to the catalog of Kirkland’s supposed crimes by claiming that the missionary had ordered a letter to Guy Johnson to be burned.14 This again was an untrue charge. The letter in question was written by an Onondaga Indian to Johnson, informing him that the Onondaga council had some disagreement with the superintend­ ent’s plans regarding the Shawnees. The Onondaga chiefs managed to in­ tercept this letter and had an Oneida interpret it to them. When they dis­ covered the contents, they ordered the letter burned.* Kirkland knew nothing about the affair until two days later. In Johnson’s official report of the conference, he stated that he cau­ tioned against any disrespect to a minister of God, but promised to look into the matter further. Then, suspecting with some justification that Kirk­ land might have given a slightly biased version of the difficulties subsisting between England and some of the people in the colonies, he proceeded to explain the quarrel to the Indians in a masterpiece of understatement and rosy optimism: “This dispute was solely occasioned by some people, who notwithstanding a law of the King and his wise Men, would not let some Tea land, but destroyed it, on which he was angry, and sent some Troops with the General, whom you have long known, to see the Laws executed and bring the people to their sences, and as he is proceeding with great wisdom, to shew them their great mistake, I expect it will soon be over.’’ 15 Rumor and countercharges flew back and forth, and from this distance it is difficult to sort out fact from fiction. What Johnson said he said and what Kirkland reported that the Indians said Johnson said are often at var­ iance.16 When the Indians at Kanowalohale heard of Conoghquieson’s mission and what passed between him and Johnson, they sent off three chief men, Thomas, Hendrick, and Gahsaweda, with a speech defending the mission­ ary and expressing appreciation for his godly labors among them. They came back reporting that Johnson had said he did not mind Indian reports against Kirkland but listened only to complaints from the white people about him and these reports from the white people had stated that Kirk* A photostatic copy of Kirkland's comments on affairs from February to August 1775 is in KP, Hamilton College. The original is in the John Adams Papers, Massa­ chusetts Historical Society.

58

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

land claimed the Indians were so “obstinate” and incapable of repentance that he had written to the governor of New York requesting four thousand soldiers to punish them. When Kirkland demurred that this could not have been the true interpretation of Johnson’s speech, the Indians insisted that he had a good interpreter (Joseph Brant) and this message could easily be checked by writing to Johnson himself. Now Conoghquieson spoke up and declared that Joseph Brant had encouraged him to bring certain charges against Kirkland in order to please Johnson and also claimed that Johnson told him that their minister Kirkland was descended from those Boston people who had murdered their king and fled for their lives, “and many things of the like nature, too tedious as well as ridculous to relate,” as Kirkland later complained in a letter to Johnson. In a later report of the controversy to General Gage, Johnson remarked that Kirkland’s Oneida partisans had told the missionary some ridiculous stories. Kirkland did call upon the superintendent in an effort to settle their differences, but rela­ tions remained strained. Johnson sent Gage an account of this conference in which he gave the following summary of the explanation Kirkland was supposed to have made to the Oneidas on the origin of the disagreement between king and colonies: “agreeable to his idea of the dispute [he] told them that it arose from the Kings requiring a reimbursement for the great Expences of the late War and the laying dutys for that purpose which the Americans would not pay, whereupon Troops were sent to Compell them. I observed that this was no tru State of the matter and I cannot help look­ ing on what he has acknowledged as Extraordinary.” 17 The Indians could not help but be perplexed by these charges and countercharges. The quarrel seemed to them to be an unnatural one, for it was a controversy between brothers, and, accordingly, they did not wish to involve themselves in it. As the Oneidas informed Governor Trumbull of Connecticut: “We are unwilling to join on either side of such a contest, for we love you both— old England and new. Should the great King of Eng­ land apply to us for our aid— we shall deny him— and should the Colo­ nies apply— we shall refuse.” 18 It was a certainty that, like it or not, the Indians were bound to be in­ volved in the controversy between the colonies and England. Neither side would leave them alone. The relationships of the Indians had also histori­ cally been too close to the whites to permit them to be isolationists in a time of crisis. These divisions among the Oneidas would subsequently re­ solve themselves into Whig and Tory factions. The Americans were losing little firne in attempting to attach the Indi-

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

59

ans to their interest. Early in March of 1775, Eleazar Wheelock sent James Dean, one of his most promising students at Dartmouth College, to Canada “to renew the friendship” between the Caughnawaga Indians and the school. These Caughnawagas were a band of Mohawks that had been detached from their nation as a result of Jesuit missionary enterprise in the seventeenth century. Their settlement was not far from Montreal. A num­ ber of children from among the leading families at Caughnawaga were ed­ ucated at Wheelock’s school, and the missionary educator felt that this was a sure method of keeping these Indians friendly to the American colonies. Religion could be put to good use as an instrument of international diplo­ macy. James Dean, furthermore, was an excellent choice as an ambassa­ dor. From his early years, he had been raised among the Indians, was “a great master” of their language, and was “much esteemed as an orator among them.” It was affirmed by the Oneidas that he was the only white man who spoke their language without any trace of accent. Dean was born at Groton, Connecticut, and accounts differ as to how he came to live with the Indians. Some of his contemporaries stated that he was captured by Indians at about age twelve and raised among them. One of his descendents claimed that he learned the language as a boy of nine, by being sent to the Indians expressly for that purpose. He served as an interpreter to the missionaries at Onoquaga * before entering Dart­ mouth. We may surmise from Wheelock’s estimate of him that he also had a good knowledge of the Mohawk language. Dean, with youthful enthusi­ asm, was quite certain of his own ability in being able to manipulate the Ihdians for he had assured Wheelock “that if there should be occasion, and he should be properly authorized for it, he could influence all those Six Nations to join these Colonies against any invasion that should be made or attempted against them.” 19 Dean took up residence in Montreal, only nine miles from Caughna­ waga, and made frequent trips to the Indian settlement. His mission to Canada lasted until June 14, when he quit Montreal to return home, and was successful in several respects according to his own estimate. Not only was he able to instruct the Indians in the differences between Protestant­ ism and their Catholic religion, but he was also able to explain to them the reasons for the difficulties between England the colonies. He found them strongly disposed toward neutrality and the council determined to banish any of the young warriors who would take up the hatchet against the * Also abbreviated as Oquaga. This is a Mohawk word meaning “Place of the Wild Grape.”

60

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Americans. Dean reported, however, that when Governor Guy Carleton arrived at Montreal, he had strongly prevailed upon the Caughnawagas to give assistance to the British and threatened them with loss of their land if they did not comply. Faced with this decision, the Caughnawagas then in­ formed the governor that they would defend him “to the utmost of their Power, should he be beseiged in Montreal by the provincial Troops,” but politely declined all offers to send warriors to defend the frontier posts. Dean was encouraged but cautious. Well knowing the changeable nature of Indians, and with his earlier enthusiasm somewhat more subdued, he warned friends in America that it would “doubtless be judged a prudent Measure to provide against the worst.” 20 Although Dean’s success with the Caughnawagas was only moderate, his influence among the Oneidas in the years ahead would be of immense importance. Kirkland was also busy. On March 28, 1775, he wrote to Andrew Eliot of the Boston missionary committee reminding him of the serious­ ness of the times and the necessity of securing the friendship of the Indi­ ans. He suggested that Eliot convey to the next Continental Congress the importance of sending a formal speech to the Six Nations, but begged that his name not be revealed as the originator of this notion, lest the news leak out and his security be threatened. Eliot assured Kirkland that he would pass this bit of good advice along to the Continental Congress and urged the missionary to explain to the Indians that they would bring utter ruin upon themselves if they engaged against the colonies.21 In April, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress sent an address to the Stockbridge Indians of that state urging their continued friendship and pre­ vailed upon a few of them to go among the Mohawks with messages ex­ plaining the rebel viewpoint. Massachusetts also attempted to secure the support of the Indians as far north as Nova Scotia. On April 4, the colony sent a speech to the Mohawks via Kirkland.22 Guy Johnson was deeply troubled by the presence of the New England missionaries among the Six Nations. Their theology was disturbing enough, but that, at least, would have been tolerable had not the political situation been so precarious. Johnson wrote detailed reports to Gage re­ counting'every aspect of his administration of Indian affairs and giving special attention to the vexatious missionaries. Gage was as distressed as Johnson that disloyal servants should be laboring among the Six Nations where they could sow seeds of ^dissension and cause disaffection among His Majesty’s Indian allies. The solution he suggested was rather heavy handed and could have been accomplished only by tearing the Oneida

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

61

community apart: “Missionaries have it often in their power to lead the minds of the people wrong therefore by all means do what you can to get the Indians to drive such Incendiarys from amongst them.” Gage con­ cluded his advice with an astute observation, pointing out that “the Indians well know that in all their landed disputes the Crown has always been their friend.” 23 It was a point which the British could use with telling effect, for the British government had frequently attempted to uphold justified Indian land claims in opposition to the importunities of the colonists. The recent war between the Virginians and the Shawnees was an example of colonial aggrandizement and British attempt at moderation. The Mohawks were particularly vulnerable to land encroachments by the whites, since, of all the Six Nations, they lived the closest to the white settlements. Their villages now lay entirely to the east of the line of de­ marcation established by the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, and entirely within the bounds of the Province of New York. Their frustrations over land grievances had reached a peak by 1773. In that year, they had be­ come so discouraged by the persistence of the whites that they seriously contemplated picking up and moving to a new location entirely. In the month of April they accordingly appealed to the Oneidas for a place of refuge because “their lands were all claimed by the white people, even the village where they resided; The very ground under their feet.” The Onei­ das were willing, but the Mohawks never got to the point of making the move before the Revolution. Samuel Kirkland sadly commented on the controversy: “The people of New York have done inexpressible hurt to the Interest of religion among the lower tribes by getting away their lands, and made the other tribes extremely jealous.” As General Gage had so percep­ tively noted, it was the king and his representative, the Indian superintend­ ent, who stood between the Indians and their greedy white neighbors in land disputes between the two people. In any dispute that threatened to re­ move the restraining hand of the king from the land-hungry New Yorkers, the Mohawks were likely to side with their friend King George.24 Johnson also felt, as did Gage, that in some way the influence of dis­ loyal missionaries must be either eliminated or blunted. He tried to under­ mine the influence of the New England missionaries and to solidify any sentiment for Anglicanism among the Indians by encouraging the Church of England missionary to the Mohawks, John Stuart, to make occasional visits to the Oneidas. Stuart knew the Mohawk language tolerably well, was highly respected by both whites and Indians, and was thoroughly de-

62

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

voted to his calling as well as to his king. He would have been no mean rival to Kirkland. The latter, however, protested vigorously to Johnson against such “interference,” and Stuart was unwilling to become embroiled in a church quarrel. When Johnson reported this latest encounter with Kirkland to Gage, he commented sourly, “he [Kirkland] is now gone for Boston with many Grievances (as some say) and accounts of obstructions to his pious Endeavors.” 25 Kirkland’s family now lived at Stockbridge in Massachusetts rather than in the Indian country, and the missionary regularly went there to visit them. Kirkland had gone there to be with his family while the Oneida war­ riors were away on the spring hunt and the village was nearly vacated. Gage meanwhile perused Johnson’s latest letters giving intelligence from the Indian country and wrote back to the superintendent reiterating his former directions to remove the source of disaffection among the Indi­ ans: “As to the troublesome Missionarys you must by all means get the In­ dians to Rout them, as that is the only Method can be fallen upon to keep them from Mischief: for while they are suffered to be among the Indians, they will be continually making them uneasy.” As for the most trouble­ some of all, Samuel Kirkland, Gage offered the following advice: “Before he Attempts to return from his excursion here [Boston], great pains should be taken to prejudice the Indians against him.” 26 On April 19, 1775, the Massachusetts militiamen clashed with the British regulars under Major Pitcairn at Lexington and Lieutenant Colonel Smith at Concord. The rebellious— or libertarian, depending on one’s viewpoint— spirit that had been present in the colony for years had at last culminated in armed conflict. The appeal to arms was a matter of gravest concern. The king’s troops had suffered “upwards of 50 men killed, and many wounded.” So hard pressed were the British troops as they left Con­ cord that reinforcements from Boston were called for. The task of covering the retreat fell to the thirty-two-year-old Lord Percy of the Fifth Fusiliers, acting brigadier general and commander of the military camp at Boston. Percy had long been opposed to the government’s American policy and was even more strongly opposed to the resort to military force, but, as a good soldier, he served faithfully in a distasteful campaign. On April 20, the day after the battle, he sent a report to General Gage in which he com­ plained of “the cruelty and barbarity of the Rebels, who scalped & cut off the ears of some of the wounded, that fell into their Hands.” 27 In such a critical situation, Guy Johnson moved decisively to prevent the spread of incendiary ideas and pro-American sentiment among the In-

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

63

dians. In May he ordered the returning Samuel Kirkland to halt in his journey and remain at the superintendent’s house rather than to proceed to the Oneidas. He also sent out a directive for the removal of the other New England missionaries among his Indian charges “untill the difficulties be­ tween great Britain and the Colonies are settled— as it cannot be supposed but the N. England Missionaries, from their Native attachment to their country, may be led some way or other to bias the Indians against government.’’ 28 Kirkland found his stay at Johnson’s disconcerting in the extreme. The first night he was there, an alarm was raised that the Yankees were coming with a large body of men to seize Colonel Johnson. The Mohawk warriors were thereupon gathered together and sent out to reconnoiter, and the Loyalist militia and some of Johnson’s Scottish Highlander tenants stood guard all during the night. The next few days and nights were all “noise and confusion” to such an extent that Kirkland could get no rest. The weary missionary begged leave to ride out to Colonel Butler’s place so that he might have one night’s peaceful sleep. He pledged his word and even a bond of £500 that he would return on the following day. Johnson abso­ lutely refused but offered Kirkland every courtesy and consideration other­ wise during his confinement. The only stipulation was that the missionary was to have no communication with the Indians nor they with him.29 Those who favored the American cause against that of the king were equally apprehensive of the influence of their opponents over the Indians and were aware of the importance of securing the friendship of the red men. In an attempt to lessen Johnson’s effectiveness, the Tryon County Committee of Safety required a loyalty oath of certain inhabitants guar­ anteeing that they would give no aid or assistance to “Coll. Guy Johnson or any other person in his department with provisions or any other Necessarys nor . . . forward any dispatches or Intelligence whatsoever.” 30 The influence over the Mohawks of John Stuart, the Anglican missionary at Fort Hunter, and Colin McLeland, the schoolmaster, also caused no little consternation in Patriot circles in Tryon County. The Tryon County Com­ mittee of Safety discussed the gravity of the situation and decided that, since the minister and schoolmaster were both at Fort Hunter serving the Indians in a useful capacity at the Indians’ own request, and were under protection of the authorities, it would be both “Imprudent as well as Impolitick” to remove them and thereby excite and alienate the Mohawks and perhaps others of the Iroquois as well. The committee therefore consid­ ered a motion to call the offenders before that body, in company with two

64

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

or three Mohawk chiefs as witnesses, and give warning to the two not to meddle in the quarrel between the colonies and England and not to give aid or comfort to the enemies of America, under pain of being subject to the full penalty of the law.31 Johnson was making plans in May for a large Indian congress to be held at Thompson’s, above German Flats. On the last day of the month, he left his home in company with ninety Mohawks and one hundred twenty whites, including John Butler and Daniel Claus, who had long served Sir William in Indian affairs. The portly John Butler was a native of Connect­ icut but had lived for many years in the Mohawk Valley, where he had ex­ tensive land holdings. Claus was a German immigrant who had married Sir William Johnson’s elder white daughter. Industrious, intelligent, and able, he always strove for perfection in every endeavor. He was a compe­ tent linguist who spoke German, English, and Mohawk with equal facility. In the years after Quebec had passed from French to English control, he had served capably as Indian agent in that province. Finding the neighbor­ hood around Thompson’s hostile, Guy Johnson and his party went on to Fort Ontario via Fort Stanwix. At Stanwix, around the abandoned fort, he encountered a number of Oneidas, Tuscaroras, and Senecas. These he in­ vited to the congress and dispersed presents to emphasize his invitation. The Oneidas refused to accept his gifts and left. Johnson had been encountering increasing difficulties in his situation as Indian superintendent, for the Americans had blocked shipment of com­ modities to the Indian country and shipment by way of Halifax and the St. Lawrence was slow and irregular, especially since the Oswego garrison consisted of only a token force. He also feared for his own person, since feelings ran high among Whigs and Tories in Tryon County. Johnson was distrusted by the Whigs and accordingly felt insecure in his position. Ru­ mors of armed bands coming to seize him further heightened his anxiety, and he kept a large armed force always about him.32 At old Fort Ontario, across from Oswego, he assembled a congress of 1,458 men, women, and children of the various Iroquois nations, including a few Hurons from Detroit. According to Johnson, as a result of this meet­ ing the Indians “agreed to defend the communication, and assist his Majes­ ty’s Troops in their operations.” The superintendent warned the Indians to stay away from the white settlements, since the Americans could not be trusted. He vented his ire particularly upon the Oneida’s busybody minis­ ter who communicated “Indian intelligence to all parts” before even he himself heard of it. An inhabitant of Albany who happened accidentally

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

65

on the council at Ontario reported that he received assurances from the In­ dians “that they did not intend to fight against us,” but had agreed that the communication along the Mohawk River was to be kept open.33 On June 28, some of the Tuscaroras and Oneidas met with a group of Tryon County Whigs at Frederick Pellinger’s at German Flats, released a prisoner whom they brought from the Oneida carrying place, and assured the people assembled there that they would always remain on good terms with them and tell them of any bad news.34 The rumors, meanwhile, spread at an alarming rate throughout Tryon County while Colonel Johnson was holding his Indian congress. Some said that Guy Johnson and Brant were coming with eight or nine hundred Indi­ ans to fall upon the settlements. As the tale went from one to another, it was believed to be authentic intelligence. Appeals went out to the Com­ mittees of Safety of Albany and Schenectady to send ammunition and troops. General Philip Schuyler wrote a desperate letter to President John Hancock revealing the pitiful state of military preparedness of the county. With the settlements in a state of panic, the Oneidas sent two of their men to German Flats and to Albany to give reassurance that the rumors were groundless and the Six Nations were peaceable. They repeated their past promise to give notice to the Americans if there were any “bad news.” 35 While Johnson was holding his conference in the Indian country, the Second Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia was engaged in or­ ganizing an Indian department and appointing commissioners. An Indian committee was appointed on June 16 to consider the relations of the colo­ nies with the various Indian nations. Samuel Kirkland, meanwhile, had taken advantage of Johnson’s absence to make a trip to Philadelphia where he testified before the Congress on the morning of July 10. He spent a lit­ tle over a week at the Congress, conferring with members on Indian affairs and instructing them in the proper method of Indian diplomacy. Wampum belts designed for communication and for a future conference were pre­ pared according to his instructions. On July 12, the Indian committee made its report which emphasized the importance of preserving the friendship of the Indian nations and of neutralizing British influence among them. The Congress accordingly au­ thorized the formation of three Indian departments, based on geography, and gave the Indian commissioners power to seize the king’s Indian super­ intendents or any of their assistants if they should be attempting to turn the Indians against the colonies. The next day, commissioners were ap­ pointed for the northern and middle departments. Philip Schuyler, Joseph

66

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Hawley, Turbot [Turbutt] Francis, Oliver Wolcott, and Volkert P. Douw were designated to administer the northern department, which included the tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy. The Albany Dutch patrician, Major General Philip Schuyler, would soon emerge as the leading member of this commission. Also on July 13, a speech was approved to go to the Six Nations explaining the conflict between the colonies and the mother country and urging the neutrality of the Indians. On July 18, the Congress allowed Samuel Kirkland three hundred dollars for the expenses of his journey from Oneida to Philadelphia and for other extraordinary expenses among the Indians. The Congress further recommended to the Indian commission­ ers that Kirkland be employed to retain the friendship of the Indians.36 Thus by the time Guy Johnson had left Oswego and was on his way to Montreal, the Continental Congress had already organized a tripartite In­ dian department in competition with the British Indian administration and had formulated plans to attach the Indians to the American cause, in thought if not in deed. The Indians, caught in the middle of what seemed to them an unnatu­ ral conflict between their white brethren, and subjected to intolerable pres­ sures from either side in addition to the aspirations of their warrior ele­ ment, would soon find neutrality to be untenable. For the present, however, they struggled against both outside and inside influences to main­ tain their impartiality toward both sides. Even pledges of assistance for one side or another and outright hostility on the part of a portion of a par­ ticular tribe were kept under some measure of control, for never at any time prior to 1777 would a whole tribe of the Iroquois Confederacy make a full commitment to join in the war. The lack of control of the Grand Council over the constituent members of the Confederacy, which had fre­ quently plagued the Six Nations since the coming of the white man, would in these trying days prove to be one of the greatest impediments to the continued unity and welfare of the once-mighty League. The Iroquois Confederacy was due to suffer the penalties both of too much democracy and too much dependence on the white man. Guy Johnson left Oswego the first part of July 1775 with a force of two hundred twenty Indians and whites. With him also went five of the eight-man garrison at Oswego. The party arrived in Montreal on July 17, where Johnson immediately set about calling another conference of the northern Indians. His plans received somewhat of a setback, for he and Governor Guy Carleton were àt odds over the use to which the Indians should be put. The superintendent informed the governor of American

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

67

military activity around Ticonderoga and Lake Champlain and warned that the rebels “considered Canada as an essential object”; therefore, “it would be extremely necessary to put the Indians as soon as possible in mo­ tion.” Carleton disagreed, explaining that “he had but a slender force of Troops” and that accordingly the Province of Quebec must depend for its protection on the Canadian militia, which he had hopes of raising shortly. He utterly denied all permission to Johnson to put the Indians to use out­ side the province. They were to be kept in readiness for defensive pur­ poses only. Carleton further recognized the difficulty of controlling the In­ dians once they had been let loose, and feared that if they were permitted over the border, “the innocent might have suffered with the guilty.” The Indians assembled on July 26 to the number of “ 1700 and upwards,” ac­ cording to one source, and 1,664 by Johnson’s final count. Johnson had originally wanted to hold the conference at Lachine to prevent the tempta­ tion to drunkenness which would be much stronger in the more populous Montreal. The Indians stoutly agreed and were only with difficulty pre­ vailed upon by Governor Guy Carleton to meet in Montreal where he could observe them.37 Daniel Claus, who had been Indian agent in the Province of Quebec for fifteen years, carefully laid the groundwork for the meeting. A few days before the conference, he met with the Caughnawaga and St. Regis Indians to explain the conflict to them: “However Mr. Claus giving them an Account of the Beginning of the Rebellion and undutifull as well as most ungratefull Behaviour of the Americans towards their Mother Coun­ try almost since the Conclusion of the peace and that in case they suc­ ceeded gave them to consider their Danger of loosing their Lands and hunting Grounds they readily offered their service and proposed going in a Body to meet the rebels.” 38 The results of the conference were entirely satisfactory to Johnson and the governor. Whereas the Indians had been reluctant to declare them­ selves before, even at Governor Carleton’s request, they were now favora­ bly inclined to support the British. Previously the Indians had been dis­ couraged by the indifference of the Canadian habitants who were themselves infected with pro-American sentiments and disinclined to de­ fend the province for the British. Also, the Americans had not been lax in sending emissaries and messages to the Indians of Canada. James Dean’s trip was mentioned previously. The New Englanders had also sent Captain Abraham Nimham, a Stockbridge Indian, to Canada to plead the Ameri­ can cause before the Caughnawagas on behalf of his tribe.39 In addition,

68

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Nimham carried with him a message from Ethan Allen of Vermont, * urg­ ing them not to join the king and fight against their American brethren, for the king was in the wrong. Allen’s message was full of rhetoric and bom­ bast, but it held out to the Caughnawagas and their allies a tempting offer: “I know how to shute and ambush just like Indian and want your Warriors to come and see me and help me fight Regulars You know they Stand all along close Together Rank and file and my men fight so as Indians Do and I want your Warriors to Join with me and my Warriors like Brothers and Ambush the Regulars, if you will I will Give you Money Blankets Tomehawks Knives and Paint and the Like as much as you say because they first killed our men when it was Peace time.” 40 Though many Caughnawagas would thereafter still remain friendly to the Americans, as they had promised Dean, Guy Johnson and Daniel Claus were able to secure a favorable response from the conference as a whole, since those assembled “readily agreed to the same Measures en­ gaged by the Six Nations.” The Indians were then invited “to feast on a Bostonian and drink his Blood.” The old ritual cannibalism had now been transformed into more humane outlets, however, and the British, while using the traditionalist rhetoric, provided a roast ox and a pipe of wine to take the place of the Bostonian, as the rebel Americans were called. The Indians also sang their war songs for the occasions.41 At the end of the conference on July 29, the Indians were established in various camps on the island of Montreal, and a force of thirty warriors under a white officer were sent to take post at St. Johns’s near the Ameri­ can border.42 Early in August, a report came back to Johnson of the discovery by the Indians of an enemy party near Point au Fer above St. John’s and of the eagerness of the Indians to attack this group of rebels. Johnson com­ municated this intelligence to General Prescott, who was acting as local commander in the absence of General Carleton, since returned to Quebec. Prescott reiterated his instructions not to let the Indians go out of the province. A debate then ensued between Johnson and Prescott, with the former attempting to explain the intricacies of Indian administration and the necessity of keeping up the spirit of Indians by maintaining them in useful employment. Further, he complained that Carleton’s directions re­ garding the use of Indians “did not appear to correspond with . . . In­ structions from General Gage.” Prescott was adamant, and Johnson was * Technically “Vermont” was still the New Hampshire Grants at this time. Th< Province of Quebec was commonly referred to as “Canada.”

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

69

compelled to comply and keep up the spirits of his Indians by promises and oratory. He assembled them shortly after his talk with Prescott and handed out war belts to each tribe, “to be held ready for service, which the Indians cheerfully accepted, but said they were afraid the Axe would cut them if they kept it long without using it.” 43 A number of Six Nations and St. Regis Indians * remained in the vi­ cinity until August 12 in anticipation of action. When none was forthcom­ ing, they assured Johnson they would come back when war prospects were more favorable, and returned with their war belt to Onondaga. The pro-American Oneidas had upon several occasions urged the Americans to take the initiative strategically and diplomatically. At their June conference at German Flats, they had advised that “the gate of Fort Stanwix ought to be shut, that nothing might pass and repass to the hurt of our Country.” What the Oneidas meant was that the old fort ought to be renovated and garrisoned. A delegation of Oneidas also went to Albany that same month, conferred with the Committee of Safety, and requested that the old council fire at Albany be rekindled that the Six Nations might meet in friendship with the Americans. This latter request Philip Schuyler passed on to Congress, urging upon that body the wisdom of accepting the invitation and thus conciliating the affections of these Indians.44 The Con­ tinental Congress already had Indian affairs under consideration and was only too glad to seize an opportunity to secure the friendship of the Iro­ quois Confederacy. As has previously been noted, Congress formed an In­ dian department in July, appointed commissioners for the three areas, and prepared a speech and wampum belts for the Six Nations. The northern commissioners thereupon proceeded to arrange a council for the month of August. When the pro-British Mohawks heard of the impending conference planned by the Americans, they attempted to dissuade their brethren in the Six Nations from attending. A delegation of three Mohawks met at the Oneida village with representatives of that tribe as well as the Senecas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Tuscaroras, and reminded them of Colonel Johnson’s direction at their Ontario conference that the Indians stay away from the white settlements. The only motive of the Albany people in invit­ ing the Indians to visit them was to deceive them, the Mohawks warned. * St. Regis was another colony of Roman Catholic Mohawks settled on the St. Lawrence River. They are usually referred to in British documents as Oughquissasines. Today, the St. Regis Indians have modernized the spelling to Akwesasne, which means “Where the Partridge Drums.”

70

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Once the inhabitants of Albany had the Indians in their midst, they would either massacre them or deliver them up to the New Englanders. The assembly listened attentively to the Mohawk speakers. When these emissaries had finished, the Oneida and Cayuga speakers stood up in turn and delivered a strong reprimand to the Mohawks for “taking up arms in a peaceable country’’ and offering insults to many white people because of alarms raised by Colonel Johnson. The Mohawks confessed their culpabil­ ity, and even offered to confess it to the forthcoming council at Albany. The Indians then took up what to them was a most serious matter. At the Ontario conference, Johnson had uttered threats against the mission­ ary, Samuel Kirkland. He had stated that if he could establish proof of that minister’s further meddling in political matters, particularly interpret­ ing the proceedings of the Continental Congress to the Indians, “he would cutt off Mr. Kirklands head as soon as he would a snakes.” Upon his re­ turn from Canada, he promised the Indians that he would deal most strictly with Kirkland, and any tribe that continued to harbor him would gain the king’s displeasure and would no longer share equally in His Maj­ esty’s bounty. The Senecas, Cayugas, and Onondagas made their apprehen­ sions known to the Oneidas: “We have all heard Col. Johnsons threats— should he put them in execution and your Minister be apprehended and taken away by violence, all N. England will blame us— and the whole con­ federacy bro’t into trouble— and your Minister perhaps lost forever. We therefore propose whether it be not wise, that your Father the Minister should retire for the present, or that we all agree to support and defend him, at all hazards.” After long and careful consideration of the matter, the Oneidas de­ cided that they would allow their minister to remain until Colonel John­ son’s return from Canada, and then would help him to escape.45 So agreed, the Indians then proceeded to the council called by the American commissioners. They were met at German Flats on August 15, 1775, by two of the commissioners, Volkert P. Douw and Turbutt Francis. Samuel Kirkland was also present as interpreter. Colonel Francis ad­ dressed them, giving assurance of the pacific intentions of the Americans toward the Six Nations and asking them not to credit any evil rumors they might hear to the contrary. Kirkland’s old adversary the sachem Conoghquieson replied to Francis with a certain shrewdness and, perhaps, uncon­ scious humor: “We have heard your voices and your Speeches and are far from being contemptible, but as the day is far spent we defer a Reply till tomorrow. As we are weary from having sat long in Council, We think it

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

71

time for a little drink, and you must remember that the Twelve Colonies are a great Body.” 46 The council resumed on the next day with the Onondaga chief Tiahogwando addressing the commissioners. The speaker thanked the white men for their pledge of friendship and their invitation to Albany. He regretted that the Six Nations could not extend this invitation to all their confeder­ ates, as requested, because the tribes in alliance with the Six Nations ex­ tended a great distance and messages could not be sent to them in less than a year. Also, a certain white person was at Caughnawaga leading the Indi­ ans there in a different direction, and would not permit them to come away to a conference with the Americans. The speaker suggested that the Six Nations could carry the results of the council to all their allied tribes once the council was finished. He then required that the Indians going to Albany be guaranteed safe passage through the white settlements, lest they be struck a blow by some of the mischief makers among the white people. The council was then adjourned, to be reconvened in Albany.47 Although representatives of all the tribes of the Confederacy would be present at the council, including some Stockbridges as well, it was to be composed chiefly of Oneidas, Tuscaroras, and some of the Mohawks of the lower castle. A preliminary meeting took place on the afternoon of August 23, and that evening, the Indians performed a dance to entertain the whites. The next day, the Indians met with the Albany committee, which had extended the invitation to them before the congressional commission­ ers were appointed. After having performed this courtesy and affirming their neutrality, the Indians prepared for the opening of the formal council on August 25.48 The congress with the Six Nations opened in Albany at 11:00 a .m . on the morning of August 25 in the Dutch Church. Philip Schuyler, Oliver Wolcott, Turbutt Francis, and Volkert Douw were present with secretaries and Samuel Kirland and James Dean for assistants and interpreters. The fifth commissioner. Major Hawley, was unable to attend. The first meeting was spent in “rekindling the ancient council fire” which once burned at Albany.* Seghnagenrat, an Oneida chief, pledged the friendship of the In­ dians; the commissioners reciprocated with assurances of their attachment to the Six Nations and explained the unity of the Twelve Colonies (Geor­ gia had not yet joined). Compliments were exchanged and the peace pipe * Sir William Johnson had moved the council fire from Albany to Johnson Hall, a place more easily accessible to the Indians and more convenient for himself. This was the council fire for consultation with the whites. The council fire of the Confed­ eracy, of course, remained at Onondaga.

72

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

smoked. On August 26 and 28, the commissioners related to the Indians the nature of the conflict between the colonies and England. On the latter day, they delivered the speech of the Continental Congress to the Six Na­ tions. The king, so the speech claimed, had “broken the covenant chain with his American children.” He also had wicked advisers who believed they could “slip their hand into our pocket without asking, as though it were their own; and at their pleasure they will take from us our charters or written civil constitutions, which we love as our lives— also our planta­ tions, our houses and goods whenever they please, without asking our leave.” The Continental Congress assured the Iroquois that no demands would be made upon them for their support or services. “This is a family quarrel between us and Old England. You Indians are not concerned in it. We don’t wish you to take up the hatchet against the King’s troops. We de­ sire you to remain at home, and not join on either side.” 49 On August 27, in the midst of this conference, Schuyler was called away to participate in the campaign against Canada. The other commission­ ers carried on ably, however, and gave assurances to the tribes present that they would keep the roads open into the Indian country and molest none of their friends coming or going. The Indians deliberated two full days on the message of the commis­ sioners and then reassembled on August 31 to give their reply by their speaker, Little Abraham, chief of the lower Mohawk castle. Abraham re­ plied with much eloquence that the Six Nations would faithfully abide by their agreement to continue in friendship to all their white brethren and to take no part in the dispute. “We beg you will receive this as infallible, it being our full Resolution,” he assured the commissioners. “For we bear as much affection for the King of Englands subjects upon the other side of the water as we do for you born upon this Island.” That the Indians were sincere at the time they made this pledge is indi­ cated by the long struggle in the Confederacy to maintain this neutrality. Many who were at the Albany council would later go back on their word and engage in hostilities. The Americans were also guilty of breaking their word, however, for they later encouraged the tribes to enter into the war after having promised that they would require only neutrality. Chief Abraham urged the commissioners to take their quarrels else­ where and keep them out of the Indian country. Some Caughnawagas were friendly to the king. He hoped they would not be attacked and the path to their country “defiled with Blood.”

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

73

As for your Quarrels to the Eastward, along the Sea Coasts, do as you please but it would hurt us to see those brought up in our Bos­ oms ill used. In particular we could mention the Son of Sir William Johnson [Sir John Johnson]. He is born among us, and is of Dutch [German] Extraction by his Mother; he minds his own affairs, and does not intermeddle in public disputes. We would likewise mention our Father, the Minister [John Stuart], who resides among the Mo­ hawks, and was sent them by the King. He does not meddle in Civil affairs, but instructs them in the way to Heaven. He absolutely re­ fuses to attend to any political matters, and says they do not belong to him, they beg he may continue in peace among them. The Mo­ hawks are frequently alarmed with Reports that their Minister is to be torn away from them. A further matter of great importance to the Iroquois was a request to reestablish a trade at Schenectady and Albany, where they could exchange furs and other goods for those products of white manufacture which had become a necessity for them. During the session on August 24, Tiahogwando had requested that the commissioners give orders that their axes, hoes, and kettles would be repaired, as had formerly been done for them. The commissioners promised to comply. Abraham also presented to the commissioners and to the people of Al­ bany two land grievances of the Mohawk Indians, involving land granted by the Albany Corporation for which they had not been paid “so much as a single pipe.” 50 Tiahogwando, the Onondaga, then brought up the old Wyoming land controversy. This area in Pennsylvania had been ceded to that colony by the Iroquois but was also settled by natives of Connecticut and was claimed by the latter colony. A New England agent had held a fraudulent treaty with some Mohawks years before and set this forward as a basis to the New Englanders’ claim to the area. These land grievances rankled the Iroquois and stood as an impediment to a sincere friendship between them and the Americans. The commissioners declared that land problems were out of the bounds of their authority but that they would take the matter to Congress. They did reiterate that Congress wished a permanent and enduring friend­ ship with the Six Nations. The congress concluded on the first of Sep­ tember with a round of the traditional “Yo Ha” from every nation present.

74

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

On September 2, the Albany committee met with the representatives of the Six Nations at the Presbyterian Meeting House, in the presence of the United States commissioners. They assured the Indians that neither the Oneidas nor the Mohawks would be deprived of their ministers and gave their approbation of the Iroquois promises to remain neutral. As for the land grievances, they denied that they were the body to have authority in such matters but reminded the Indians that these complaints had already come before “proper tribunals’’ in the past. There thus was to be no settle­ ment of the land problem for the present, or ever.51 By request of the Indians, James Dean was appointed by the commis­ sioners on September 3 to go to the Grand Council soon to be held at Onondaga to review the terms of the treaty just concluded at Albany. Dean returned the first part of November, bringing news that those mem­ bers of the Mohawk, Seneca, and Cayuga tribes who had gone to Canada with Guy Johnson had returned with the story that they had taken up the hatchet against the Americans. This turn of events strongly displeased the members of those nations who had just concluded the treaty of friendship at Albany, and they prevailed upon their fellows to deliver up the hatchet, either at Albany or to Colonel Johnson.52 While affairs among the Six Nations were measuring up to the fondest expectations of the Continental Congress, the planned Canadian expedition could proceed northward with no danger of an Indian uprising in the American rear. Major General Philip Schuyler headed the American army bound for Canada, assisted by Brigadier General Richard Montgomery. Two thousand men pushed northward to attack the post at St. John’s, just north of Lake Champlain. Another force under Benedict Arnold was mov­ ing up the Kennebec River and through Maine to seize Quebec. Although Arnold’s force would soon be drastically depleted through hunger, disease, death, and desertion during his painful march through the Maine wilds, still the combined forces of the two armies were enough to cause conster­ nation among the British officers in Canada, particularly in view of the neutral tendencies or outright pro-American sentiments of a large part of the Canadian populace. The British officials in the Province of Quebec could depend upon the support of the elite elements in the country— the seigneurs, the bourgeoisie, and the French Canadian clergy— but not upon the common inhabitants in the villages and the rural regions. Both the in­ cessant political propaganda aimed at Canadians by the Continental Con­ gress and by American immigrants in Canada, and the paucity of British troops in the province, indicating an inability of the government to protect

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

75

them against invasion, played a significant part in confusing the common people and in alienating them from their British masters. Carleton had only seven hundred regular troops in Canada, comprising the 7th and 26th Regiments. There were also a total of eighty-five officers and men from the Royal Artillery. St. John’s was garrisoned with three hundred eighty infantry and about forty artillerymen. The post of Chambly just to the north of St. John’s had a force of one hundred fourteen infantry and a few artillerymen. Montreal was protected by only one hundred eleven infantry and Quebec City by a small force of sixty-one regulars. The remaining forces were spread out in various outposts in Quebec and farther west. Canada was clearly in a very weak position militarily, and might indeed soon become the Fourteenth Colony if only the invasion should succeed.53 Reports of the American advance northward along Lake Champlain were sent back by Indian scouts, impelling Colonel Johnson on September 3 to augment his Indian force at St. John’s to one hundred twenty-one warriors and four officers. The next day, General Prescott directed John­ son not to send out any more Indian parties but to keep them near Mon­ treal to guard against an enemy attack. Johnson also sent a force of Indi­ ans to guard the magazines near Lachine.54 On September 6, a thousand American soldiers began their landing in a swamp about a mile below St. John’s, on the side of the fort that was as yet unfinished. The southwest curtain of the fort was not completed, and the garrison could not have withstood a strong assault. Just at this point, a relief of the Indian scouts came in. Major Charles Preston, the commander of the fort, stopped them and ordered them out to march with the party of Indian scouts already present to attack the enemy. The Indians numbered fewer than ninety, but with their three white officers— the de Lorimier brothers and Captain Gilbert Tice— hurried down to the shore to meet the enemy while the soldiers kept safely within the fort. What happened in the engagement that followed depends on whether one consults British or American sources, for both sides claimed victory. As the Americans pressed forward through the wooded swamp toward the fort, the Indians took up their positions for an ambush. Most of these warriors were Caughnawagas, with a few Six Nations Indians. The troops on the American left flank under Major Hobby and Captain Mead were attacked while crossing a creek. The Indians opened up a heavy fire and the battle was joined. Johnson and Claus in their separate reports of the action stated that the Indians stoutly repulsed two assaults by the Ameri-

76

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

cans and finally forced them to retire. Schuyler claimed that “our troops gallantly pressing on them, they soon gave way and left us the ground.” Here, then, are two contradictory accounts of the outcome of the engage­ ment. All one can do is search for clues to the truth in the reports written by the opponents and compare them with the known actions during and after the battle. Schuyler described the events that took place after the engagement: “Night coming on, and the swamp almost impassable, we drew our men together, and cast up a small intrenchment, to defend ourselves in case of an attack.” Meanwhile, two Indians with written reports of the battle were sent express from St. John’s to Colonel Johnson at Montreal. They arrived at daylight the next day, September 7, with the news that the Indian force had “engaged them [the Americans] with so much success that they obliged them to retire twice.” Had the Indians been defeated in this en­ counter as Schuyler said, there would have been no point in their officers sending a completely fraudulent claim of victory to the superintendent. Clearly, the Indians and their officers did not consider themselves to have suffered a defeat. Both sides had nearly an equal number of casualties. The Indians had four killed and several wounded. Of the latter, three soon died. Colonel Johnson listed the Indians killed outright in the engagement as “Capt. Daniel a faithful Mohock, one Conijohare, . . . [and] two Caughnawagas.” He also estimated that the Americans had thirty-five killed and more than twice that number wounded, which was an overly generous count. Schuyler claimed that “William a bastard son of Sir Wil­ liam Johnsons” was killed in the action. In this he was in error. William, Jr., was alive at least as late as 1779. Captain Tice of the Indian service was wounded in the thigh. On the American side, eight were killed, five soldiers and three officers wounded. It is possible that the engagement ended in a draw, with no side gaining a decisive victory over the other. It is also possible that the Indians mistook the American action in drawing in their lines for a retreat. What is clear, however, is that, whoever won the ground, the American advance was halted.55 That evening a strange incident occurred that would greatly assist the British in their defense of Canada and give further credence to the tale of an American defeat by the Indians. A certain man, whose name Schuyler wished to keep highly secret, came to the American camp to bring intelli­ gence on the situation at St. John’s specifically and in Canada generally. Schuyler did not reveal this man’s name to Congress but he did to Wash­ ington, requesting the commander-in-chief to erase the name from the let­ ter as soon as he had read it. This mysterious visitor gave an extremely

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

77

Philip Schuyler . Engraving after an original painting by Alonzo Chappel. General

Schuyler was the most important of the American Indian commissioners in the northern department during the war. C o u r te s y o f A m e r ic a n A n tiq u a r ia n S o c ie ty , W o r c e ste r , M a s s a c h u s e tts

78

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

pessimistic estimate of America’s prospects in Canada. He said that all but fifty soldiers of the 26th Regiment were stationed at St. John’s and Chambly, with the addition of one hundred Indians at the former place and “a considerable body with Col. Johnson.” The works at St. John’s “were com­ plete and strong, and plentifully furnished with cannon.” The vessel carry­ ing sixteen guns “would be ready to sail in three or four days.” The Amer­ ican army would likely not be joined by a single Canadian, he said, for the latter wished to remain neutral. All things considered, it would be “imprudent” to attack St. John’s.56 On the morning of September 7, Schuyler held a council of war with all the field officers who were present and communicated to them the intel­ ligence he had received from his visitor of the evening before. Their opin­ ions were the same as Schuyler’s and he accordingly ordered a withdrawal to Isle aux Noix. Considering the reception they had received the day be­ fore and also the fact that their scanty artillery had not yet arrived, Schuy­ ler and his officers felt that a temporary retreat would be the wisest policy. The Indians were thoroughly disgusted after the battle at not having been supported by any of the white troops. They believed that the com­ manding officer had purposely intended to sacrifice them while protecting his own soldiers in the fort. In a pique, they all left St. John’s and returned home.57 General Montgomery launched a second assault of the works of St. John’s on September 10 with eight hundred men, but most of the soldiers panicked and ran after landing. The attack was abandoned and the army returned to the unhealthy camp at Isle aux Noix. It was not long before at least six hundred of the army were down with fevers and other disorders. Schuyler himself, sick since his first arrival at St. John’s, had turned the command over to Montgomery. It was not until September 16 that Mont­ gomery would attempt another attack on the fort. The Indian defense of St. John’s had delayed the American invasion of Canada for nearly two weeks, during which time the defenses of both the fort and the rest of the province were strengthened. If the American as­ sault on St. John’s had not been immediately repulsed, it is doubtful that the garrison could have held out so long as it did. Claus claimed that the fort could not have withstood a siege of forty-eight hours. Since the Amer­ icans lacked artillery, this is probably an exaggeration.58 Carleton, John­ son, Claus, and other officials, unaware of Schuyler’s mysterious visitor, gave the Indians sole credit for turning back the Americans at St. John’s. General Carleton issued formal thanks to Britain’s red allies in general or-

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

79

ders on September 13: “The General gives his thanks to the Indian Chiefs and Warriors who behaved so gallantly in the action of the 6th Instant near St. Johns and desires that the same may be communicated to them by Col. Johnson their Superintendent.” 59 After the fort had been put in better repair and the garrison increased, it was able to withstand a fifty-three-day siege. Had St. John’s fallen in September, the whole province of Quebec, then in a most defenseless state, would have lain open to the American armies. When the Americans finally did succeed in breaking through the frontier posts and taking Montreal, the season was already well advanced; and the invasion floundered in the winter snows before Quebec. William Johnson, Jr., one of Sir William’s Mohawk offspring whom General Schuyler had prematurely listed among the dead at St. John’s, came back to the Mohawk Valley breathing terrible threats against all reb­ els. He burst into Colonel Jacob Klock’s house, in Klock’s absence, armed with two pistols, a rifle, and a broadsword, and declared to the startled family: “I am a King’s Man, who dare say anything against it; I have killed so many Yankies at Fort St. John’s with this Sword of my Father, they are no Soldiers at all. I kill’d and scalp’d, and kick-d their arses, and the d— d Committee here have gone too far already, I will shew them bet­ ter, and will cut some of their heads off by and by.” He promised to come back with a force of five hundred and lay waste to the whole valley before winter.60 William’s half-brother Peter, son of Sir William and Mary Brant, had also served in the Canadian campaign. Peter, along with Walter Butler, captured Ethan Allen when the latter attempted to take Montreal in Sep­ tember. Peter Johnson was an officer in the 26th Regiment and died in Philadelphia in 1777.61 Aside from young William’s imprecations, the Mohawk Valley was quiet that fall and winter. The chiefs of the upper Mohawk castle at Canajoharie even made an apology to the Committee of Safety for the action of some of their young warriors in taking up arms in Canada. In December a delegation of Indians came into Albany, and a chief who had been at the Montreal conference delivered up to Schuyler the war belt he had received there. Schuyler wrote to President John Hancock: “We now have a full Proof that the Ministerial Servants have attempted to engage the Savages against Us.” 62 Schuyler was unrighteously indignant over Guy Johnson’s machina­ tions. The Americans were the first to enlist Indian auxiliaries against the

80

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

British in Massachusetts. General Gage complained of the Stockbridge In­ dians who participated in the siege of Boston, “the Rebels have brought all the Savages they could against us here.” He wrote to the Earl of Dart­ mouth giving the opinion that “we need hot be tender of calling upon the Savages, as the Rebels have shewn us the example.” Gage urged Carleton to get the British Indian allies to declare war against the Americans as soon as possible, to prevent their being seduced by the king’s enemies.63 Elsewhere in the North, things were going well for the Americans in Indian affairs that fall. A treaty of friendship was held with the western Indians at Fort Pitt. Present, besides representatives of the Six Nations, were Wyandots, Delawares, Shawnees, and Ottawas. Kayashuta and Flying Crow,* both Senecas, were speakers for the Six Nations. The American commissioners urged the Indians to take fast hold of the chain of friend­ ship and told them further that they took the tomahawk out of their hands “and buried it deep and transplanted the Tree of Peace over it.” The quar­ rel the Indians witnessed, they were told, was between white men and did not concern Indians, who were to sit quietly and not be involved on either side. This very well pleased the tribes present, including the representa­ tives of the Six Nations, since they considered peace to be the path to their own welfare.64 For the British, affairs were in a more insecure state. The honest but unfortunate General Gage was recalled from America in September of 1775 to be succeeded by General William Howe. George Germain, the secretary of state, had little confidence in Gage’s abilities. He wrote to a friend earlier that year: “I must . . . lament that General Gage, with all his good qualitys, finds himself in a situation of too great importance for his talents. The conduct of such a war requires more than common abili­ ties, the distance from the seat of Government necessarily leaves much to the discretion and the resources of the General, and I doubt whether Mr. Gage will venture to take a single step beyond the letter of his instructions, or whether the troops have that opinion of him as to march with confi­ dence of success under his command.” Gage was to be a scapegoat for the government’s past bungling in America. His successor, General Howe, had plans for shifting “the theatre of the now inevitable War, to the province of New York,” and the home government had hopes of great things. There was also a change in the Indian administration. One Major John Campbell appeared from England and produced his appointment as superintendent * Flying Crow’s Seneca name is given in the documents as both Cococawcanketeda and Cawconcaucawheteda.

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

81

of Indian affairs for the Province of Quebec, much to the chagrin of Dan­ iel Claus, whose post that had been for fifteen years, and of Guy Johnson, who was now superseded in Canada. Campbell’s main qualification for his new employment was his marriage to the daughter of La Corne St. Luc, former director of Indian affairs in Quebec under the French regime. To see justice done to their claims and to assure that so delicate and exacting an office as that of administering Indian affairs was not passed out as a pa­ tronage plum, Johnson and Claus took ship for England on November 11, 1775. With them went Joseph Brant, the warrior John from the lower Mo­ hawk castle, Captain Gilbert Tice, Ensign Walter Butler, Ensign Peter Johnson, and Joseph Chew, secretary to Guy Johnson. Brant was espe­ cially anxious to learn for himself in England the true nature of the quar­ rel between the mother country and the colonies and also to present the Mohawk land grievances to the British government.65 The campaign of 1775 was now at an end in New York, but toward the close of the year, there were new problems to occupy the attention of the authorities. Sir John Johnson, son of Sir William, excited the suspi­ cions of the Whigs as a result of his royalist sentiments. Early in January 1776, rumors were again rife along the Mohawk Valley. Isaac Paris, chair­ man of the Tryon County Committee of Safety, sent Schuyler intelligence on January 11 “that inimical preparations are taken against the Friends of the American Cause in Johnstown,” that six or seven hundred men were already under arms there and were provided with cannon as well. One in­ former had filed a deposition telling of a large cache of arms at Johnstown, gathered there for use against the Americans. These rumors had been cir­ culating for weeks and had even reached Congress. That body gave Gen­ eral Schuyler authority to investigate the truth of the allegations.66 That American suspicions were well-grounded is attested by the documents we now have relating to Johnson’s secret correspondence with the Royal Governor of New York, William Tryon. Johnson sent one of his tenants, Captain McDonell, to Tryon in New York City with a letter and with a verbal communication too important to be put in writing. Johnson revealed that he and his Tory neighbors had conferred together about rais­ ing a battalion in the king’s favor, and had actually “named all the Offi­ cers.” Also, by McDonell, Sir John assured the governor that he “could muster five hundred Indians to support the cause of Government,” and that these Indians acting in conjunction with regular troops could “re-take the Forts.” With his cousin Guy absent in England, Sir John also proposed that he be given the title of Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Though the

82

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Americans never saw this incriminating letter, they had received sufficient intelligence of Sir John’s activities and sentiments to rouse them to ac­ tion.67 Schuyler lost little time in raising a force of seven hundred men to march out to Johnstown and to confront Sir John Johnson. In order not to frighten or distress the Mohawks at Fort Hunter, which was on the way to Johnstown, Schuyler sent a messenger ahead on January 15 to inform the Indians of the impending expedition and its purpose. The Mohawks, how­ ever, were alarmed. They and others of the Six Nations had just concluded a treaty of friendship with the Americans at Albany last summer and had expected no disturbance in their country. They were particularly con­ cerned for the safety of Sir John, for he was the kinsman of many of them and the son of their late beloved superintendent. They consequently re­ plied to Bleeker, the messenger, not to be in so great a hurry, for so large a body of troops might well cause bloodshed or other difficulties. Three or four persons might as easily go to Sir John to settle the differences. While they waited to hear from the Americans on their suggestion, they informed Bleeker they would themselves send a delegation to Sir John to “desire him to remain silent and be at peace.” The headwomen likewise impressed upon Schuyler’s messenger their intent to abide by the recent treaty and begged that there be no disturbance in their country. A delegation of Mohawks then proceeded down to meet with Schuyler at Albany, but unexpectedly encountered him at Schenectady with his army the next day.* Little Abraham upbraided Schuyler for so soon for­ getting their treaty and bringing a large armed force with cannon into their country without provocation. He further assured Schuyler that the Mo­ hawks minded “nothing but peace” and looked upon themselves as “me­ diators between both parties.” The Albany people were in error, he said, in assuming that Sir John was fortifying his house, for the Mohawks would certainly know if any such thing were being undertaken. The most Schuyler would concede to the Mohawks was to permit them to send a small delegation of chiefs to accompany him to Sir John’s, and to promise to send notice to Johnson of his approach. This having been agreed upon, the army proceeded on its way. Schuyler encamped a few miles from Johnstown and proceeded with negotiations. He offered very rigid terms to Sir John: deliver up all “can­ non, arms, and other military stores” in his possession or concealed any* The militia turned out with great enthusiasm all along the route and finally brought Schuyler's total force to three thousand.

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

83

S ir J ohn Johnson. Pastel by St. Memin. The son of Sir William and a devoted Loy­

alist, he recruited the Royal Yorkers, or “Johnson’s Greens," to defend the cause of his king against the rebellious colonists. J o h n s o n H a ll, N e w Y o r k S ta te H is to r ic S ite , J o h n s to w n , N e w Y o r k

84

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

where within his knowledge; be confined, on parole, in a restricted area of Tryon County, unless the Continental Congress should see fit to move him to another colony; cause the Scotch inhabitants, most of whom were Sir John’s tenants, to deliver up their arms an.d deliver up six of their number as hostages; have the other Loyalists in Tryon County deliver up their arms; turn over to Schuyler all Indian goods in his possession belonging to the crown; promise to remain peaceable and thereby gain the friendship and protection of the Thirteen Colonies. Sir John was indignant and sent a temporizing answer to Schuyler, se­ verely modifying his proposals. Schuyler remained firm and gave an ulti­ matum: agree by midnight of January 18, or else. Johnson gave in, beg­ ging only to retain “a few favorite family arms,” and gave his “parole of honor not to take up arms against America.” He balked at being restricted to Tryon County, however, promising not to go west of the German Flats and Kingsland District, but wanted freedom to travel to any other colony to the south. Schuyler agreed, as long as Johnson did not visit any seaport town. Further, Johnson refused to have hostages chosen from his tenants but informed Schuyler that the Scots agreed to have six of their number taken prisoners and hoped Schuyler would care for their wives and chil­ dren in their absence. Schuyler agreed to the former arrangement but not the latter, though he did promise to recommend this matter to Congress. Johnson denied having power over any others in Tryon County save his own tenants; if Schuyler suspected others of nefarious schemes, it was up to him to uncover and disarm these people himself. Finally, Sir John denied having in his possession any Indian goods. The meeting at Johnstown thereupon took place on the appointed day, January 20, 1776, with Sir John and his tenants giving over their arms and ammunition to Schuyler. The issue thus resolved was in actuality only tem­ porarily settled. The next encounter with Sir John would result in a com­ plete rupture of relations.68 Tensions in the Confederacy were steadily beginning to mount throughout the months of British-American conflict. The British had sought the friendship and even the open assistance of the Iroquois and other tribes in this struggle. The Americans continued to work toward Iro­ quois neutrality. Tory ties with the Iroquois, especially the Mohawks, and Tory activity in the border settlements would force the Whigs to adopt more vigorous measures to restrain the hostile intent of the king’s white sympathizers. The Americans were most desirous of nullifying any influ­ ence the Tories might have with the Indians. The move against Sir John

HOLD FAST TO THE COVENANT CHAIN

85

aroused the resentment of his Mohawk kindred, as did the seeming Ameri­ can breach of the neutrality agreement. The warriors’ propensities to take to the warpath would be increasingly difficult to control. Their own incli­ nations and British needs would be potent inducements to break the ten­ uous control of the sachems. For the present, the neutrality could be main­ tained because the British use of Indian auxiliaries was restricted to Canada, and the majority of the Confederacy saw the advantage to them­ selves in maintaining friendly relations with both sides. When the British at last launched a campaign from the north through Indian country, Indian cooperation would be deemed imperative in their endeavor. Then the stresses and pressures would become too strong and too attractive to resist.

IV An Uneasy Neutrality

away in England, John Butler, the Mohawk Valley Loyalist, was delegated by Governor Guy Carleton to be deputy Indian agent and act in the superintendent’s absence. Although Carleton in later years described him as “very modest and shy,” there was nothing back­ ward about Butler’s attempt to enlist the Indians on the side of the king.1 At Fort Niagara, he continued throughout 1776 to have numerous confer­ ences with representatives of the Iroquoian and various western tribes. Butler continually requested the Indians to abandon their neutrality and openly attach themselves to the British cause. The Iroquois returned to their villages in February of 1776 after one such conference, and the Oneidas assured James Dean, the interpreter and Schuyler’s deputy among that tribe, that Butler had spoken only of peace to them. Dean later began to question this pacific news, however, because he believed the pro-American Oneidas would not be properly informed on all the happenings at Niagara, lest this intelligence should reach the ears of the American leaders. An incident that happened at Oneida in March confirmed Dean’s sus­ picions. On March 10, he wrote to Schuyler concerning the great conten­ tion then existing between the Oneidas and a large delegation of Cayugas and Onondagas who had come to the Oneida settlement for a condolence ceremony for a departed headman. The condolence over, the Cayuga chief severely reprimanded the Oneidas for paying more attention to the newly kindled council fire at Albany than to their “antient Council Fire at Onon­ daga.” The people at Albany were deceitful and would surely turn upon the Indians if they ever succeeded in overcoming the king’s soldiers, said the Cayuga. Further, and most offensive of all, the Oneidas had delivered up the hatchet given them by Colonel Johnson to their friends at Albany without in the least consulting the rest of the Confederacy. Since the Onei­ das declined to go on the warpath, they then should have minded proper protocol and, according to their agreement, returned the hatchet to the W ith G uy J ohnson

86

AN UNEASY NEUTRALITY

87

person who gave it to them, the speaker charged. The Cayugas were deter­ mined to go to Albany to retrieve the hatchet and return it to the proper party. They requested the Oneidas to send a delegation of warriors to as­ sist them in this errand. This the Oneidas hotly refused to do and urged the Cayugas to return home rather than carry out an act which could only create suspicion and distrust of the Confederacy in the minds of the Amer­ icans. The debate was lengthy, lasting three days, and rose to a very high pitch. Finally, the views of the Oneidas prevailed and the Cayugas agreed rather ill-naturedly to abandon their project and return home. The Oneidas confided to Dean that they looked upon Niagara as the source of all this disruption and the change of heart of their brethren. They also confessed that never since the founding of the Confederacy had disputes been so divisive or heated and fierce as those just passed between them and the Cayugas.2 James Dean himself played a significant part in this controversy, for the Oneidas had sufficient confidence in him to admit him to their coun­ cils. From his vantage point, he was able to offer advice and strengthen the arguments of the Oneidas during this period of tense debate.3 The British policy in regard to recruiting Indians was far more aggres­ sive at this time than was the American. Neither Philip Schuyler, George Washington, nor the Continental Congress was particularly interested in enlisting Indians to fight in the American cause. Massachusetts, it is true, had enlisted some Stockbridge Indians and was also alert to the possibili­ ties of securing aid from other northeastern tribes; and some Indian scouts had accompanied Benedict Arnold on his expedition to Canada. Aside from the Massachusetts endeavor, active participation of Indians with American armies was thus on a rather meagre and informal basis. In fact, when a Caughnawaga chief offered General Washington his services at the head of four or five hundred warriors, despite the Caughnawaga agreement to be neutral, Washington demurred. He believed that the Caughnawagas would be of little use without the other Indian nations, and bringing those Indians in would entail certain penalties as well. The expenses of the Indian department were already “amazing” and would be even more so were the colonies to enter into a military alliance with the native American nations. Schuyler was also unwilling to employ the Indians, for he was certain that they would become very demanding once the colonies had a formal alliance with them. Already as Indian com­ missioner, Schuyler was “daily tormented” by parties of Indians applying for clothing, ammunition for hunting, and other necessities. The colonies

88

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

could hardly supply their own armies and would be exceedingly hard put to meet the demands of the Indians, too, which would increase many fold once they became open allies in the war. Schuyler suspected that the Tories were secretly encouraging the Indi­ ans to make demands in order to embarrass the Americans. The Indians, he said, were “sufficiently inclined” on their own to make these requests without inducements from those interested in injuring the American cause. If he could but catch anyone in this “crime” of urging the Indians to make continued applications, Schuyler threatened he would do his best “to pro­ vide him with a Lodging in Simsbury Mines”— one of the more frighten­ ing and unhealthy of American prisons.4 The responsibility for Indian administration was, in actuality, all new to the Americans. What Schuyler was experiencing in his capacity as In­ dian commissioner, the Johnsons had experienced for years. With the in­ creasing white encroachments on Indian lands and the consequent deple­ tion of game animals, as well as the changing way of life of the Indians as they adopted many European items of dress and economic life, there was an increasing dependence of the Indians on the whites to supply these ne­ cessities, especially as Indian culture was as yet incapable of making and repairing guns, axes, hoes, and kettles, spinning cloth, and producing other materials that had become a necessity to the red man’s way of life. Much of the old culture was fast disappearing for the Indian. It was now no longer possible for him to go back to his former mode of living before the white man came. Even the old skill of making wampum was dying out as colonial wampum factories were grinding out the shell beads at a high rate. The British administration valued the Indian alliance, highly enough to provide means of supplying their red allies with these needs and thus easing their transition to a changing culture. Even more important from the British standpoint was the Indians’ feel­ ing of loyalty to the king that these constant benefactions encouraged. The British-run Indian department was costly in time of peace and far more costly in time of war. From the viewpoint of British imperial relations, however, this was an expenditure that was wisely made. It would have been far more of an expense to the British in terms of both money and lives had they neglected the Indians. Maintaining their friendship was a means of protecting the frontiers, not only against the Indians themselves but against the French and Spanish colonial empires. In exchange, their Indian allies helped them to win a continent. Colonial expansion and im­ perial rivalries were rapidly reducing the Indians in population and de-

AN UNEASY NEUTRALITY

89

moralizing them by white contact. Even had reasons of humanity not moved the British government to come to the aid of the red men, then cer­ tainly reasons of diplomacy would have. Sir William Johnson, who always placed the king’s interest above that of the Indians’, and who did not ne­ glect to enlarge his own land holdings at their expense, did stand, for all that, as a buffer between the red man and the colonists, did concern him­ self with their welfare, and did bother to learn and honor their customs. Those who lived closest to the Indian territories and who had no more far-reaching responsibilities than their own self-interest or the interests of their local communities had frequently looked upon the Indian tribes from an entirely different perspective from that of the British administration. Many of the colonial leaders and border settlers considered the Indian to be an inconvenient impediment in the way of further white advancement — a creature to be appeased only when absolutely necessary, to be ex­ ploited always, and to be divested of his land whenever feasible. His Maj­ esty’s government and the crown officials charged with Indian administra­ tion were thus often strongly at odds with the local colonial leadership and the frontiersmen in the matter of Indian affairs. It came as somewhat of a shock to the Americans to find that if they wished to replace the king and his agents in the esteem of the Indians, they would have to assume the obligations that went with this friendship. Even pledging the Indians to neutrality in the conflict between the colonies and Great Britain incurred certain responsibilities toward those Indians on the part of the Americans. If the latter wished to chase the British off the con­ tinent, if they wished to do away with British control and rule themselves, then they would have to fill the gap left by the rulers whom they would displace. Once the Americans had prevailed upon even a portion of the Indians to look toward Albany or Fort Pitt rather than Niagara, or Mon­ treal, or London, then they found that even Indian neutrality placed upon them heavy responsibilities. The Indians were sincere in their promises of friendship. They would even tear their Confederacy apart to prove it. But they expected that the Americans would act toward them as the British had in the past. They requested a trade be opened on the borders of their country where they could bring their furs and exchange them for needed goods. They asked for smiths to live in their towns to mend their tools. They stopped in Albany to call upon their brother and beg that he would give them some rags to cover their nakedness. To Schuyler and to Wash­ ington it was disconcerting. Among Indians, the chiefs were generally the poorest of men because they were always helping those in need. It was ex-

90

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

pected. Were not the white men’s chiefs as generous as their own? Cer­ tainly they were far richer and far more powerful. Their brother Warraghiyagey, as they had called Sir William Johnson, had always cared for their needs while never diminishing his own1wealth. Indeed, the longer he helped them, the more he seemed to prosper. The king’s bounty never failed. The Americans, struggling to be free from the shackles of imperial rule so that they could rule themselves, had not adequately counted the cost of replacing Great Britain on their portion of the continent. They had given little or no thought to the probability of becoming themselves an im­ perial power on that same continent. Here now was a problem in imperial­ ism staring straight at them. Holding fast to the covenant chain meant something far more complex than merely smoking the peace pipe and ex­ changing wampum.belts. Friendship and military alliances had their obli­ gations as well as their benefits. There was a general council at Onondaga in March, and the Caughnawagas, in consequence of the message of friendship the Oneidas had sent them the preceding summer, stopped first at the Oneida castle instead of proceeding directly to Onondaga as some of the Seneca warriors in Canada had tried to urge upon them. This meant that the Caughnawagas were then “of one Heart and Mind” with the Oneidas and would, if they continued so, very likely then draw closer to the Americans than to the British in sentiment. Cleavages were thus beginning to develop in the League as var­ ious tribes reacted either positively or negatively to the outside pressures upon them. These pressures were also being carried over into the League structure itself.5 The Grand Council then under way at Onondaga took into considera­ tion the treaty held at Albany the preceding summer and the belt sent them by the Americans asking them to sit still and take no part in the white man’s struggle. After due deliberation, the Council agreed to send a belt to Albany in return for the one they had received, confirming the treaty and agreeing to remain peaceable and interpose on neither side. This was done despite an Indian messenger bringing a speech and belts from Butler to try to persuade the assembly to consider “the merits of the dispute” and determine who was in the right. Butler, through his agent, emphasized the distress he felt that the Six Nations were no longer of one mind as they were in Sir William Johnson’s day. “Could you not make it so that you are one as at the Time when Sir William Johnson was alive,” he pleaded. Obviously, Butler did not want the Six Nations and their allies:

AN UNEASY NEUTRALITY

91

to be one-minded when it came to neutrality, but rather one-minded in their attachment to the king.6 The month of March also saw another encounter between Sir John Johnson and General Schuyler. Johnson had continued to remain in touch with the king’s sympathizers and frequently sent Mohawk messengers to Niagara. James Dean sent notice to Schuyler that the Mohawks were con­ stantly passing and repassing through the country with no other business than to carry communications from Johnson to the British fort. Informants also brought in news, or rumors, of disloyal words or deeds by Sir John, and Schuyler eventually called him down to Albany to answer the charges in an open hearing. Sir John appeared on March 20, 1776, as requested, but his accusers did not. Johnson admitted, however, that he had told of Indian threats to attack the Americans but protested that he was reporting only what everyone else had heard.7 Though Johnson returned home in peace, this would not be the last of the controversy between him and Schuyler. The Americans had a stroke of good luck in their military operations that spring. On March 17, after the Americans had laid siege to the city of Boston for ten months, the British finally evacuated their troops. Schuyler, when he received the news, did not hesitate to pass it along in a formal speech to the Six Nations. He well knew that a nation which understood war could not help but be duly impressed by this victory of the Americans over the king’s troops. The information would also serve the further pur­ pose of keeping the Iroquois neutral.8 On April 26, 1776, a delegation of five Iroquois Indians came to Al­ bany requesting that the commissioners hold a conference there with the Six Nations on April 29. The only commissioner present was Volkert Douw, but he gave his consent. The council opened with two hundred eight Indians present from all nations except the Seneca. Nineteen Indians came later, increasing the number to two hundred twenty-seven. Before the end of this council, Schuyler and Timothy Edwards, another commis­ sioner, arrived. Little Abraham, speaker for the Indian delegation, reviewed their re­ cently concluded Grand Council at Onondaga and presented the belt of friendship from the Confederacy to their brethren of the Thirteen Colo­ nies. He then renewed the request made at the Albany conference the pre­ vious summer, that traders be sent among them and complained that “the shops everywhere are empty.” He explained that the Indians could not “Live without Cloathe and ammunition.” An Onondaga also arose and re-

92

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

minded Douw that the commissioners had promised to send smiths to their towns to mend their axes and hoes. “And we also desire that the Tools we have now brought down may be here made.” Douw explained the difficulty the Americans had in securing trade goods in time of war but promised to make a way clear for traders to settle among them. The smiths, he explained, had already been appointed and the iron provided for them. He also promised that the tools they had with them would be mended. The commissioners, at the close of the conference, gave the Indians a present of two hundred pounds of powder, six hundred pounds of lead, one hundred blankets, two pieces of stroud cloth, one piece of parmiston, and one piece of flowered serge. Then, that the Indians might see proof of the American success at arms, the commissioners asked that a delegation be appointed to go to New York to visit the great warrior, George Wash­ ington, and proceed on to Boston and Philadelphia to meet American civil and military leaders. The Indians complied, choosing twenty-one of their number— two of whom were sachems— to make the trip.9 Schuyler had one other item of business to attend to after the end of the council. He had concluded that Sir John Johnson was not to be trusted and must be taken into custody. He accordingly determined to send Colo­ nel Elias Dayton with three hundred men to seize Johnson. Aware of the fact that this move would undoubtedly alarm the Mohawks, he directed a delegation from the commissioners to proceed ahead of the detachment to explain the situation to the chief and warriors of the lower castle. Johnson already knew of Schuyler’s intention before Dayton even left Albany. Captain John McDonell, passing through Albany in May, had heard gossip about Dayton’s intended mission and communicated the news to Johnson. Sir John thereupon sent John Deserontyon, an educated Mo­ hawk from the lower castle, to Albany to determine the date of the expedi­ tion’s departure. Upon arriving in Albany, Deserontyon learned that Dayton was to leave with his force three days hence. The trusty Mohawk then left Albany in the evening with a Loyalist who had come from Governor Tryon with letters for Sir John and the commander of Niagara. They slipped through the guard around the city, and the Tory entrusted the let­ ters to Deserontyon, who arrived with his message at Johnstown at 10:00 the next morning.10 Volkert Douw, in company with the commissioners’ secretary Robert Yates and the interpreter John Bleeker, set out on May 18 and arrived at the home of Little Abraham on May 19, requesting a council. Even before

AN UNEASY NEUTRALITY

93

the chiefs and warriors could be called together, however, a hot-headed young warrior named Jan exploded into the meeting in a passion, venting his fury upon the treacherous Americans who had again sent an army into their midst. This, he stormed, was a direct violation of their treaty of friendship entered into at Albany only last summer. Further, he informed the delegation, he fully intended to defend his friend Sir John Johnson. Douw attempted to reassure the sachems and the young men. The Indi­ ans should not be bothered about these differences between the whites, he said. It was finally agreed to continue the council on the next day. When the representatives of the commissioners and the sachems ar­ rived at the appointed place the next day, they found that the warriors had already stolen a march on them through the woods, fully armed and fully intending to protect Sir John. Colonel Elias Dayton with his little army was also there, and the colonel gently warned the Mohawks that though he cherished their friendship he had come as a soldier to do his duty. “Go home in Peace,” he begged them, “and do not place yourselves betwixt us and our Enemies who are watching an opportunity to destroy us, our Wives, and Children. Come not in our War Path, that we may not be obliged to treat you as Enemies. We love you Brothers. When we shed your Blood, we shall shed Tears.” 11 The conference adjourned for two hours while the warriors pondered the colonel’s speech. Upon reassembling in the afternoon, Isaac, a warrior, renewed their protest and expressed great anxiety for the safety of Sir John because he was “of one flesh and blood” with them. Also, they were apprehensive lest the missionary and schoolmaster be harmed. Little Abraham, for the sachems, expressed grief that the warriors sought to go another way, “but we the Sachems mean strictly to abide by our covenant,” he assured Dayton. He turned to the warriors and urged them to calm themselves and remember their covenant with the Ameri­ cans. An Onondaga who was present addressed the Mohawk warriors in like manner. Colonel Dayton gave full assurance that neither the minister nor the schoolmaster would be touched. As for Sir John, his situation was differ­ ent, for he had pledged his word to appear whenever Congress should call him. Nor would a hair of his head be harmed if he should but remain peaceable. By May 21, the Mohawk warriors were calm and Dayton proceeded upon his errand. Sir John, of course, had taken full advantage of the diplo­ matic negotiations to depart. With him went a large number of Tories and

94

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

a few Mohawk Indians as scouts. The whole party amounted to one hundred seventy. He had had time to assemble only a few of his belong­ ings and to bury the most important of his and his father’s papers along with his silver plate. His party arrived in Canada after a long and arduous journey through the woods, “being nine days without any thing to subsist upon but Wild onion Roots and the leaves of the Beech Trees.” When he returned to the Mohawk Valley again, it was to be at the head of a body of Loyalists which he called the Royal Yorkers and which the Americans nicknamed Johnson’s Greens.12 At the time Sir John was making his escape to Canada, American and British forces were having an important engagement at the Cedars, a forti­ fied point of land that juts into the St. Lawrence River about forty miles above Montreal. The American force of three hundred ninety at the Ce­ dars surrendered to the British and Indians under the command of Captain Foster on May 19. Foster’s party at the time was composed of a little over one hundred whites and more than three hundred Indians. A detachment of one hundred twenty American troops marching from Montreal to the defense of the Cedars capitulated on May 20 to a force of eighty Indians and eighteen whites which had been sent to ambush them.13 There has long been an erroneous belief that Joseph Brant participated in the action at the Cedars. William L. Stone, Brant’s biographer, claimed that Brant was there and that he saved Captain John McKinstry from being burned at the stake by the Indians. Brant was actually in England at the time and did not return to America until the end of July 1776. Stone’s error was an honest one. He based his story on the testimony of one George McKinstry, a descendent of Captain John McKinstry. The latter might have been saved by an Indian, but it was not Brant. The incident, as recorded by Stone, was meant to show Brant’s humanity to captives. Other writers since have taken Stone’s story of Brant’s participation at the Ce­ dars for granted because of insufficient research. Howard Swiggett, how­ ever, in a book that has long been considered standard, resorted to deliber­ ate falsification in reporting not only Brant’s supposed “bloody record” at the Cedars, but in distorting Brant’s whole career while attempting to prove that John Butler did his utmost to keep the Indians neutral.14 Colonel John Butler, who was stationed at Niagara and acting as dep­ uty agent for Indian affairs in Guy Johnson’s absence, was assiduously cul­ tivating the Six Nations and other western Indians for the British in oppo­ sition to Schuyler’s efforts at the eastern end of the state. He attempted repeatedly to break down the declared neutrality of the various Indian

AN UNEASY NEUTRALITY

95

tribes and elicit from them a preference for the British. It was a delicate operation, requiring the utmost diplomatic skill and knowledge of Indian customs. It would mean, in reference to the Six Nations, furthermore, that he would have to prevail upon them to break their treaty with the Ameri­ cans and change the sentiments of a significant number of their leading men and matrons. A number of Iroquois warriors had already been out on service for the British in Canada, and still others were favorably inclined to gain for themselves new honors on the warpath. The Americans had done no violence to the Iroquois and had been careful to offer no threats to their territory. Schuyler longed to send a force westward to reduce Niagara but was helpless to do so without ap­ proval of the Six Nations, for the way to the British post lay through the Iroquois homeland. He suggested to Congress that a bribe might be offered to the Six Nations, allowing them all the stores at Niagara except the can­ non to permit the Americans to march through their territory. Nothing came of the scheme, though, and with the exceptions of the brief incur­ sions to Johnstown to put a halt to Tory activities, Schuyler was obliged to keep his army from invading Six Nations’ territory. To have done other­ wise would have laid the Iroquois country open to hostilities and brought the war to the New York frontier a year earlier than actually happened.15 In a council at Niagara in May,16 representatives of the Six Nations delivered their answer to the belts Colonel Butler had sent to their Grand Council at Onondaga in March. They declared to Butler that the Six Na­ tions, along with the Caughnawagas and their dependent tribes, “had all united and resolved to maintain peace, both with the King and the Bos­ tonians, and receive no Ax from either.” The answer highly displeased Butler, who arose to harangue the Indians in the following terms: Brothers. I am glad to hear you are all united but I am surprised to find you talk of maintaining peace with the Americans and at the same time support the King’s peace or Government. Brothers, Your resolutions are very surprising; where is there any one or body of men to be compared to the King? As for Genl Schuyler (and the other Commisrs) of whom you boast so much, what is he? He was bom but yesterday; just now, as it were, started up out of the ground, and tomorrow will return into the earth where he came. It will not be the space of a month before you hear him cry. He has no men, guns, cannon and ammunition or cloathing, and should he survive the sum­ mer he must perish by the cold next winter for want of blankets. But the King wants [lacks] neither men nor money, there is no computing

96

The Iroquois in the American Revolution his numbers. As to the Caugnuagas claiming Seven Tribes as under their jurisdiction, it is false; they tell a lie; the Caugnuagas are by themselves alone and they are become Bostonians. But the other Six tribes in that vicinity, with all the back nations, are at the King’s command and will take his side. And as for Canada they are all (ex­ cept twelve persons) returned to the King’s side. Brothers. You had better recall your resolutions and determine to keep the Kings peace, and the King will then be glad to hear from you. What a wretched situation must you be in when the King attacks all the seaports in America and comes in earnest to sweep off the Americans, if he finds you supporting the Americans.

The sachems thereupon immediately replied: “We will support the Kings Peace or Government and we now speak from our very inside, and don’t think it proceeds only from our lips.” This answer delighted Butler, though it is doubtful that the Indians quite understood the technical term, “to keep the King’s peace,” meaning the peace of the realm. In the opinion of the Loyalists and the British officials, the Americans had broken the king’s peace by their rebellion against their monarch. No one who main­ tained a friendship with such rebels could also continue in the king’s good graces. Friendship with the criminal or rebellious element in society made the Indians likewise culpable, in Butler’s view. Maintaining the king’s peace meant to Butler opposing those who had broken it.17 Lieutenant Colonel Caldwell, the commanding officer of Fort Niagara, then took the opportunity to indulge in a bit of psychological warfare, giv­ ing forth to the Indians a piece of blatant propaganda which indicated a willingness to take advantage of any existing Indian naiveté about the course of the war and the significance of certain military operations. It also demonstrated rather a contempt for Indian intelligence. In order to counter the effect of Schuyler’s speech telling of Washington’s victory at Boston, Caldwell assured the Indians that the British military withdrawal from that city indicated the king’s great wisdom and the foolishness of the Americans. The King is very subtle, he has deceived the Bostonians with a witness. He ordered his forces to continue at Boston till the Bostoni­ ans had collected all the cannon that could be found from Philadel­ phia, N. York, and even from Virginia, and brought them to that place. The Bostonians having all their force and cannon collected, were about to destroy the town; but the King’s Officer commanding there forbid them, telling them he would leave it in a peaceable man-

AN UNEASY NEUTRALITY

97

ner, as the purpose of his coining there was now answered. And now Brothers you will soon hear that the King’s Ships have laid waste all their sea ports, as they can make no resistance, having sent all their cannon and stores to Boston.* Butler then attempted to be as subtle as his king and enlist the Indians in the service by a ruse. He called for a number of warriors to go with him to find Colonel Johnson, “who must at this time be at Quebec or in the Rivers.” He pointed out a large vessel to them which would be ready to sail as soon as he heard that Johnson had actually arrived. The superin­ tendent, however, was still in England and the sachems gave a negative an­ swer. Butler did succeed in inducing about fifty Iroquois warriors and a like number of western Indians to go “in quest of Colonel Johnson.” Butler received a serious rebuff from two of the Senecas’ principal men at a council held later that month at Niagara. George Morgan, conti­ nental Indian agent for the middle department, had sent a spy from Pitts­ burgh to Niagara to bring back intelligence. The spy, who spoke the In­ dian language, fell in with a party of one hundred thirty-six Senecas, Munsees, and Shawnees also on their way to the council. At Niagara, after close questioning by Butler, Caldwell, and other officers, he was finally ac­ cepted as an honest Loyalist and taken into their confidence. His account of the council with the Indians corresponds exactly with that of Peter Ryckman, an Albany trader who had been kept prisoner at Fort Niagara for a year but who finally escaped on June 27 and made his way to Ger­ man Flats in company with twenty-one Seneca warriors. Butler took Mor­ gan’s spy along with him to the council house to act as one of the inter­ preters for the proceedings, and thus gavé the latter a choice opportunity to be an eyewitness to British Indian diplomacy. This council seems to have been held the last of May and the first part of June 1776.18 Butler was fuming over the American treaty of friendship and neutral­ ity with the Indians at Fort Pitt the previous fall and determined to under­ mine it. The first day of the council was devoted to the customary prelimi­ nary ceremonies of greeting and smoking the pipe of peace. On the second day, however, Butler let loose a broadside: Your Father the Great King has taken pity on you and is deter­ mined not to let the Americans deceive you any longer— tho’ you * Nor was Philip Schuyler loath to invent tales to impress the Indians. In his speech telling of Washington’s victory at Boston, he charged that the British had de­ liberately introduced smallpox into Boston the previous winter because they knew that most of the American army had never had it. CC, Item 153, II, 93-95.

98

The Iroquois in the American Revolution have been so foolish as to listen to them last year and to believe all their wicked stories— they mean to cheat you and should you be so silly as to take their advice and they should conquer the King’s Army, their intention is to take all your Lands from you and destroy your people, for they are all mad, foolish, crazy and full of deceit— They told you last Fall at Pittsburgh that they took the Tom Hawk out of your Hands and buried it deep and transplanted the Tree of Peace over it. I therefore now pluck up that Tree, dig up the Tom Hawk, and replace it in your hands with the Edge toward them that you may treat them as Enemies.

The Indians took two days to ponder in private council on this proposal from the deputy Indian agent. Had they accepted the hatchet, the consequences would have been momentous for both the Americans and for themselves. Despite the important place of the warrior in Indian society and the totality with which Indians waged war once war had been decided upon, there is still in their deliberations and in the reply they gave to But­ ler a keen realization of the tragedy which an involvement in the hostilities would bring upon them. They were, furthermore, wise enough to be cau­ tious about the outcome of the conflict, for a British victory was by no means a certainty. One might well reflect upon the significance of the speeches of the two Seneca chiefs in the face of the stereotype which pre­ sents the Indian as being congenitally disposed to carnage. On the fifth day, the Indians reassembled in the presence of the British officers and the full council resumed. Kayashuta the Seneca chief had been chosen by the Indians to be their spokesman. According to Indian custom, he repeated the substance of Butler’s previous speech and then, on behalf of all, said: It is three nights since you told me the Americans, with whom you are at War, are all mad, foolish, crazy and full of deceit, and that their intentions toward us are bad. . . . I now tell you that you are the mad, foolish, crazy and deceitful person— for you think we are fools and advise us to do what is not in our interest. The Ameri­ cans on the contrary are the wise people so far as they have yet spoke to us— for what they advise us is in our Interest to follow— they tell us your quarrel is between yourselves and desire us to sit still and they tell us right. But you want us to assist you which we cannot do— for suppose the Americans conquer you what would they then say to us. I tell you Brother you are foolish and we will not allow you to pluck up the Tree of Peace nor raise the Hatchet. We are strong and able to do it ourselves when we are hurt.

AN UNEASY NEUTRALITY

99

The speech was so disconcerting to the British that they adjourned the council for the rest of the day in order to plan a rebuttal and a means of recovering from this setback. The next day, a Mohawk speaker, at Butler’s direction, harangued the council in favor of a British alliance and reprimanded those individuals and tribes who were continuing friendly to the Americans. The day follow­ ing, Butler again attempted to break down the stubborn resistance of the Indians as he boasted about the might of the king, the strength of his ar­ mies, the vastness of his military supplies, and compared them with the puny strength and inferior powder of the Americans. “You therefore need not be afraid,” he assured them, “but take up the Hatchet and your old Men and Women your Wives and Children shall be well taken care of.” On the eighth day of the conference, after due deliberation among themselves, the Indians came again to the full council to make reply to Butler. Cawconcaucawheteda, or Flying Crow, who was head war chief of the Allegany Senecas, answered him very shrewdly: You have called us here to open Our Eyes, to break the Peace we live in with our American Brethren and to ask our help to fight them. . . . We have now lived in Peace with them a long time and we resolve to continue to do so as long as we can— when they hurt us it is time enough to strike them. It is true they have encroach’d on our Lands, but of this we shall speak to them. If you are so strong Brother, and they but as a weak Boy, why ask our assistance. It is true I am tall and strong but I will reserve my strength to strike those who injure me. If you have so great plenty of Warriors, Powder, Lead and Goods, and they are so few and little of either, be strong and make good use of them. You say their Powder is rotten— We have found it good. You say they are all mad, foolish, wicked, and deceitful— I say you are so and they are wise for you want us to de­ stroy ourselves in your War and they advise us to live in Peace. Their advice we intend to follow. Butler, however, persisted daily “in and out of council” coaxing and pressuring the Indians to accept his offer. Finally he had to abandon the attempt and call the meeting to an end with a distribution of the presents. He apologized for the “handful of Goods” which he presented to them, blaming the Americans for stopping up the roads but promising a more liberal dispensation of gifts in the fall. For now, they had to be content with “a Match Coat a Stroud, Leggings, one quart of Powder, 2 lb. Ball, 1 Knife, Va lb. Paint, and 3 Flints to each Man and as much to each woman, with about a Barrel of Rum.”

100

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

The council was not a total failure from the British viewpoint. A breach had been made— however small. Adongot, Soyouca, and another Seneca chief concurred fully with Butler’s speech. Toward the end, ap­ proximately thirty Senecas, with a few Chippewas and Ottawas who had been constantly plied with liquor, embarked for Canada to seek glory, and a portion of the party later returned bringing three American scalps and one prisoner. Butler and Caldwell were both delighted at this happy turn of events and commented that “the Fiddle was now getting in tune for the Americans to dance by.” 19 Ironically, the very point which the Indians used most tellingly to dem­ onstrate the wisdom and humanity of the Americans as against the deceit of the British was being abrogated even as this council was in progress. The delegation of Iroquois that had set out from Albany to visit New York, Boston, and Philadelphia reached the latter city in time to be pre­ sented to Congress on May 24 and again on June 11. While they were in the city. Congress concluded that the request for Indian neutrality must now be set aside in favor of a more vigorous tactic. On May 25, 1776, therefore, Congress passed a resolution calling for a direct military alli­ ance with the Indians and authorizing Washington to raise a force of In­ dian allies. Fortunately, Congress was prudent enough not to communicate this new policy to the Indians then visiting in Philadelphia. The legislators were at the time blissfully unaware of the disastrous consequences that would follow their abandonment of the policy of Indian neutrality.20 It was not only in Congress that the question of Indian neutrality was being reevaluated. The Oneidas— or a significant portion of them— were also undergoing a reappraisal of their position. The belligerent attitude of the Mohawk warriors toward the American officials who had gone to take Sir John prisoner was discussed and condemned in full council by the Oneidas. A number of these Oneidas also assured Samuel Kirkland that the American lenity toward the Mohawks after their consistent breach of the treaty was interpreted by these Mohawks as cowardice. Both the Onei­ das and the Tuscaroras expressed concern over Butler’s continuing influ­ ence over the western tribes of the Confederacy. “He has by threats and profers prevailed upon the greater part of the Senecas, Cayugas, and Onondagas to renounce the cause of the Colonies and engage on the King’s side,” was the complaint of the pro-American Iroquois. This charge was untrue and was clearly an exaggeration— though possibly an unintentional one— of Butler’s small successes in getting a few members of the western tribes to go on campaigns.

AN UNEASY NEUTRALITY

101

Even these minor successes by Butler were beg'nning to cause resent­ ment and were shaking the tranquility and security of the Confederacy. There was a small but growing breach in the League, fracturing the unan­ imity and turning the members against one another. It had come to such a point by the end of May that many of the Oneidas and Tuscaroras felt that neutrality was no longer possible. The commissioners, they reasoned, should “call upon the six Nations and demand who are Friends and who are not— and if a party of 500 Men with two or three Rifle Companies were sent to Fort Stanwix,” it would distress the foes and strengthen the friends of the colonies, as well as secure the frontier against danger. The Oneida chiefs had further confided to Kirkland the rather startling but highly secret news that their tribe, along with the Tuscaroras, Onoquagas, and Caughnawagas, had formed a defensive alliance to protect themselves in case of attack and were “resolved that if the others join the King’s party they would die with the Americans in the contest.” 21 Kirkland left the Oneidas on May 29 and made his way to General Schuyler at Fort George with the foregoing intelligence. He arrived on June 7 and communicated both this information as well as important let­ ters from Colonel Dayton to the general. The missionary had considerably broadened the scope of his activities to become deeply involved in the civil and military struggle in the colonies. He was, indeed, one of the Congress’ most effective agents in the Indian country. Schuyler the next day after Kirkland’s arrival sent off a letter to Con­ gress recommending “taking post at the place where Fort Stanwix formerly stood” and calling a conference at German Flats to apprise the Indians of the intended act and desire them to declare their sentiments either for or against the American cause. The time had come, Schuyler believed, to sep­ arate the sheep from the goats.22 There was a further encouraging development for the Americans in Canada during this period. On June 7, the Caughnawaga, St. Francis, and Conasadaga Indians went to Montreal and surrendered to General Bene­ dict Arnold the hatchet given them by Johnson the previous year, inform­ ing him that they would remain neutral in the conflict.23 In the middle of May, George Morgan had sent a representative with a belt of peace and friendship to the Six Nations council at Onondaga. The agent entrusted with this important embassy was Simon Girty, one of the more colorful figures of American history. As a boy, Girty had been taken captive with his whole family, and lived for a time among the Indians. He knew the language well and had been engaged by Morgan on May 1 as an

102

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

interpreter for the Six Nations at Pittsburgh at the rate of 5/s dollar a day. Girty was somewhat of a jovial ne’er-do-well— a rough, hard-drinking frontiersman, physically attractive but not always dependable. During his brief service with the Americans before he'defected to the British, this was to be one of his most important missions and was carried through with great aplomb, to his entire credit.24 Girty arrived at Onondaga June 14 or 15, just as the council was as­ sembling. Representatives of all the nations were there except the Mo­ hawk, who seemed to have been otherwise occupied in Canada and else­ where.25 Girty delivered Morgan’s belt in council to the chiefs and matrons of the Confederacy. The Indians heard to their entire satisfaction this message of friendship from the Americans, with its request for neu­ trality in the conflict. In succeeding sessions the council took under consideration the in­ creasing influence of the British over some of their warriors and the conse­ quent breach of their neutrality. It was therefore concluded that Kayenguatah (Sayenqueraghta) of the Senecas, accompanied by six war­ riors, should go to Fort Niagara and demand that Butler send for the war­ riors he had persuaded to go to Canada. Another messenger was sent to Canada by way of Oswego to recall their warriors “lest Col. Butler should neglect it.” To the continental Indian agent at Pittsburgh, the council sent a reas­ suring speech, thanking him for his good words and offering continued friendship. “You know,” they reminded Morgan, “that among all People there are evil minded persons who try to spoil good agreements and good resolutions but they cannot turn the minds of the Chief Men and Warriors of this Council for we look on Peace and want to enjoy it.” To the southern and western Indians who were in alliance with the Iro­ quois, the Confederacy sent the following message: Brothers and Nephews, We desire you to continue to sit still and preserve the Peace and Friendship with all your Neighbours— remain firm and united with each other so as to be like one Man— We desire you to be strong and keep your Country in Peace.26 Sayenqueraghta was partially successful in his mission to Niagara, for he brought away from there with him the Seneca chiefs and warriors whom Butler had been cultivating. He was not able, however, to secure a

AN UNEASY NEUTRALITY

103

return of the warriors who were already out on service with the king’s troops.27 The majority of the Confederacy was still in favor of peace. Here was a perfect example of an attempt of the League to exert control over its member nations and individual warriors. The old struggle between unre­ stricted democracy and majority rule was being played out again. The League had actually been built on a foundation of localism, and the super­ structure of centralism as personified by the Grand Council always rested somewhat uneasily upon this foundation. With the neighboring white man’s political state in a shambles, divided and at war with itself, it is not surprising that the red man’s kinship state had trouble withstanding the strain placed upon it. The political state possessed controls which the Iro­ quois structure lacked, but during a severe crisis, even this political state broke down. When the whites required peace, neutrality, or unanimity from the Indians, they were requesting something which they could not achieve themselves. Future events were to increase rather than diminish the pressures on the Indians. The Americans very shortly took the road of no return. On July 2, 1776, after more than a year of war, the Continental Congress fin­ ally declared “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” This Dec­ laration of Independence was signed on July 4 by President John Hancock and later by the rest of the members of the Congress. War would now be in earnest until a final decision had been reached. Unfortunately for the Ir­ oquois, one of the paths to conquest lay through their homeland. Neither the British nor the Americans could ignore the strategic importance of the Iroquois country.

V Take Up the Hatchet

A n ew phase in Iroquois diplomacy began almost imperceptibly with the arrival of Superintendent Guy Johnson and Joseph Brant in New York City in July of 1776. The undeclared war which had been in progress be­ tween Great Britain and the colonies for over a year was by that time offi­ cial, and the colonies were determined to make the break permanent. It would now be more urgent than ever for the British to be assured of Iro­ quois loyalty. The necessities which war placed upon Great Britain opened the way for the rise to prominence of the Mohawk Joseph Brant. For both Guy Johnson and Brant, their trip to England had been prof­ itable. Johnson returned to America with “the same Commission and Ap­ pointments as were given to Sir William Johnson in 1756.” Joseph Brant was also most satisfied with his mission. He was able to meet the leading figures of the day and discuss with them the issues then shaking the colo­ nies. He sought out also those Englishmen who were favorable to the American cause and listened to their reasoning. As a result of his inquir­ ies, he became convinced that the Americans’ sole objective in the war was to become masters of the continent. This would be, he felt, most unfortu­ nate for the Indian nations, for it was the crown which for years had inter­ vened to protect the Indians against the land hunger of the colonists. Brant and Johnson were also able to present the Iroquois land grievances to Lord George Germain,* pointing out particularly the injus­ tices done by a faulty boundary described in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix of 1768 and the persistent claims of the Corporation of Albany against Mo* Germain was “known from 1720 to 1770 as Lord George Sackville and from 1770 to 1782 as Lord George Germain.” “In 1770 Sackville was empowered by act of Parliament to assume the name of Germain, in accordance with the provisions of the will of Lady Betty Germain.” His benefactress had left him a large country es­ tate and a generous grant of money on condition that he take the name of Germain. Dictionary o f National Biography, ed. by Leslie Stephen (New York: Macmillan, 1890), XXI, 231, 234; Gerald Saxon Brown, The American Secretary. The Colonial Policy o f Lord George Germain, 1775-1778 (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1963), p. 22. 104

TAKE UP THE HATCHET

105

hawk lands. All in all, the impression made on the government by this mission was highly favorable. The impression which the figure of Joseph Brant himself made on London was even more favorable. A warrior chief of the fierce Mohawks, speaking good English, educated in the white man’s school and possessing an intellect far above the average, a staunch churchman and a firm Mason, a translator of the Bible into his own tongue, dignified and somewhat haughty in his bearing, urbane in his manner— this civilized barbarian fas­ cinated London. He had his portrait painted by the fashionable artist George Romney. The London Universal Magazine published a compli­ mentary essay about him. The government provided him with guides to the historic sites in the city, and many “Gentlemen of Distinction” sought his company. It was all very flattering, but though Brant had a streak of vanity in him, he was too judicious to form his opinions on that basis alone. Family connections, the Mohawks’ traditional alliance with the English, his own long association with the Indian department, and anxiety over land encroachments were far weightier considerations in cementing his friendship to the crown.1 Though Brant was wise, he was not completely wise in the ways of the white man. Had he known the British view of territorial sovereignty, it is highly doubtful that he would have retained his devoted attachment to the king. In 1765, John Tabor Kempe, Attorney General of the Province of New York, had written to Sir William Johnson giving his opinion of the dominion of the crown over Indian lands. The question involved specifi­ cally Kayaderosseras, or the Mohawk-claimed territory closest to Albany. The attorney general’s opinion clearly stated the case for crown ownership of Indian lands over which Britain claimed sovereignty in spite of the oc­ cupancy of the Indians: And I must observe here, that it is the Policy of our Constitu­ tion, that wheresoever the Kings Dominions estends [sic] he is the Fountain of all Property in Lands, and to Deny that Right, in the Crown, in any place, is in Effect denying his Right to Rule there— Hence it follows, that in a legal Consideration the King can grant Lands within his Dominions here, as well without a previous Con­ veyance from the Indians, as with— 2 The full impact of British sovereignty would be felt by the Iroquois after the Revolutionary War when, to their surprise and anger, they found that England had ceded their lands to the United States. Fortunately for

106

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the British, the truth did not become manifest until the war was at an end and the Iroquois no longer needed. Johnson, Brant, and their party set sail from Falmouth on June 3, 1776, leaving Daniel Claus behind to attend to his affairs in England for nearly a year longer. During the last three weeks of its voyage, the packet was annoyed by a number of American privateers. One of these carrying ordnance of “ 14 six pounders and swivells” attacked the more lightly armed British vessel in a sharp engagement lasting an hour and a half. The packet pounded back valiantly with its twelve three-pounders, and John­ son’s party joined in with small arms. Joseph Brant and his Mohawk com­ panion John were particularly active in spotting the American officers by their uniforms and picking them off with the new brass rifles which had been presented to them by Lord Townshend. The Americans finally gave up the battle, but not before seriously damaging the masts and rigging of the British vessel. The packet finally put in at Staten Island toward the end of July.3 Even before Brant and Johnson had arrived back in New York, the In­ dians had started assembling at German Flats for another treaty with Gen­ eral Schuyler. The Indians, in their usual dilatory fashion, were in no hurry to come together. Schuyler, who had not arrived until July 16, thought that the greater part of the Indians would be already there by that time. After seventeen days of impatient waiting while more and more In­ dian delegates dribbled in, Schuyler wrote a letter expressing his exaspera­ tion: “Yesterday some of the Cayugas arrived and the Remainder are ex­ pected to Day. The Senecas, it is said, will be here to Morrow, if so, the Conference will begin on the next Day. I sincerely wish it was ended. The Consumption of provision and Rum is incredible. It equals that of an army of three thousand Men; altho’ the Indians here are not above twelve hundred, including Men, Women and Children.” Schuyler learned from some of the Indians that the delay was occasioned by another council that Butler had called at Niagara. Many Senecas, Onondagas, and Cayugas were present at this council, where Butler offered them the tomahawk. “About half the Onondagoes refused” it but others accepted, including four Seneca chiefs: Adongot, Aowan, Showado, and Toconando.4 Because of the feverish activity of the British to attach the Iroquois, Schuyler considered this coming conference to be of the highest impor­ tance. It was also essential to encourage the Indians in their pacific atti­ tudes and reward them for keeping the covenant. He well realized that once the Iroquois were lost, the western Indians would follow them into

TAKE UP THE HATCHET

107

the war. Peter Ryckman, the trader who had so recently escaped from Ni­ agara, encouraged Schuyler to be liberal with presents at this treaty. Schuyler agreed but fretted that the extravagant price of goods had pre­ vented the commissioners from bringing so large a supply as formerly. To remedy this embarrassing situation, he sent an express off to General Gates requesting him to forward the Indian goods that had been returned from Canada and also placed an order for “fifteen hundred Dollars in Specie” to buy additional goods.5 The council finally opened on August 6. Just before the formal open­ ing of the conference, two of the sachems requested that the Americans should hold a public condolence for one of their sachems who was killed while attacking Major Sherburne’s relief party on its way to reinforce the post at the Cedars on May 20. This may possibly have been the Seneca chief Kanughsgawiat, who is mentioned in British records as having been killed at the Cedars. Schuyler and the other commissioners were highly in­ sulted and angrily refused. The preliminaries over, Schuyler prepared on August 7 to deliver the main speech of the commissioners. On that morn­ ing, just prior to the opening of the second session, Schuyler was unde­ cided whether to offer the Indians the hatchet, but decided to wait to see the tenor of their reply to the American speech. All the advice on that subject that the general could gather, however, was unanimously opposed to encouraging the Indians to go on the warpath. The Iroquois had so con­ sistently used the American insistence on neutrality as a telling argument against the importunities of the British that grave damage might be done to the image of American humanity and self-sufficiency if the commission­ ers should now reverse themselves.6 As the council progressed, Schuyler contented himself with issuing a strong rebuke to the nations whose warriors had thus far taken arms against the Americans and warning that his government would not tolerate this belligerency in the future without retaliating. He commended those na­ tions that had abided by their agreements and kept neutral and called again for a renewal of the covenant of friendship and neutrality of all the tribes with the Americans. As a consequence of the many cautions he had received from various advisers and of his own convictions of the value of Indian neutrality, he prudently refrained from offering the hatchet.7 The Six Nations agreed, much to the satisfaction of all, not to take up arms on either side but to keep out of the white man’s quarrels. They asked forgiveness for past hostilities on the part of some of their giddy warriors, assuring the commissioners that these actions did not represent

108

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the consensus of the Confederacy. Indeed, the sachems and chief warriors of eleven Seneca castles had already met and determined to restrain their warriors. The Onondagas had done the same. They, in formal ceremony, took the hatchet out of the head of their American brother and buried it so deep that no one would be able to find it thereafter. Thus they renewed the covenant of peace. The commissioners then brought the council to con­ clusion with the distribution of presents. The Six Nations seemed much satisfied with the whole proceedings, for, as Mary Jemison reported, “The Indians returned to their homes well pleased that they could live on neu­ tral ground, surrounded by the din of war, without being engaged in it.” 8 In the southern sector of the state, the Howe brothers were gathering their forces that summer for a major assault on the Americans. The Howes’ peace mission to America had failed. Undaunted, they proceeded to resort to military persuasion by attacking Washington on Long Island toward the latter part of August. In a brilliant action, General Howe pushed Washington’s army back to Brooklyn Heights. Under cover of darkness on August 29, Washington ex­ ecuted a masterly retreat as his entire army was secretly ferried from Brooklyn to New York. Washington had slipped away and would live to fight another day. Though the British were now in control of New York City as well, after Washington’s continued retreat northward, the dogged American army would slow their progress and prevent the sweep up the Hudson that Howe had planned for that campaign.9 In the Battle of Long Island, Joseph Brant had distinguished himself by his steadiness and courage to such an extent that many of the senior of­ ficers took note of him. Lord Percy was particularly impressed with his ability as a soldier. It was not surprising, then, when General Howe acceded to an unusual and dangerous request made by Brant in Novem­ ber.10 Both Brant and Guy Johnson had expected to be carried up the Hud­ son River to Indian country in the wake of the Howes’ victories. In spite of the British successes in and around New York City that summer and fall, the season was too far advanced to permit a campaign any farther to the north. Brant was impatient with the inactivity. He did not propose to stay quietly in New York that winter while there was yet work to be done in his own country. The Iroquois had been too sluggish, he felt. They needed to be roused. They needed to be told all the facts in the quarrel be­ tween the colonies and Great Britain, to be warned of the consequences of an American victory, and to be reminded of their ancient alliance with the

TAKE UP THE HATCHET

109

king. He therefore proposed to Guy Johnson and General William Howe that he go through the enemy lines on such a mission to the Indian coun­ try. Howe was at first reluctant because of the extreme risk involved, but finally agreed and highly approved of Brant’s courageous and tenacious at­ tachment to the crown. General Henry Clinton likewise gave his approba­ tion to Brant’s proposal, as did several of the other high-ranking officers. Brant’s attitude was not based solely on affection for the king, however. He was following a course which he felt would, in the long run, be best for his own people. Captain Gilbert Tice, the Mohawk Valley Loyalist, elected to accom­ pany Brant on this dangerous errand. The two of them were then outfitted with disguises and given instructions by Colonel Johnson. Lest they should at any time be captured, Johnson gave his directions verbally rather than in writing. He requested Brant to get a wampum belt made when he ar­ rived safely in the Indian country and speak to the Indians on that in the superintendent’s name and in favor of “the Kings Service.” The two agents provocateurs then set out the latter part of November “to pave the way for future operations.” 11 They crossed the Hudson River near King’s Bridge, hiding by day and traveling by night. It was a slow method and took longer than they had ex­ pected. Their caution was rewarded, however, and they arrived safely at the Susquehanna River settlement of Onoquaga— a village composed largely of Oneidas, Tuscaroras, Mohawks, and some Mahicans. The Indians gathered around Brant and Tice, welcoming them and ex­ pressing eagerness to hear the news. Brant obliged, relating to them his ad­ ventures since he left the country in 1775. He told of his trip to England, all that he heard and saw there, his conversations with great men, the dan­ gerous voyage back, his part in beating off a rebel privateer, his role in the Battle of Long Island where General Howe had given the rebels a crush, his journey undetected through the rebel country. Indians always loved a good story and admired bold deeds, and Joseph Brant was a hero. They were all the more ready to accept his words when he told them that “their own Country and Liberty” were “in danger from the Rebels,” and they heartily approved when he informed them of the errand upon which he had come from Colonel Johnson and General Howe.12 Daniel Claus, in writing Brant’s biography two years later, said that the Indians at Onoquaga were “unanimously agreed with him in Sentiment and determined to act against the Rebels.” Whether or not they were ac­ tually unanimous cannot now be ascertained, but probably most were fa-

110

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

vorable to Brant at that time. Good Peter, who was an Oneida from Onoquaga, certainly remained attached to the American cause during the war. There was always an Anglican faction at Onoquaga, though, and now, bolstered by Brant, it undoubtedly took the lead in declaring for the king. Certainly Brant was able to raise a large force of warriors at Onoquaga early the next year, which gave visible proof of the success of his mission. Also, the New England missionary was soon driven out. Here was a clas­ sic example of a warrior chief seizing the leadership from the sachem chiefs. With the Confederacy still pledged to peace and neutrality, Brant had had an initial success in counteracting a decision arrived at in full council of the Six Nations. The pull of localism was still strong in the Confederacy— tragically so.13 From Onoquaga, Brant and Tice moved on to the west branch of the Susquehanna River, and tarried a while at the Delaware Indian settle­ ments, gaining from them a pledge of support. Then moving northward along this branch, they reached the Seneca village of Chenussio (also known as the Genesee castle) in four days. After a brief visit, they moved on to Fort Niagara, which they reached in three days after leaving Chenus­ sio.14 At Niagara, Brant felt a little extra chill in the air. He reported to Colonel Butler and announced his instructions from Colonel Johnson and General Howe. He also gave Butler an account of his activities since leaving New York. Brant felt that Butler received him coolly. It was the beginning of a distrust and dislike between the two men. The Mo­ hawk chieftain was later to complain about Butler’s obstructionism, feeling that he was being deliberately hindered in his activities by Johnson’s dep­ uty. The reasons for the disagreement are not quite clear. Claus laid it to “jealousy and envy” on Butler’s part— an anxiety that Brant’s activity would reflect unfavorably upon his own efforts. Claus’s carping criticism of Butler was often unfair and inaccurate and frequently so vitriolic as to be unreliable. Whether Claus was accurate in this instance we cannot satis­ factorily determine, for Butler kept his feelings to himself. He did, how­ ever, seem to be rather petty in questioning Brant’s authority, or his integ­ rity, since the Mohawk chief and Tice brought nothing in writing with them from either Johnson or Howe. Perhaps Butler simply mistrusted Brant’s judgment and possibly resented what he felt was an infringement on the responsibilities of his department. Butler had in a letter to General Carleton on April 8, 1777, protested that he had always exerted his efforts to keep the Indians from committing outrages on the frontiers. Carleton

TAKE UP THE HATCHET

111

wanted Indians to act in regularly organized actions in conjunction with white troops, and not in indiscriminate raids which might result in the murder of innocents. This might offer an explanation as to why Butler al­ lowed Brant only a limited amount of powder that spring, though Brant had the full confidence of Colonel Johnson and numerous other Loyalists. It may be also that Butler was beginning to feel submerged by the Johnson dynasty, of which Brant was a part.15 Brant got his wampum belt made and without further ado left the for­ tress. He proceeded through the villages of the Six Nations, presenting Johnson’s and Howe’s messages with the belt, then deposited it at Onon­ daga, the capital. He had been favorably received wherever he went. Only the Oneidas and Tuscaroras remained unvisited. Brant wanted to advise them also “for their safety and welfare.” He accordingly proceeded to the Tuscarora village of Ganaghsaraga * and sent for the Oneidas to meet him there. The Oneida Indians objected to being called to Ganaghsaraga. They sent a message that if Brant had anything to say to them, he should come and say it. Finally, however, they agreed and went to meet the Mohawk. At the conference, Brant received a major rebuff. In a heated argument, the Oneidas declared their friendship for both the king and the Americans and refused to break their neutrality. Brant told how the king’s troops were sweeping all before them. The Oneidas replied that if that were so, then the king had no need of their help. The Mohawk emissary left the Oneidas and resided for the remainder of the season mainly among the Cayugas, busying himself with propagan­ dizing the Indians so that they might be in a receptive mood to go on the warpath in the ensuing campaign. It would seem that Brant’s trip was really not so immediately successful as Claus made out. Brant still had to use his persuasive powers throughout the Indian settlements during the winter. Evidently a significantly large segment still believed neutrality to be the best policy.16 All that fall and winter, even before Brant arrived in the Indian coun­ try, rumors and alarms were flying back and forth. The Oneidas, no less than the white settlers, were in a constant state of anxiety. At 2 o’clock in the morning of September 3, Skenandon, elderly war chief of the Oneida Wolf Clan,t arrived express at the newly occupied Fort Stanwix— or Fort * Ganasarage (Hodge). The present spelling of the name of this hamlet, near Chittenango, is Canaseraga. t Skenandon (1706-1816) was an adopted Conestoga.

112

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Schuyler, as it was now called— in company with another warrior, to re­ port to Colonel Elias Dayton, the commander, “that a numerous army, chiefly of Indians were that Day to arrive at Oswego,” but advised Dayton to wait until runners could return from Onondaga “to know the Certainty of the rumour.” The next day, Thomas Spencer, the Oneida blacksmith, sent Dayton an urgent letter saying that seven hundred Indians and whites under the command of Walter Butler were at Oswegatchie headed for Os­ wego and that parties had been sent out to destroy the settlements. The Onondaga chiefs also sent a panicky letter to Dayton, begging him to have more troops sent into the country to protect them: “We are threatened by those Indians coming to Oswego on account we sit still and Meddle not in the War. We expect to be struck by them.” Nothing came of this rumor, but on September 22, the Indians had another one. It was Sir John John­ son this time who had landed at Oswego with a large force. Two days later, Skenandon came to the fort to inform Dayton that the vessel seen at Oswego several days past had merely fired its guns and gone off; there were no soldiers on board. And so it went. Even neutrality was frightening for the Indians.17 It was necessary for the Americans to keep the Indians contented and well-impressed with their good intentions toward them. No less important was the immediate conveyance of any news of American success at arms, which would encourage their friends among the Indians, warn their ene­ mies, and convince the wavering. The Indians were particularly pleased when General Schuyler opened a trading post for them at Fort Stanwix. “They pour in by Shoals,” reported Samuel Kirkland, now living at the garrison. The Americans also had some exciting news to report to the In­ dians. Kirkland rushed off to Oneida to relate the account of Washington’s victories at Trenton and Princeton. A few days later, he was back at Oneida with Schuyler’s official speech telling of Washington’s success at this battle. The Tuscaroras and Oneidas gathered to hear the report, cheered and shouted, shot off their village’s two cannons in celebration, and sent runners off to the other nations with the glad news. Kirkland ex­ ulted to Schuyler: “Your seasonable and well adapted Speech to the Indi­ ans accompanied with the present of six Barrels of Rum, will I believe be very acceptable and do more service to our Cause than a thousand ex­ pended at Treaty with them.” For reasons of military expediency, Kirk­ land was no longer willing that rum should be banned from the Indian vil­ lages.18 As the barrels of rum traveled westward— one for each tribe— bearing

TAKE UP THE HATCHET

113

with them the glad report of American military successes, tragic news came from the opposite direction. A delegation of Oneida chiefs came to Fort Stanwix on January 19 to report to Colonel Elmore, then in com­ mand at the fort, the sad message conveyed to them the day previous by the Onondagas. A devastating pestilence of unknown origin had swept through the Onondaga settlement, leaving disaster in its wake and disrupt­ ing the normal relations of that tribe. Such a sudden and great tragedy caused the extinguishing of the great council fire at Onondaga, the Iro­ quois capital. The Oneidas relayed this message from the Onondagas: “We have lost out of their Town by Death ninty [sic] out of which are three principal Sachems; We the remaining part of the Onondauguas Do now in­ form our Brother that there is no longer a Council Fire at the Capitol of Six Nations. However we are determined to use our feeble Endeavours to support peace through the Confederate Nations But let this be kept in Mind that the Central Council fire is extinguished . . . and can no longer burn.” 19 Samuel Kirkland wrote a concerned letter to Schuyler the same day warning of the perilous consequences that might follow this “dissolving their Body-politic .” He suspected that the action might be just a ruse to permit the Indians freedom to go to Niagara and there attach themselves to the British. “I apprehend it will be wise and politic for you to perform the Ceremony of Condolence [he advised Schuyler] and replace those Sachems and thereby rekindle the capital Fire of the six Nations. The usual Method for this will require three large Belts interspersed with black spots. Three black strouds,. three white shirts, a keg of Rum. Either of your Oneida Friends, the Grasshopper or White Skin will model the Speech agreeable to Indian Tradition.” 20 This ceremony was designed to revive the dead in the person of an­ other. The name of the deceased was passed on to the one who would take his place. The departed one had thereby through this means been resusci­ tated and had been placed again among the living. The mourners were then comforted, “dried their tears and ceased to weep.” The condolence for sachems was both a religious and civil ritual, and it is interesting to note the effects of acculturation on this traditional ob­ servance. Certain items of white manufacture, such as fabrics and liquor, had now become necessities for performing the ancient rite. The observance evidently was later performed to the satisfaction of the Onondagas, because in April Colonel Elmore informed Schuyler that the “Indians are going to have a Grand Meeting at Onondaga.” 21

112

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Schuyler, as it was now called— in company with another warrior, to re­ port to Colonel Elias Dayton, the commander, “that a numerous army, chiefly of Indians were that Day to arrive at Oswego,” but advised Dayton to wait until runners could return from Onondaga “to know the Certainty of the rumour.” The next day, Thomas Spencer, the Oneida blacksmith, sent Dayton an urgent letter saying that seven hundred Indians and whites under the command of Walter Butler were at Oswegatchie headed for Os­ wego and that parties had been sent out to destroy the settlements. The Onondaga chiefs also sent a panicky letter to Dayton, begging him to have more troops sent into the country to protect them: “We are threatened by those Indians coming to Oswego on account we sit still and Meddle not in the War. We expect to be struck by them.” Nothing came of this rumor, but on September 22, the Indians had another one. It was Sir John John­ son this time who had landed at Oswego with a large force. Two days later, Skenandon came to the fort to inform Dayton that the vessel seen at Oswego several days past had merely fired its guns and gone off; there were no soldiers on board. And so it went. Even neutrality was frightening for the Indians.17 It was necessary for the Americans to keep the Indians contented and well-impressed with their good intentions toward them. No less important was the immediate conveyance of any news of American success at arms, which would encourage their friends among the Indians, warn their ene­ mies, and convince the wavering. The Indians were particularly pleased when General Schuyler opened a trading post for them at Fort Stanwix. “They pour in by Shoals,” reported Samuel Kirkland, now living at the garrison. The Americans also had some exciting news to report to the In­ dians. Kirkland rushed off to Oneida to relate the account of Washington’s victories at Trenton and Princeton. A few days later, he was back at Oneida with Schuyler’s official speech telling of Washington’s success at this battle. The Tuscaroras and Oneidas gathered to hear the report, cheered and shouted, shot off their village’s two cannons in celebration, and sent runners off to the other nations with the glad news. Kirkland ex­ ulted to Schuyler: “Your seasonable and well adapted Speech to the Indi­ ans accompanied with the present of six Barrels of Rum, will I believe be very acceptable and do more service to our Cause than a thousand ex­ pended at Treaty with them.” For reasons of military expediency, Kirk­ land was no longer willing that rum should be banned from the Indian vil­ lages.18 As the barrels of rum traveled westward— one for each tribe— bearing

TAKE UP THE HATCHET

113

with them the glad report of American military successes, tragic news came from the opposite direction. A delegation of Oneida chiefs came to Fort Stanwix on January 19 to report to Colonel Elmore, then in com­ mand at the fort, the sad message conveyed to them the day previous by the Onondagas. A devastating pestilence of unknown origin had swept through the Onondaga settlement, leaving disaster in its wake and disrupt­ ing the normal relations of that tribe. Such a sudden and great tragedy caused the extinguishing of the great council fire at Onondaga, the Iro­ quois capital. The Oneidas relayed this message from the Onondagas: “We have lost out of their Town by Death ninty [s/c] out of which are three principal Sachems; We the remaining part of the Onondauguas Do now in­ form our Brother that there is no longer a Council Fire at the Capitol of Six Nations. However we are determined to use our feeble Endeavours to support peace through the Confederate Nations But let this be kept in Mind that the Central Council fire is extinguished . . . and can no longer burn.” 19 Samuel Kirkland wrote a concerned letter to Schuyler the same day warning of the perilous consequences that might follow this “dissolving their Body-politic.” He suspected that the action might be just a ruse to permit the Indians freedom to go to Niagara and there attach themselves to the British. “I apprehend it will be wise and politic for you to perform the Ceremony of Condolence [he advised Schuyler] and replace those Sachems and thereby rekindle the capital Fire of the six Nations. The usual Method for this will require three large Belts interspersed with black spots. Three black strouds,. three white shirts, a keg of Rum. Either of your Oneida Friends, the Grasshopper or White Skin will model the Speech agreeable to Indian Tradition.” 20 This ceremony was designed to revive the dead in the person of an­ other. The name of the deceased was passed on to the one who would take his place. The departed one had thereby through this means been resusci­ tated and had been placed again among the living. The mourners were then comforted, “dried their tears and ceased to weep.” The condolence for sachems was both a religious and civil ritual, and it is interesting to note the effects of acculturation on this traditional ob­ servance. Certain items of white manufacture, such as fabrics and liquor, had now become necessities for performing the ancient rite. The observance evidently was later performed to the satisfaction of the Onondagas, because in April Colonel Elmore informed Schuyler that the “Indians are going to have a Grand Meeting at Onondaga.” 21

114

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

The Onondaga chief Tiahogwando was among the Oneidas in January with a belt from Colonel Butler, requesting the presence of the chiefs and warriors at Fort Niagara. Joseph Brant sent along a special message to his former father-in-law, the Oneida Skenandon, and also to Kayendalongwe, Thomas, and his brother Peter, requesting them particularly because of “family connection” to come visit him at Niagara. The four Oneidas ut­ terly rejected the invitation. Old Skenandon, now in his seventy-first year, was a particularly strong friend of the Americans. One of the staunchest pillars of the Oneida church, he had often requested, when he died, to be buried next to the minister so that he might catch hold the cloak of his be­ loved pastor as Kirkland flew up to heaven. Such devotion would not eas­ ily be turned aside— even by a former son-in-law.22 It was evident to the American officials that neither Butler nor Brant would moderate his activity in the coming months. They both were using the winter to lay the groundwork among the Six Nations for the coming spring and summer campaign. It was a certainty that the British would at­ tempt to enlist the Indians for that campaign at the forthcoming treaty to be held at Oswego in a few short months. New York, it was felt, would be the primary object of the coming British offensive. In a carefully reasoned letter to Congress, General Horatio Gates gave his observations on the lat­ ter presupposition. The conquest of New York had been for the past cen­ tury “the uniform plan of France and England, for the Reduction of North America.” General Howe in 1776 was prevented from making “a junction with General Carleton” only “by our Main Army being posted upon the East side of Hudson’s River; when the Season of the year, and the Retreat of General Carleton, made that impracticable, and the Troops of the United States upon the West side of that River, were from various causes, become weak, and insignificant; General Howe, and not until then, changed the object of His Campaign, and penetrated the Jersies.” Further, a command of Hudson River would permit the British to have all the Indi­ ans of the north and west in their control and to expose the entire frontier to attack. Also, there was “provision upon Hudson’s and Mohock Rivers, sufficient to maintain all the British Army a Twelve Month.” Finally, the Hudson River region was a nest of Tories who would give invaluable aid to a British invasion. Gates reasoned well, for this was indeed the British plan for the coming campaign. The famous three-pronged attack from New York City, Canada, and the Mohawk Valley was designed to gain the mili­ tary advantage by cutting the colonies in two.23 To combat British intrigues with the Indians, Schuyler and the other

commissioners planned to assemble the Six Nations in Albany on July 15 “to renew the Covenant, and to make them the usual presents.” 24 The British were a step or two ahead of the Americans, however. General Burgoyne was in Canada making his grandiose plans for the northern invasion and busily recruiting the Indians from that quarter. General Carleton co­ operated fully with Burgoyne despite the fact that, as commander-in-chief, he had to bear up under the humiliation of having a major expedition from a territory under his jurisdiction placed under the command of a subordi­ nate officer. Daniel Claus had returned from England with a commission as superintendent of Indians for St. Leger’s expedition along the Mohawk Valley. And Brant and Butler were both busy as usual. The St. Leger ex­ pedition especially would make it absolutely essential for the British to have the cooperation of the Iroquois in their heartland. Colonel Peter Gansevoort of Albany succeeded Colonel Elmore as commander at Fort Stanwix in May of 1777. The outgoing commander had some advice for his twenty-eight-year-old successor: “Colo Elmore would recommend to Colo. Garnsworth [s/c] for to be Friendly to the In­ dians as it is of Consequence, and helpfull to the cause.” Gansevoort pro­ ceeded diligently to supervise the renovation and repair of the old fort, and also to follow Colonel Elmore’s advice regarding the Indians. The lat­ ter were highly pleased with the new commander and showed him every mark of kindness. Leonard Gansevoort back in Albany, hearing of his brother’s good relations with the Indians, and wishing to encourage a promising young officer who had been deprived of future military glory by being relegated to a post in the backwoods, wrote and reminded him how essential to the country the Indians’ good will was. I believe it will be the only thing in which you will be able to render any Service to your Country this Campaign because remov’d with your Regiment from the seat of action and there being no prob­ ability of any descent from the Westward you will be oblig’d to cast about in your Mind in what respect you can contribute to the Wel­ fare of your Country, and permit me farther to suggest that it is an object of the greatest moment not to this state in particular but America in general to maintain Peace and amity with them .25 Considering the events which were to follow around Fort Stanwix in July and August, this was a masterpiece of understatement. Joseph Brant that spring was active, particularly in the Susquehanna River region of the state, encouraging the Tories and influencing the Indi­ ans in favor of the king. He made Onoquaga his headquarters, and ranged

116

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the countryside thereabouts with his band of warriors, more than one hundred strong. He made his way to the settlement of Unadilla in early June, sending ahead a small party of Indians headed by William Johnson, Jr., to announce his approach and insure the inhabitants of his peaceable intentions. On June 2, he entered the settlement and had a conference with the minister, William Johnston, and his son, Captain Johnston. He ques­ tioned the pair about “using his Friends ill,” and then requested provisions for his party, for which Colonel Butler would pay them when he came through. The inhabitants had no alternative but to furnish cattle and com to Brant’s men. After his departure, a number of the Whig families fled for their safety, fearing the return of the Indians.26 News of Brant’s incursion quickly reached the local Committee of Safety and General Schuyler. The latter dispatched a force of one hundred fifty men under Colonel Van Schaick to protect the frontier. It was now Brant’s turn to fear for his safety. He was unable to rouse any more Indi­ ans to support him, despite their previous promise. Brant believed they must have been instructed from Niagara not to go, but more likely, the In­ dians were just generally disinterested in a confrontation with the Ameri­ cans at this time.27 Militia General Nicholas Herkimer came to Unadilla with three hundred eighty men in July to inquire into Brant’s activities. Herkimer sent a message to Brant requesting a conference, and the chieftain replied that he would agree provided the parties were unarmed. Brant appeared with three of his lieutenants and twenty warriors at his back. When he saw so many militia men, he feared Herkimer would do him harm; so, he blus­ tered and claimed to have a large body of warriors with him. He assured Herkimer that, as they were old neighbors, he intended no harm to him. Actually Brant had only about one hundred thirty men in his party. Brant stated his grievances. The Mohawks, he said, were restricted in their travel, their minister was not allowed to come to Canajoharie, and forts were built within their territory. Brant furthermore rejected Herki­ mer’s request for neutrality, saying that the Indians owed their loyalty to the king and that the king would humble the Bostonians. Colonel Ebenezer Cox, another Mohawk Valley neighbor, who had married the daughter of George Klock, the Indians’ old adversary, then made some insulting remarks to Brant. Irritated, Brant gave a signal and his warriors ran to their camp, seized their guns, and shot them off, giving many whoops and yells in addition. Herkimer assured Brant that he had come for peace, and the latter calmed his warriors.

TAKE UP THE HATCHET

117

Herkimer agreed to allow both Mr. Stuart, the Anglican missionary, and Mrs. John Butler to visit the upper Mohawk castle of Canajoharie. He also gave a guarantee that the Tories of the Mohawk Valley would be un­ molested. The council ended amicably enough with the presentation of a few cattle to Brant’s party. Brant later told Claus a somewhat different version of this encounter more favorable to himself, or, at least, so Claus reported it. After Brant’s refusal to remain neutral. Colonel Cox, he said, “made some threatening expression upon which Brant gave a Signal and all his party appeared with Tomyhawks. Gen. Harkemer [in] confusion apologized for Col. Cox and the whole rebel party sneaked off and Brant saw himself unable on ac­ count of Ammunition to pursue and attack them.” What Brant did not know at the time was that Herkimer had secretly instructed three of his men to shoot Brant and his three lieutenants if any trouble arose and the meeting did not end amicably.28 Herkimer pleased no one by his concessions. Brant announced that he would be going to hold a treaty with Colonel Butler at Oswego; and Schuyler, when he heard of the agreement, was very upset that Herkimer had been so lenient. He did agree to abide by Herkimer’s promises if doing so would bring about a peace with the Indians, but he was not at all happy about the concessions. The subsequent turn of events soon made this treaty worthless. Burgoyne’s and St. Leger’s expeditions were forming in Canada. Burgoyne had originally planned on a force of one thousand Indians to accom­ pany his army. He was fortunate to raise four hundred. Claus’s efforts to raise recruits among the Canadian Indians for Colonel Barry St. Leger’s expedition was soon reported back to the Tryon County Committee of Safety by an Oneida sachem named Thomas. The Oneida had been on a visit to his friends at Cassasseny, near the Caughnawaga village, and op­ portunely arrived at the same time that Daniel Claus and Sir John Johnson were also in the village. His friends hid him in the upper part of the coun­ cil house where he overheard the whole proceedings. Thomas hastened back to the Mohawk Valley to report that Claus and Johnson were then at Oswego with seven hundred Indians, four hundred regulars, and six hundred Tories and that Colonel Butler was soon expected with another party to hold a council. The Oneida sachem urged the Americans to make a spirited defense of Fort Stanwix, and emphasized the pitiable state the Indians would be in if the Americans were defeated. He complained to the committee that General Schuyler had not permitted the Indians to take up

118

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the hatchet. Thus the secret of the campaign was out by the middle of July, giving the Americans ample time to reinforce the garrison at Stanwix.29 Nor were spies the only problem that was to plague the St. Leger expe­ dition. Claus was experiencing difficulty in raising sufficient supplies for his Indians, being assured by General Carleton that everything necessary had already been provided and would be waiting at Oswego. As an extra precaution, Claus, on his own, secured at Montreal some of the equipment which he had requested, and fortunately so, as he discovered when he ar­ rived at his destination. Claus also asked Carleton how strong Fort Stanwix was. Carleton replied “that by the latest accounts from Col. Butler, there was 60 men in a picketed place.” Not satisfied, Claus wished addi­ tional intelligence and sent John Hare, one of the officers in the Indian de­ partment, in company with the Mohawk chief, John Deserontyon, to Oswegatchie to assemble a scouting party and spy out Fort Stanwix. Hare and Deserontyon collected about forty men at Oswegatchie, and scouted the fort. On July 14, they surprised Ensign John Spoor’s work detail of sixteen men out cutting sod, had a brush with them, and brought off five prisoners and four scalps, leaving one of the dead shockingly butchered on the field.30 Claus received from the returning Indians and their prisoners the in­ formation he desired. The fort was strongly garrisoned by about six hundred men, the repairs were far advanced, and the Americans were ex­ pecting them. Claus passed the information and the prisoners along to St. Leger, who admitted that their artillery of two six-pounders, two threepounders, and four cohorns would not be adequate to take the fort if its situation were as the captives stated. Claus suggested sending back for heavier artillery and waiting for additional troops. St. Leger, however, was bent on pushing through with the expedition as quickly as possible.* Claus with his party of one hundred fifty Missisauga and Six Nations Indians proceeded to Buck Island, where they were to rendezvous with St. Leger’s forces. On July 19, St. Leger set out from that point with the Indi­ ans and also with contingents from the 8 th and 34th Regiments, taking a short cut through the woods in order to surprise the fort and take it with small arms. Sir John Johnson with his regiment and Claus were to proceed to Oswego and wait for Colonel Butler and the remainder of the Indians.31 At Niagara on June 6 , Colonel Butler received General Carleton’s let* St. Leger, a lieutenant colonel, asked for and received a temporary appoint­ ment as brigadier general for this expedition.

TAKE UP THE HATCHET

119

D aniel C laus. From a miniature in the Public Archives o f Canada. A German im­

migrant, Claus married Sir William Johnson’s elder white daughter and served long and faithfully in the Indian department. C o u r te s y o f P u b lic A r c h iv e s o f C a n a d a , O t­ ta w a

120

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

ters of May 18 and 22, informing him of the intended expedition and re­ questing him to assemble the Indians to participate. Butler sent runners out to the Six Nations to gather at Oswego for a grand council in order to make arrangements with their father the king and to receive presents. He also sent to Detroit requesting Indians from that direction to come in to the council. To conserve provisions, Butler directed a greater part of the Seneca warriors with their families to meet him at Irondequoit, which was much closer to Fort Niagara than Oswego. On July 11, 1777, a number of Senecas and forty western Indians ar­ rived at Fort Niagara. Two days later, Butler set sail with them for Irondequoit, where he would hold a week-long council. A great crowd of Senecas was assembled at Irondequoit, including not only the warriors and sachems but also women, children, and old men. The Seneca, Black snake,* who was there as a young warrior, said many years later that the women went along chiefly because they feared a “snare” by the British. Here was an indication of the influence which Iro­ quois women could exert upon the councils.32 When the Senecas arrived at the council grounds at Irondequoit, the British officials immediately inquired as to their needs, and pointed out to them large stocks of provisions and many barrels of rum, and begged them to take from the stores all they wanted and especially to avail themselves of the- “flood of Rum,” as Blacksnake described it. Several head of cattle were slaughtered and roasted, flour and other foods distributed to the Indi­ ans, and the firewater dispensed freely. There seemed to be no limit to the bounty of their father the king. The Indians were hugely pleased and thor­ oughly impressed with all this generosity. Even the women forgot their earlier suspicions as they basked in the glow of the king’s kindness.33 After they had been mellowed for two or three days, the Indians were directed to gather for a council. Here the British, led by Butler, requested their red brethren to remember the ancient alliance with the king and to join with their father and help him in subduing his rebellious children in America. It was the duty of the British and the Six Nations to support each other when called upon. The king was rich and fully able to care for all his faithful children, and would reward the warriors handsomely. No one could stand against the might of the king for he was all powerful and * Blacksnake at this time was known by the name of Dahgayadoh, or “The Boys Betting.” A few years after the Revolution, he was made one of the head war chiefs and was renamed Tawanneaprs, or “Chain Breaker,” a Wolf Clan title. In about 1812 he was given the name of Blacksnake. He was the nephew of Cornplanter and the cousin of Red Jacket.

soon would humble his disobedient children who because of their small numbers could not hope to prevail over him. Butler then offered the hatchet and desired the Indians to take hold of it. The council adjourned and the Indians met among themselves to con­ sider the proposal. The Senecas were almost unanimously against joining the hostilities. The various speakers reminded their brethren of the agree­ ment they had made with the Americans to keep out of the war and let the whites fight it out. Also, the causes of the conflict were never quite clear to the Indians. They feared they might make a mistake if they supported one side against the other. All these matters were thoroughly discussed by the Indians in their own meetings and resulted in a decision to remain neutral. The Senecas reported their decision to the British in formal council. They had a solemn treaty with the Americans which they could not vio­ late. They had promised to remain at peace and must keep their word. Sayenqueraghta and Cornplanter were two of the most vigorous opponents of breaking the treaty. Butler did not give up easily. He presented to the Indians all the ad­ vantages to be gained from serving the king and abandoning the Ameri­ cans, who were an insignificant people. The Americans were very poor while the king was very rich. The Americans could do nothing for the In­ dians, whereas the king could do everything: “his rum was as plenty as the water in lake Ontario . . . his men were as numerous as the sands on the lake shore.” He would protect the families of the warriors all the while they were away on the warpath. No woman or child need ever fear or go without food or clothing. The king would watch over them and provide for all their wants. Thus painting a glowing picture of all the benefits in store for those who would enlist in the British cause and calming the chiefs’ and warriors’ anxieties for their families, Butler sent them again into their pri­ vate councils to consider his offer.34 Blacksnake, in both his narratives, has Joseph Brant exercising a pow­ erful influence in these private councils in favor of war. He even gave de­ tailed accounts of Brant’s speeches. Reports written by Butler and Claus at the time, however, show clearly that Brant was not present at this conference. Brant did harangue the wavering Senecas before the battle of Oriskany but had no part in recruiting any warriors save his own large band. Blacksnake’s confusion is difficult to understand because he came to know Brant well during the war and readily recognized his picture when shown it in 1842. It is possible that a speech was made at Irondequoit by a Mohawk chief. If so, it may have been Captain Aaron Hill, war chief of

122

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the lower castle, who had been very active at Niagara since early in the war. Brant, who was never reticent about his accomplishments, would cer­ tainly have mentioned it if he had played such a significant role in bringing over the Seneca nation, and Claus, his biographer, would have gone into great detail over the fact. As it was, ClauS had to content himself with rid­ iculing and belittling Butler’s achievements during these weeks. As for the testimony of Blacksnake, we shall have to say that he was an aged warrior nearing the century mark at the time he was interviewed and at times re­ membered past details only dimly. Blacksnake’s interpreter and recorder of his biography may also be responsible for errors and misinterpre­ tations.35 During the council, the warriors were this time seriously divided. There was a spirited controversy for a day and a half, into which even the women entered. Blacksnake claimed that the women began to exert their influence over the warriors at this point, but he did not say in which direc­ tion. The British leaven was beginning to take effect. Cornplanter for one, however, still remained strongly opposed. While the Indians were still locked in debate, a ship laden with trink­ ets docked at Irondequoit. As the bundles of gew-gaws were unloaded and unpacked, the Indians gaped first in wonderment, then in delight. All these marvels were distributed to them— countless thousands of beads to wear about their necks and adorn their persons, ostrich feathers, “small jingling bells” which were quite a curiosity, especially to the women, as Black­ snake noted, “and the warriors also Never Did see such things.” Surely their father the king lacked for nothing and would share all that he had with his red brethren. When the council had resumed with the British, Butler brought out two large wampum belts, both confirming an ancient alliance between the Iro­ quois and the king. One of the belts was the Great Old Covenant Chain, which the elders would remember and which the younger Indians now heard recited for the first time. It was all true what the white man was tell­ ing them. The elders confirmed it. This was the ancient covenant between their people and the king. They could not forget their father who had just lavished upon them so many tokens of his love and esteem. The British had made a clever appeal to both avarice and honor— with a heavy em­ phasis on the former. The sachems again gathered together to consider the matter. There was another council held by the Indians among themselves and some speeches, with expressions of gratitude for all that the king had done for them. Their

senses had been adequately dulled and their dispositions mellowed by the continual round of feasting, drinking, and presentation of gifts. They no longer asked the British the embarrassing questions they once had. They no longer wittily commented to these white men that if the king were so mighty and his warriors so numerous, he scarcely needed the help of his red brethren to subdue these weak and insignificant Americans. They did not even ponder on the fact that if the British were indeed so close to con­ quest, it was strange that they would go to all this trouble to secure Indian assistance. The king’s agents had promised them much glory and easy vic­ tories. They had proved that their master who lived beyond the seas was rich and powerful and that his bounty never failed. With their heads so full of these exciting promises and prospects, the Senecas had hardly any time or inclination to think of the solemn promise they had made at Al­ bany nearly two years before. The decision was much easier to reach this time. They would take their father by the hand and follow him upon the warpath. It was settled. Even the matrons agreed. There was, of course, a feast that evening, with much rum, to mark the grand event. The head men did so much celebrating that they were quite incapacitated until the next day. The British now had rich presents to give to their Indian brethren. There was a new suit of clothes for each one, guns, ammunition, toma­ hawks and scalping knives, brass kettles, and for the chiefs, a gift of money in addition. The Indians were also promised a reward for every scalp or prisoner brought in. The Senecas were entitled to name the two war chiefs of the Confeder­ acy. They accordingly chose Sayenqueraghta of the Turtle Clan and Cornplanter of the Wolf Clan. Sayenqueraghta was not only an eloquent orator but the most distinguished warrior in the Confederacy, well over six feet tall and of commanding presence. In both battle and in council he was out­ standing, possessing at the same time great bravery and a superior intel­ lect. He was close to seventy years old at the time the Senecas took up the hatchet against the Americans, but served the whole war through. Because of his age, however, he was usually obliged to ride a horse on campaigns. Sayenqueraghta’s name is variously translated as “He Who Is Lost in the Smoke,” “Smoke,” “Smoke Revanishes,” and “Old Smoke.” It refers to the mist of Indian summer which vanishes during the heat of the day. Gayentwahga, or Complanter, was only twenty-five. His greatest years as a warrior and statesman were still ahead of him .36 On July 19, Butler at Irondequoit received an order from St. Leger to

124

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

send him one hundred fifty warriors to join the alert, or surprise attack, the general was planning against Fort Stanwix. Butler had them ready the next day and dispatched them to St. Leger. He himself remained four days longer finishing arrangements with the Senecas, and then set out for Os­ wego on July 24, arriving the following day. Daniel Claus arrived at Oswego on July 23 along with Sir John John­ son and his regiment and a company of Hanau Chasseurs. They found Jo­ seph Brant already there. Brant informed Claus that a party of about three hundred warriors which he had recruited would be in later that day, that they had “been more than 2 months upon service” and “were destitute of necessaries, and some arms.” Claus thereupon investigated the Indian sup­ plies Butler had ordered to Oswego so that he could prepare to equip Jo­ seph’s party and the other warriors who came in. To his disgust, he found that the supplies contained “scarce an article immediately necessary for Warriors among them such as Fusils, Tomyhawks, knives Vermilion [war paint], Mockinsons, &c but instead of those a parcel of Silver Trinkets, Ribbonds &c [and] a vast Quantity of Rum the only Article obstructive to an Indian Excursion & which Mr. Claus on its being showed him ordered immediately to be concealed before the arrival of the Six Na­ tions.” Obviously Butler, when he arrived at Oswego, intended to follow the same policy of softening them up before signing them up. He was to­ tally unaware that Claus had been appointed to superintend the Indians on the forthcoming expedition.37 When Brant’s party came in later that day, Claus equipped them as fully as he could out of Butler’s stores. No other Indians had as yet come in, and Claus grumbled that Butler, who had been two hundred miles closer than Joseph, was tardy in making his appearance. On July 24, Captain Tice came in with a message from St. Leger re­ questing Claus to secure all the arms and vermillion he could and proceed to Salmon Creek prepared to march with the general’s party against Fort Stanwix. “As to arms and vermillion I had none,” said Claus; but he made immediate preparations to leave and join St. Leger. Brant, hearing of the new turn of events, went to Claus’s tent and begged him not to leave at this critical juncture when there was already a large party of Indians on hand and others expected. He reminded Claus of his duty and responsibility as superintendent of Indians on this expedition. If he were to leave now, with no one to oversee Indian affairs, the war­ riors he brought with him might “become disgusted, and disperse, which

TAKE UP THE HATCHET

125

might prevent the rest of the 6 Nations to assemble.” Brant well knew the changeable nature of his own people.38 Claus thereupon consulted with Captain Tice, who told him the real reason the general wished his presence was to calm the rampaging Indian warriors he had with him. St. Leger, Tice said, had given orders to issue each Indian a quart of rum, “which made them all beastly drunk.” Claus knew it would be pointless for him to proceed under such circumstances, for the warriors would be of absolutely no use until they had become sober, and in their present state, it was “not in the power of man to quiet them.” He therefore wrote to St. Leger, explaining the great danger of his abandoning those Indians presently at Oswego and still to come. When St. Leger received the message, he dispensed with his intended alert against Stanwix and marched his entire force to Oswego, arriving July 25.39 Once the general had assembled his whole army at Oswego, he planned to march the next day. Claus learned that a large party of Senecas and oth­ ers were on their way to the Oswego conference that Butler had called. They were coming via Three Rivers, the point just twenty-five miles south of Oswego where the Oswego, Seneca, and Oneida Rivers joined. He ac­ cordingly sent an express to stop them there, since it was on the way to Stanwix, rather than have them come out of their way to Oswego. He also ordered ahead “what Necessaries were left of Mr. Butlers assortment of Merchandise,” leaving behind the trinkets and rum .40 Butler also arrived at Oswego on July 2 5 , bringing his Indians with him. It was a decided shock to him to discover that Claus and not he would be in command of the Indians. He was further distressed to find that Claus had already distributed most of his stores to Joseph’s warriors, that the others were stopped at Three Rivers, and that he would not be able to carry out his promise to make a “handsome present” to the remaining war­ riors. A dispute ensued over the dispensing of the Indian stores. Claus in­ formed Butler that “the Indians on a March upon the Enemy could nor did not expect formal Meetings and councelling, besides it would be at­ tended with several days delay.” He then instructed Butler to take his Indi­ ans to Three Rivers and there await the remainder of those to come. He was to equip them there and follow the expedition to Stanwix.41 The truth of the matter was, with the exception of Brant’s party, none of these Indians had come prepared to go “on a March upon the Enemy.” Blacksnake and Claus both testified that the Indians which Butler called had not been originally informed that they were to go on a campaign.

126

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Claus, in fact, had learned this from the Indians themselves at Oswego: “The Indians that were summoned from Detroit finding that an Expedition was to be on foot came to Mr. Claus in form declaring they were only summoned for a Council and therefore brought only their Pipes of peace and a few chiefs as deputies from their representative Nations otherwise they might have come with several hundreds of stoud [s/c] Warriors . . . and all those that arrived at Oswego brought peltry and Deer skins for Trade.” 42 Butler, who had had such minimal success during the past year and a half in enlisting the Indians, had resorted to subterfuge to gather large bodies of them together and then wear down their resistance with gifts and the “vast Quantity of Rum” which Claus had hidden. Brant, at least, had been honest with his warriors. He had enlisted them directly for war, with­ out recourse to presents or dissembling. The expedition set out on July 26 for Fort Stanwix. Claus said that they left Butler at Three Rivers; two days later, however, Butler was writ­ ing to General Carleton from Ontario (Oswego) giving an account of his services and tribulations since July 13. In his concluding paragraph, he could not help expressing his sense of deep hurt at being summarily re­ placed. Before I conclude I must beg leave to remind your Excellency that when I first arrived at Niagara, I found the Six Nations waver­ ing, and of the two rather inclined to the Rebels. Encouraged by Col­ onel Caldwell, and Capt. Lernoult, and at the same time supported by you, I have spared no pains, nor attention to fix them in the Inter­ ests of the King. The pleasure attending my success I have enjoyed by experiencing your Excellencys approbation of my humble though unwearied endeavors and when at the last I had brought mortification to find the success of all my labours conferred upon another. I will not farther trouble your Excellency with my feelings on this occa­ sion, but humbly beg leave to submit my case to your candid and im­ partial consideration.43 He was writing to a commander who had also been deeply hurt. We do not know precisely what happened at the Three Rivers council, unless Blacksnake’s narrative gives us some clue. His account is somewhat confused, however, for he seems to describe the taking up of the hatchet at Irondequoit; yet we know that the other tribes of the Six Nations were not there, though a few representatives of these nations may have been pre­ sent. Nor was there really time for any extended council at Oswego. We

TAKE UP THE HATCHET

127

know also that Brant was not present at either the Irondequoit or Three Rivers councils. He had gone on ahead with St. Leger at the time Butler was meeting with the Indians at Three Rivers. It is evident from the docu­ ments also that Blacksnake was present on the first day of the siege of the fort. He mentioned having traveled there with a group of Indians separate from the main army. From this description, it would seem that he was with Lieutenant Bird’s advance party and therefore could not have stayed behind for this council at Three Rivers. It may be that Blacksnake was de­ scribing an event he did not personally witness but was told about later, though the manner of narrating would seem to indicate his presence. He also gave the impression that this was the original council at which the Ir­ oquois were recruited and not a later one, as was Three Rivers. His narra­ tive is thus puzzling because of its lack of correlation with the British doc­ uments. The Indians might well have been addressed by Claus or St. Leger or both at Oswego before they departed; but no council such as Blacksnake described in his “Life” could have taken place there. With these reservations in mind, we can consider the account that Blacksnake dictated to Lyman Draper many years later and perhaps glean some facts from it: The ceremony of taking up the hatchet was then formally gone through with: Brant was the first to accept the war-belt, which he did in behalf of the Mohawks: Then Gi-engwah-toh [Sayenqueraghta], Gi-ya-sa-da and other Senecas: Then Jug-ge-ta, or the Fish Carrier, of the Cayugas; Then Gah-kon-de-noi-ya, or the Rail-Carrier, of the Oneidas: Lastly, the War-belt was accepted by She-gwoi-e-seh, or the Dragging-Spear, of the Tuscaroras. Not many of the Oneidas and Tuscaroras were in attendance. After each of these head chiefs had taken hold of the war-belt; then the lesser chiefs, and finally the war­ riors did the same: A large quantity of presents was then distrib­ uted .44 The activities at Three Rivers might very well have followed this pat­ tern; with the exception of Brant, the individuals named may have been the actual ones who accepted the war belt at that time. It would be inter­ esting to speculate just how Butler brought them to this point— whether he had discovered and brought along any of the rum which Claus had so care­ fully hidden, or whether the example of five hundred warriors already under arms and on their way to battle was enough of an inducement. Mary Jemison made an observation which may be quite pertinent: “Previous to the battle at Fort Stanwix, the British sent for the Indians to come and see

128

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

them whip the rebels; and, at the same time stated that they did not wish to have them fight, but wanted to have them just sit down, smoke their pipes, and look on. Our Indians went, to a man; but contrary to expecta­ tion, instead of smoking and looking on, they were obliged to fight for their lives.” 45 Perhaps Butler was up to his old tricks again. The main army arrived at Fort Stanwix on August 2 and immediately prepared to invest it. Butler with about two hundred Senecas arrived three days later, with notice that the Cayugas would follow shortly. The Indians were now poised for the blow that would bring them fully into the conflict. The intolerable tension had at last been broken by this decision to take up the hatchet. Ahead were even greater tensions as the Confederacy stood on the brink of a bloody civil war. The League of the Iroquois, founded by the ancients to preserve the Great Peace among the brethren, had at last succumbed to the persuasions of an intrepid warrior at the Eastern Door and to rum and trinkets at the Western Door. The attachment of the Oneidas and some of their dependents to the religion of the New England mis­ sionaries and the council fire at Albany would complete the division within the Extended Lodge. Localism had triumphed. The work of Deganawida and Hiawatha was undone.

VI The Tree Uprooted

I, Deganawida, and the union lords now uproot the tallest pine tree and into the cavity thereby made we cast all weapons o f war. Into the depths o f the earth, down into the deep underneath currents o f water flowing to unknown regions we cast all the weapons o f strife. We bury them from sight and we plant again the tree. Thus shall the Great Peace, Kayenarhekowa, be established. T he C onstitution

of the

F ive N ations

S t . L e g e r ’s arm y appeared in force around Fort Stanwix fatigued from

the long march and temporarily lacking the artillery, which had been impeded by Gansevoort’s soldiers having felled trees across Wood Creek. The British commander was appalled as he surveyed the formidable struc­ ture before him and realized how wrong his intelligence of the condition and strength of the fort had been. It was a dismayed general who wrote back to Carleton, “instead of the insultable and unfinished work we were taught to expect, I found it was a respectable Fortress strongly garrisoned with 700 men and demanding a train of artillery we were not masters of for its speedy subjection.” It was too late for St. Leger now to take Claus’s early advice and send back for heavier artillery. He had received accurate intelligence from Captain Hare’s and Deserontyon’s scout in time to pro­ vide his expedition with sufficient ordnance but was tricked by his own overconfidence. The American officer whom Deserontyon and Hare had brought back captive told St. Leger that the garrison at the fort were ex­ pecting Sir John Johnson only with five or six hundred “undisciplined To­ ries” and were certain that no regular troops would be assigned to such an inexperienced leader. The Americans at Fort Stanwix, therefore, were all in “high spirits” and were ready “to come and sat them up.” St. Leger’s force of around fourteen hundred men consisted of only three hundred reg­ ular troops: two hundred British infantry, twenty artillery, and eighty Hes­ sians. The remainder were Loyalists, Canadians, and Indians as follows: three hundred eighty Royal Yorkers commanded by Sir John Johnson, sev129

130

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

enty rangers,* fifty Canadians, and between six hundred and eight hundred Indians. St. Leger’s only solution to his predicament had been to plan a surprise attack on the fort from another direction with his regular troops and an equal number of Indians and to request the rank of brigadier gen­ eral to make his expedition look more impressive. The former expedient failed before it began because of St. Leger’s own foolishness and would have failed even if it had been carried through; the latter might have im­ pressed St. Leger’s own forces, but it failed to impress the Americans.1 Fort Stanwix, as it appeared to its attackers, can best be described in St. Leger’s own words: “Its form is a kind o f Trapezium or four sided figure with four Bastions freizd and picketted, without there is a good * The rangers were a unit of the Indian department. Those who served in this capacity were required to be expert woodsmen and thoroughly familiar with one or more of the Indian languages. They are not to be confused with Butler’s Rangers, a group which was not organized until September of 1777.

F ort Stanw ix . Photograph of model, 1897. The determined resistance of the Ameri­ can garrison of this fort in 1777 halted Barry St. Leger’s advance toward the Mo­ hawk Valley. The fort was also the council grounds for two famous treaties involving the Six Nations.F r o m th e G a n s e v o o r t- L a n s in g C o lle c tio n , M a n u s c r ip t v is io n , T h e N e w Y o r k C ity

Y o r k P u b lic L ib r a r y , A s to r , L e n o x , a n d T ild e n F o u n d a tio n s , N e w

D i­

THE TREE UPROOTED

131

ditch with pickets nipping out a considerable way at the salient Angles of the Bastions.” The artillery of the fort consisted of thirteen cannon, but ac­ cording to St. Leger “three nines, four sixes, two threes with a consider­ able number of wall pieces were all the artillery” the Americans “made use of during the seige.” Although the fort was not completely finished it was in good condition for a siege, had ordnance superior to St. Leger’s, and was fully impervious to the popgun artillery the British had brought with them. The garrison had also been reinforced by two hundred soldiers on July 30.2 The British and Indians set to work building a breastwork of brush and trees to give protection, particularly at night in the event that a de­ tachment from the garrison should creep up upon them under cover of darkness. In the afternoon, Captain Tice was sent to the fort with a flag of truce and a request for the garrison to surrender. His main task was to ne­ gotiate a surrender. Failing that, he was to reconnoitre the fort and bring back what intelligence he could. In both these hopes the British were dis­ appointed, for the Americans blindfolded Tice before taking him into the fort and did not remove the blindfold until he was inside one of the build­ ings. Also, Colonel Gansevoort contemptuously rejected any offer to sur­ render his garrison.3 On August 4 and 5, while the Indians kept up a steady firing at the fort, the British commander deployed his forces and laid his plans for the siege. He had before him the major tasks of investing the fort, opening up Wood Creek, and building a road suitable for transporting provisions and the artillery. Lieutenant Lundy and his men took two days to complete the road. Captain Rouville and one hundred ten men took nine days to clear Wood Creek. Rouville had the assistance of Joost Herkimer, General Nicholas Herkimer’s Tory brother and overseer of the bateaux on this expedition.4 John Butler and the Senecas arrived in the British camp on August 5, with the Cayugas to follow later. Indian messengers sent by Mary Brant from Canajoharie also came in at the same time to report that a force of militia under Nicholas Herkimer was on its way to relieve Fort Stanwix and even now camped at the Indian settlement of Oriska.5 St. Leger was at a loss to find any white regular soldiers to meet the new threat because so many of his men were involved in the various oper­ ations relating to the siege, opening the creek, and building the road. He thereupon ordered Butler with twenty rangers and about four hundred In­ dians to go off to meet Herkimer’s force. Sir John offered his services and

132

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

was put in charge of the expedition. There were only fifty of the Royal Yorkers in the group that was to leave with him. When it came time to set out on the morning of August 6 , Brant and his party were ready but the Senecas hung back, suggesting that a message should be sent to the approaching militia to' parley for perhaps they would agree to peace terms without a battle. Brant argued that when an enemy was already under arms and on a march, it was too late for peace over­ tures. He and his party would proceed alone if no one cared to follow. So saying, he and Sir John left, and the Senecas, shamed by their hesitancy and seeming faintheartedness, soon followed.6 While he was still encamped on August 5, Herkimer sent Adam Hell­ mer, John Demuth, and John Adam Kember through the enemy lines to Stanwix to notify Colonel Gansevoort that one thousand militia were com­ ing and to request him to send a force to assist in opening the way for them. Herkimer asked his messengers to have Gansevoort fire three can­ non when the Stanwix garrison began its sortie. After much difficulty, the men reached the fort on August 6 , entering the grounds from the direction of the swamp which the British had previously thought to be impassible.7 The time that the three militiamen reached the fort is of importance in understanding subsequent events. Adam Hellmer, testifying six days later, said it was 1:00 p .m . and that Willett left with his supporting force at 2:00 p .m . All other accounts state that the messengers arrived between 9:00 and 11:00 in the morning. Willett claimed that it was “about 11 o’clock.” 8 In accordance with General Herkimer’s request, a force was made ready to go out and prepare the way for his coming. Lieutenant Colonel Marinus Willett with two hundred fifty men and a field piece sallied from the fort and marched to meet the militia, totally oblivious of the fact that the battle was already raging a few miles ahead. General Herkimer was marching straight into a trap. He had been pre­ viously taunted for his caution by his officers and accused of cowardice. Stung by these jibes, Herkimer pushed on ahead without taking proper precautions. Four companies of militia and most of the members of the Tryon County Committee of Safety marched with Herkimer. With him also were about sixty Indians— mostly Oneidas— from the Oriska settle­ ment. Thawengarakwen, or Honyery Doxtater, as he was known to the whites, commanded the Indians. He had a sword hanging by his side as a symbol of his rank. His wife was also along with him, and, like her hus­ band, carried a gun. Blatcop and Henry Cornelius, two Oneida warriors, would also render Herkimer great service before the day was out. Thomas

THE TREE UPROOTED

133

P e t e r G a n se v o o rt. Painting by Gilbert Stuart. The twenty-eight-year-old Gansevoort was the hero of the siege of Fort Stanwix in 1777. C o lle c tio n o f liams-Proctor I n s titu te , U tic a , N e w Y o r k

134

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Spencer, the Oneida blacksmith, was another one of the Indian volun­ teers.9 The Seneca chiefs and Sir John Johnson had chosen a spot for an am­ bush just five miles from Stanwix, near a steep ravine a short way from Oriskany Creek. Sir John and his men took post by the road, and Butler with the rangers and Indians were on the flanks in the woods. Sir John’s force was to fire a volley into the front of the advancing column and the Indians and rangers to close in just as the rear guard passed into the rav­ ine. The Indians were short on guns but were well armed with hatchets, knives, and spontoons, or spears. Around 10:00 o’clock in the morning, Herkimer’s men with their fif­ teen-wagon baggage train began to enter the trap laid for them. Herkimer with Colonel Ebenezer Cox and his regiment passed through the ravine and over the brook. Following them came Colonel Jacob Klock and Colo­ nel Peter Bellinger with their regiments and the wagons. Colonel Frederick Visscher with his rear guard had not yet come up when the Indians, impa­ tient with waiting, opened fire and then rushed in with a terrifying yell, swinging with tomahawks and thrusting with their spears, wreaking a terri­ ble havoc upon the startled militia. The rear guard, which had not been caught in the trap, panicked and ran, with Colonel Visscher valiantly trying to rally them and threatening to shoot down deserters. The slaughter was a horror to behold. The Seneca Blacksnake later explained that the In­ dians, upon rushing into the fray, thought no more of killing a man than they did of killing a beast. A few of the Indians had no heart for the com­ bat. Red Jacket, a young Seneca who was on the warpath for the first time, and three other warriors turned and fled at the first assault and never stopped, save for sleep, till they reached the Genesee.10 General Herkimer, wounded in the leg by a musket ball, was carried to level ground by his men and seated upon a saddle propped up against a tree. There he calmly continued to issue directions during the course of the battle. Most of Herkimer’s men managed to extricate themselves from the ravine and assume a defensive position on a wooded plateau west of the ravine. Here some of the fiercest hand-to-hand fighting took place as fu­ rious white soldiers and red warriors, wielding spear, knife, tomahawk, bayonet, and sword, did a bloody work. Herkimer’s strategy was to place two men behind a tree. When one had discharged his gun and was pausing to reload, an Indian would rush in with tomahawk to finish him off. The second soldier would thereupon fire at the exposed warrior and dispatch him. His companion would in that interval have reloaded his gun and made ready for a second shot.

THE TREE UPROOTED

135

The slaughter was shocking beyond description. Blacksnake later re­ marked, “there I have seen the most Dead Bodies all . . . over that I never Did see, and never will again. I thought at that time the Blood Shed [was] a Stream Running down on the Decending ground during the after­ noon, and yet some living crying for help. But have no mercy . . . for them.” Blatcop, the fierce Oneida warrior fighting for the Americans, rushed three times through the field of conflict swinging to right and left with his tomahawk. Many a red brother who had enlisted for the British felt his fury that day. Honyery Doxtater was wounded in the right wrist. His wife continued to load his gun for him in addition to putting her own weapon to good use. According to tradition, Thomas Spencer was killed in this battle. Colonel Ebenezer Cox, Brant’s old adversary, also lost his life at Oriskany. Joseph Brant and his band of Mohawks were particularly ac­ tive in pursuing the militia from the rear, cutting down those who were re­ treating.11 The hoped-for relief from the garrison never arrived to assist Herki­ mer. Willett and his men occupied themselves with raiding the near-empty camps of the Indians and Yorkers, frightening off the Indian woman, kill­ ing a few of the enemy who were not quick enough to escape— including two sick Indians— and taking four prisoners. In addition to a bundle of letters intended for the garrison, which had been captured by the British, Willett reported they confiscated “fifty brass kettles, and more than one hundred blankets (two articles which were much needed by us), with a number of muskets, tomahawks, spears, ammunition, clothing, deerskins, a variety of Indian affairs, and five colors which, on our return to the fort, we displayed on our flag-staff under the Continental flag.” The raiders were also fortunate enough to seize some confidential British papers, in­ cluding letters to and from St. Leger and Sir John Johnson’s Orderly Book.12 Lieutenant Bird, whose camp lay in Willett’s line of march, had been falsely informed by “a cowardly Indian that Sir John was pressed” and had marched off to give assistance. St. Leger had sent Captain Hoyes to attack Willett from the rear, but upon hearing of Bird’s departure, marched himself with the detachment of the 8 th Regiment as a supporting force. Before the ambush was complete, the Americans detected the Brit­ ish maneuver. Major Badlam pointed his field piece in their direction and sent them scurrying with a shot of grape. Small arms fire kept the remain­ der at a distance and caused the British firing to go wild. The cannon from the fort gave further cover, and Willett’s expedition hastily returned to the garrison without the loss of a man and weighted down with loot. “Noth-

136

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

ing,” Willett exulted a few days later, “could be more fortunate than this enterprise.” General Herkimer must have wondered.13 Herkimer’s battered forces made their way back to the Mohawk Valley settlements, carrying their wounded with them and leaving their dead strewn upon the field, never to be buried. As they were retreating, Sayenqueraghta, the principal war chief, proposed gathering together the Indians and following after the American militia to give them the finishing blow. He and Brant both went to Claus with this plan and the latter consulted with Sir John Johnson on the proposal. Sir John took the matter to St. Leger, asking permission to accompany the Indians with a force of whites. The general, however, felt that he could not spare the men and so vetoed the plan in favor of using his whole army to continue the siege, thereby missing an opportunity to strike the Americans just when they were the weakest and most demoralized. Pursuit would almost certainly have meant a further battering of the retreating militia and would have dealt a near fatal blow to the American defense of the Mohawk Valley. It would also have given incalculable encouragement to the Tories of that region.14 In terms of killed and wounded and failure of objective, the Battle of Oriskany was the greatest of tragedies for the Americans. Not only was Herkimer’s army prevented from reaching Fort Stanwix, but most of the militia officers and also most of the members of the committee of safety who had marched with the expedition were killed. Herkimer himself died a few days later as a result of an unskillful amputation of his leg. With the exception of the cowardly rear guard which ran at the first fire— a very few members excepted— the remainder of the army suffered horribly. The “Flower of our Militia,” lamented the German Flats Committee of Safety, “are either killed or wounded except 150 who stood the Field and forced the Enemy to retreat.” In searching for an accurate account of the casualties, we have here in this figure given by the German Flats committee a confirmation of the British estimates. If one hundred fifty escaped unscathed, not taking into consideration the rear guard, which also suffered some casualties, the total number of killed, wounded, and prisoners must have been approximately five hundred. This is the exact figure given by John Butler in his report to Carleton on August 15: “the Rebels . . . fell back to a more advantageous ground, and maintained a running fight for about an hour and an half; at length the Indians, with the detachment of Yorkers, and rangers pursuing their blow, utterly defeated them, with the loss of 500 killed, wounded, and taken, many of the latter were conformable to the Indian custom after­ wards killed.” An opponent always seeks to exaggerate an enemy’s loss

THE TREE UPROOTED

137

O riskany B attlefield M onum ent . Erected in 1883 by the Oneida Historical So­

ciety and dedicated August 6, 1884, to the memory of General Nicholas Herkimer and the soldiers and warriors who fought under his command at the Oriskany battle, August 6, 1777, it is located on the battlefield site just off Route 12C between Marcy and Rome, New York.

138

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

and its own victory, and the figure given by Butler would seem fantasti­ cally out of proportion were it not, in a measure, corroborated by the let­ ter from the German Flats committee and the fact that, proportionately speaking, this was one of the bloodiest battles of the war. After the Americans had retreated, the British and Indians spent sev­ eral days covering the battlefield, searching for their own wounded and dead, and had ample opportunity to take note of the extent of the Ameri­ can casualties. The care with which the British scrutinized the area is made clear when they discovered Captain Stephen Watts two days after the conflict lying dangerously wounded in an obscure part of the battle ground. Where the British may have erred was in estimating the number of wounded, for several of these escaped or were carried off the field by their comrades. According to Campbell, these wounded who escaped numbered forty or fifty. Claus, however, claimed that the Americans had “upwards of 500 killed on the spot.” Lieutenant Colonel Willett, who left the fort on August 9 to appeal for help, arrived in Albany a few days later giving an account of the actions at Oriskany and around Fort Stanwix. He placed the American dead, wounded, and missing at one hundred sixty, and the British casualties at three hundred fifty. Willett’s estimate of British killed and wounded was based on conjecture only and not on body count. It was exceedingly overgenerous.15 On the British side, the Indians suffered the greatest number of casual­ ties, having thirty-three killed and twenty-nine wounded. Of this number, seventeen of the killed and sixteen of the wounded were Senecas. These fig­ ures are John Butler’s compiled nine days after the battle, and are taken as being the most accurate. Estimates of others vary only slightly. 16 Among the killed were a number of notable Indian chiefs and warriors. The Sene­ cas alone had five chiefs killed: Hasquesahah, Gahnahage, Dahwahdeho, Dahgaiownd, and Dahohjoedoh. This loss, though it may seem slight when compared with American casualties, was considered by the Indians to be a heavy blow. The number of whites killed and wounded was only negligi­ ble. Of the rangers, Captains Hare and Wilson and one private were killed. Of the Yorkers, Captain Lieutenant McDonald and two or three privates were killed. Captain Stephen Watts, Lieutenant George Singleton, one subaltern, and at least one private were wounded. Singleton and a wounded Yorker private were later captured in Willett’s sally upon their camp.

THE TREE UPROOTED

139

When the Indians returned to camp, their distress over the loss of so many of their comrades was further intensified by the discovery that their packs had been stolen in Willett’s sortie. In accordance with Indian prac­ tice, they had gone into battle stripped down to their breechclouts, with a few wearing shirts also. Those who had lost their blankets and clothing were rather miserably off for the rest of the campaign, for Claus could ob­ tain no more supplies until the expedition returned to Oswego. The Sene­ cas had also lost their medicine bundles in the raid on their camp, and this was considered a bad omen.17 The Indians had secured a number of prisoners during the battle and took them back to their camps. The British attempted to get these men away from their captors in order to save their lives and to exchange them for prisoners whom the Americans held. The Indians refused to part with their captives since they themselves had suffered heavily in the battle just past and wished to obtain satisfaction for their losses through sacrificing these prisoners. Early the next morning, just after the sun was up, the hap­ less Americans were forced to run the gauntlet and were clubbed to death.18 There has been a longstanding controversy over who defeated whom at Oriskany and who remained in possession of the field. As might be ex­ pected, the viewpoint depends on whether one reads American or British documents. The Americans and British both claim that they won the field. Peter Deygart, writing on behalf of the German Flats Committee of Safety, spoke of the “ 150 who stood the Field and forced the Enemy to retreat.” William L. Stone, who did not document his source but probably secured the information from either a participant or a descendent of one of the participants at Oriskany, claimed that the Indians, “finding their own num­ bers sadly diminished, now raised the retreating cry of ‘Oonah!’ and fled in every direction, under the shouts and hurrahs of the surviving Provincials and, a shower of bullets.” Stone said that the Indians were then followed by their white comrades, for when the Yorkers and rangers heard the firing at the fort, they “retreated precipitately, leaving the victorious militia of Tryon County masters of the field.” Considering the proposal of the Indian leaders to follow and destroy the retreating American militia, a more plau­ sible reason may be offered for an Indian withdrawal from Oriskany, if, indeed, there was one. It may well be that the Indians left the field to pro­ tect their camp when they heard sounds of battle back at the fort. The Se­ necas still use the expression “Ornenh” when leaving. 19

140

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

The British had a decidedly different version. The Seneca warrior Blacksnake told Lyman Draper that “the battle commenced, according to his recollection, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon and lasted till near sun­ down; and that the British and Indians unquestionably gained the victory.” Butler, who was also a participant, agreed that the battle began shortly after 10:00 o’clock and that after the initial onslaught, the Americans moved to “more advantageous ground” and “maintained a running fight” until “the Indians, with the detachment of the Yorkers, and rangers, pursu­ ing their blow, utterly defeated them with the loss of 500 killed, wounded, and taken.” Claus also maintained that the Americans were “repulsed and defeated.” St. Leger, who never hesitated to berate the Indians and who was highly critical of their “impetuosity” at the beginning of the battle in attacking before the rear guard was in the trap, and who was bitter over the precipitateness of his red allies in lifting the siege, nonetheless made no mention of their fleeing the field at Oriskany. Had it happened as Stone described it, it would seem strange that it re­ mained a secret to St. Leger. Nor would it have been likely that St. Leger would have suppressed such intelligence. He was hard pressed to explain the failure of his expedition when he wrote his report to Carleton later in August, and put the whole blame on the Indians. Had they also retreated at Oriskany, it would have been one more instance of native instability to help explain his misfortunes. As it was, he gave a glowing report of the victory at Oriskany in the same letter in which he castigated the Indians for running off sixteen days later and forcing him to lift the siege. He even saw some military advantage in the escape of the rear guard: “in relation to the Victory, it was equally complete, as if the whole had fallen; nay more so, as the two hundred who escaped only served to spread the panic wider.” Colonel Butler, who was a somewhat less impartial observer than St. Leger since the Indian department had been his responsibility for the past year and a half, had high praise for the Indian combatants at Oriskany: I should not do Justice to the Indians in general, and to the Sene­ cas in particular was I not to acquaint you that their behaviour in the Action exceeded anything I could have expected from them. The loss the Senecas have sustained will point out to your Excellency [Gov. Carleton] how severe a share of it fell to them. The success of this day will plainly shew the Utility of your Excellencys constant sup­ port of my unwearied endeavours to conciliate to His Majesty so ser­ viceable a body of Allies.

THE TREE UPROOTED

141

Butler’s only cavil was that the Indians had “been a little too precipitate” at the beginning of the action. Had they held off a few moments longer until all the militia were in the trap, “scarcely a Rebel of the party” would have escaped. “During the whole action,” he assured Carleton, “the Indi­ ans showed the greatest zeal for His Majesty’s cause.” 20 Only one of the British-Indian accounts stated that the Indians were “completely beaten,” and that was by Mary Jemison. From her narrative, it is evident that she was not present with some of the other Indian women in the camp at Stanwix, but looked at the Oriskany action in terms of the great number of losses suffered by the Indians and the excessive mourning thereby resulting in her own village. If the Indians had been thoroughly beaten at Oriskany, or if they had taken flight, it would have been unusual for Sayenqueraghta and Brant to believe they could assemble a war party and chase after the retreating Americans.21 We are then left with the puzzle of just how the battle did end. The problem resolves around whether the attackers drove the militia off, al­ lowed them to depart in peace, or were themselves driven off. The facts we have do not give us a completely satisfactory answer, but do seem to favor the British and Indians. Stone indicated that the cannon fire from the fort was responsible for a British retreat from the Oriskany battlefield. If Willett’s sally took place in the morning, as all eyewitnesses save Hellmer agree, that possibility is unlikely for the battle was then in full progress. If, as Hellmer stated, Willett went out at 2:00 p .m . and returned at 4:00 p .m ., there might be some justification to the contention that the cannon fire from Stanwix brought the Indians and Tories back to defend their camps, since the Oriskany battle lasted until at least that late in the day. It would, however, be most unsoldierly for the Indians and Tories to leave an unde­ feated enemy in their rear, opening themselves to pursuit and defeat. If the British and Indians left the Oriskany field while the Americans were still in possession of it, they likely did so knowing that the Americans were too badly mauled to follow them. Obviously the remaining Americans were able to leave the scene of battle, taking their wounded with them, and their claim to have beaten off the enemy would seem to indicate that they left the field without hindrance. Each side would, of course, try to present its accomplishments in the best light possible. This the British and Americans have both done, to the eternal confusion of subsequent generations. The confusion is further com­ pounded when not even all the American participants in the battle agree. Two militiamen, John Lewis and John,Garrison, later gave testimony that

142

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the Americans “Drove the Enemy of [f] the ground.” Militiaman Garred Van Brocklen, however, gave a slightly different version of the battle. After the first fire, with the Indians rushing in upon the American flanks, he retreated down the ravine to the wagons and then fought his way “three or four hundred yards toward the front of the Battle Where he made a stand for a Little Time, and from that Place he with the most Part of the Militia nere him did then Retire toward the River or Rather to the right still fighting and Retreating.” Claus stated that the Indians made the Americans “give way pursuing them for several Miles.” This may, how­ ever, refer to a pursuit of the rear guard at the opening of the hostilities. As so often happens in battle narratives, the veterans probably described actions that took place at different points on the field and at different times during the conflict.22 The question of who won the field at Oriskany is actually irrelevant. Herkimer’s objective was not the Oriskany field but the relief of the fort, and in that he failed. The affair was not even a Pyrrhic victory for the Americans. It was a disastrous defeat. The major military contribution of Oriskany was its draining away a large force of attackers from around Ft. Stanwix. This permitted Willett to despoil the Indian and Yorker camps successfully and gather some needed supplies for the defenders of the fort. This plundering expedition, incon­ venient as it was for the Indians, did not break the siege and therefore was not of critical importance. A further result of Oriskany was its psychologi­ cal impact on the Indians. They keenly felt their losses and for a long while hesitated to fight such a pitched battle again. In the long run, how­ ever, the memory of these losses impelled them to seek a thorough revenge against the Americans and united them in their determination to carry on the war. For the Six Nations, Oriskany was a battle of enormous significance because it marked the beginning of a civil war in the Confederacy. So re­ sentful were the British Indian allies of the Oneidas who fought against them there that a band of warriors later invaded the Oriska settlement, burned it to the ground, destroyed the crops, and drove away the cattle. Thereafter the lines would become more sharply drawn and the majority of the Confederacy would ally themselves with one or the other of the war­ ring white nations. The Great Peace, which had stood for ages past and which had made the Extended Lodge such a powerful and awesome force, was now shattered. Rather than follow the wisdom of the fathers, the Iro­ quois would now walk in the path marked out for them by their white

THE TREE UPROOTED

143

neighbors. Like them, they, too, would become a divided people— nation against nation, clan against clan, lodge against lodge.23 On August 7, St. Leger finally got his battery in place and saluted the fort with the cannon in the evening. The next afternoon, Colonel Butler with two other officers went to the fort with a flag to ask for its surrender, warning that unless the garrison acquiesced, the general could not guaran­ tee to hold off the Indians. The latter were enraged because of their losses two days before, he claimed, and were determined to go on a rampage throughout the Mohawk Valley, as well as to massacre the garrison once they entered it. A surrender now would ensure the safety of both the garri­ son and the Mohawk River inhabitants. The fort had no other hope, for Burgoyne was already in Albany. Gansevoort was little impressed by this bluff, but promised an answer the next morning. On the morrow, he requested the general’s terms in writing and received a message which, in substance, was the same as But­ ler’s verbal communication of the previous evening. To this, Colonel Gan­ sevoort replied: “Your Letter of this days Date I have Receiv’d, in An­ swer to which I say, that it is my Determined resolution with the Forces under my Command to defend this Fort to the last Extremity in behalf of the United American States who have placed me here to Defend it against all their Enemies.” 24 The siege was thereupon resumed and continued unabated for more than two weeks. In order to guard against another sally from the garrison, St. Leger sent Captain Lemoult and one hundred ten men and two threepounders to dig in at the lower landing place. Much to St. Leger’s distress, however, he found that his three- and six-pounders and cohorns made no impression on the planks and sod work of the fort. Artillery Lieutenant Glenie advised a conversion of the cohorns into howitzers for further effectiveness. This was accomplished, but to no avail. The chambers of the cohorns were not large enough to hold the amount of powder necessary to send the projectiles into the fort. The futility of the present siege methods becoming apparent, St. Leger gave order to dig a series of approaches and also to prepare to run a mine under one of the bastions.25 St. Leger, in an attempt to gain recruits and cow the Mohawk Valley inhabitants, sent John Butler’s son. Ensign Walter Butler of the 8 th Regi­ ment, with a flag, ten soldiers, and three Indians to rouse sentiment in the valley and offer forgiveness for anyone who would support the king. But­ ler’s mission ended in his capture and trial as a spy, but a number of To­ ries did make their way to the British camps around Fort Stanwix, includ-

144

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

ing Sarah McGinnis and her son George, both of whom would soon render essential service to the British .26 The siege of Fort Stanwix continued until August 22, when it ended abruptly as the result of a ruse perpetrated by General Benedict Arnold. A feeble-minded Tory named Han Jost Schuyler had been seized at one of Walter Butler’s secret meetings and sentenced to death as a traitor. His mother interceded for him, and Arnold finally relented if Schuyler would precede his army, enter the camp at Stanwix, and give an exaggerated ac­ count of the numbers composing the advancing forces and their closeness to the fort. To this, Schuyler readily assented. He appeared before the British and Indian camps claiming that the American soldiers coming that way were as numerous as the leaves in the forest. He displayed his pur­ posely bullet-riddled coat to prove his narrow escape from the pursuing Americans. The Indians became much alarmed, fearing that neither the number of St. Leger’s forces nor the amount of his artillery was sufficient to meet a large army. Nor did they feel easy over the prospect of being caught between the oncoming troops and the army still penned up in the fort, which might sally and do much damage while they were engaged with Arnold’s troops.27 St. Leger tried to rally the Indians, promising to lead them himself with a force of three hundred white men. To this they consented, and the chiefs went next morning with St. Leger to choose the point of ambush. An Oneida friend of the Tory Schuyler soon appeared in the Indian camp, reiterating the intelligence that the spy had given previously. Then other Indian messengers drifted in, giving increasing estimates of the num­ bers of the troops approaching and also bearing tales of Burgoyne’s com­ plete surrender. St. Leger attempted to soothe the growing anxiety of the Indians by calling a council with them. While he was yet holding this council, trying to urge them to stay and fight the enemy, he learned that two hundred In­ dians had already departed. The remainder pressed St. Leger to retreat or they would leave him. The chiefs wanted him to return to Oswego to se­ cure heavier artillery and more men. Without his Indian forces, his little army was helpless; and St. Leger agreed. St. Leger determined to retire by night, sending his sick and wounded on ahead. The Indians, however, caused bogus scouts to come in regularly, reporting the near approach of the enemy. The last such scout claimed that the enemy was only two miles from Captain Lernoult’s post at the lower landing. A general panic now seized the whole camp and white soldiers

THE TREE UPROOTED

145

were as precipitate as their red allies in retreating, if not more so. They fled, leaving behind a tremendous amount of personal and camp effects, as well as engineers’ stores, ammunition, and artillery. St. Leger blamed the Indians, particularly the Missisaugas, for plundering the boats during the retreat. The charge is true; even worse, some of the rowdy Indians, once on their way, turned against the straggling white soldiers they came across in the woods, beating and stabbing them, so that meeting with their Indian allies became a more frightening prospect for the retreating British army than encountering the enemy they were fleeing.28 The official report which St. Leger sent to Carleton tells only a partial story of this retreat. St. Leger placed full blame for the disastrous flight and its consequences on the Indians. In the Germain Papers is an unsigned letter dated Montreal, September 4, 1777, which gives a somewhat differ­ ent view: St. Leger’s retreat, as it is called, turns out to be a downright flight, if leaving his tents, baggage, ammunition, and hiding his artil­ lery can be called so. Nor do I find that it was owing to the coward­ ice or bad disposition of the Indians that they came away. Nor did they plunder till the camp was abandoned. Then indeed they got drunk with the liquors they found there and afterwards as you may imagine did a great deal of mischief. In short it is a most unaccount­ able and strange affair. To form some idea of it, I saw a letter from an officer of artillery which mentions that Mr. St. Leger was eight miles on his retreat before he, the officer, knew anything of the mat­ ter, tho’ he had the charge of the battery, guns, & c., with only twelve men to bring them off. Luckily, indeed, for them and every­ body else, not a man stirred from the fort, and it is now said that the rebels in the fort excepted, not another was within forty miles of it .29 Proof that the white soldiers took flight even more eagerly than the In­ dians is found in the returns of stores and equipment brought in from St. Leger’s camps and from along the line of retreat after the siege was lifted. A random mention of only a small portion of the equipment taken by the defenders of Fort Stanwix will give some idea of the confusion and disor­ der attending St. Leger’s withdrawal: four cohorns with one hundred twen­ ty-eight shells, one hundred thirty-five round shot for three-pounders, twenty round shot for six-pounders, twenty-one hundred sixty musket car­ tridges, one hundred six spades, eighty felling axes, three hundred fathom of rope, fifteen batteaux, nineteen wagons, one hundred picks, fifty-six blankets, fifty-four tents, five bell tents, one hundred tent poles, twenty

146

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

white shirts, forty-nine speckled shirts, forty coats, thirty-six blanket coats, thirty-four breeches, fifty-four stockings, forty canteens, six mattresses, ten knapsacks, one case of soap, two casks of nails, two whip saws, three cross-cut saws, two hand saws, twenty-four kettles, ad infinitum.30 Benedict Arnold arrived with about’ nine hundred fifty men at Fort Stanwix on August 24, having pushed on ahead of the militia. He was greeted with cheers from the garrison and a salute from the fort’s cannon and the captured enemy mortars. Among the defenders who cheered the lifting of the siege were some Oneida scouts, including Paul Powless and Han Jost. Gansevoort, in later contemplating St. Leger’s failure, attributed it “chiefly to the want of heavy Cannon,” and commented, “had the Enemy come . . . with a few Eighteen and twelve pounders the Fort must inevita­ bly have fallen.” 31 It was the same advice which Claus had given St. Leger while the expedition was still in Canada. St. Leger’s dispirited little army reached Oswego on August 26, where the general and Daniel Claus saw to the proper outfitting of the soldiers and Indians, many of whom were without adequate clothing. Most of the supplies were not to be had any closer than Montreal. A great number of the Senecas had already returned directly to their homes rather than going to Oswego. A great many other Indians, however, did stay with the army until dismissed.32 St. Leger proceeded with his army back the way he had come to join Burgoyne. Brant proposed to Claus that he and a group of warriors should make an excursion to the Mohawk country in order to bring off their women and children and gather up enough warriors to join General Bur­ goyne. Brant’s party went back by way of Stanwix, where some of the scouts from the fort attacked them and seriously wounded Captain John Deserontyon, who nearly lost his arm as a result of the encounter. Brant’s stay with Burgoyne was brief. Finding he could do little to assist the army, and being disgusted with what he considered the mismanagement of af­ fairs, he returned to Six Nations country.33 After the British lifted the siege of Fort Stanwix, the Oneidas and Americans avenged themselves for the defeat at Oriskany, and for Mary Brant’s part in it, by pillaging her home in Canajoharie. She more than any­ one else was responsible for the outcome of the Oriskany battle since she had sent messengers to the British camp warning of Herkimer’s approach. She had managed to escape in time, just before the irate band arrived, and fled with her children to Onondaga. The looters did not confine their activ­ ities to Mary Brant’s home, however, but cheerfully plundered the whole

THE TREE UPROOTED

147

Indian settlement, driving off livestock and carting away load after load of corn and other vegetables. Peter Deygart, chairman of the Tryon County Committee of Safety, was one of the most active in enriching himself at the expense of the Mo­ hawks, making numerous trips to the Indian village with his wagons to carry away his plunder. Deygart had urged the Oriska Indians to make up their own losses in the recent destruction of their village by looting the Mohawks. Where they had lost one cow, one horse, one sheep, one ox, or one hog, they were instructed to take two in return. From Mary Brant alone, Deygart and the Oneida warrior Honyery Doxtater obtained a rich haul which they divided between them. The treasure included “Sixty half Johannesses, two Quarts full of silver, several Gold Rings, Eight pair sil­ ver Buckels; a large Quantity of Silver Broaches, Together with several silk Gowns.” Deygart’s daughter amused herself by parading about in Miss Mary’s purloined silks. Honyery moved himself and his family into Mary Brant’s house. The Fort Hunter Mohawks were also later subjected to similar depre­ dations. Many of these Indians lived in far better circumstances than their white neighbors who were only too glad of the opportunity to raise their standard of living at the Mohawks’ expense. An inventory of the items sto­ len indicates the substantial nature of these Indian settlements. They had considerable livestock, great quantities of Indian corn, potatoes, turnips, and cabbage, sturdy houses and barns, wagons, Sleighs, and farm imple­ ments. Many of the houses were also comfortably furnished and even had window glass— a rare item on the frontier. Any Mohawks who still re­ tained thoughts of neutrality must have been more than ever convinced that their true friends were the British.34 The Americans obtained another victory of smaller proportions in Au­ gust. While Stanwix was being besieged. Colonel John Harper rode to Al­ bany for help against an incursion into the neighborhood of Schoharie by the Tory McDonald at the head of a band of Loyalists and Indians. Twen­ ty-eight Continental troops came to the aid of Schoharie and were joined by the militia. These forces thoroughly routed the invaders.35 On September 8, one hundred Indians from the lower Mohawk castle at Fort Hunter fled to Burgoyne’s army, then invading New York from the north, and finally made their way to Montreal, begging Claus’s assistance in their distressed condition. Claus appealed to Governor Carleton for help in housing, feeding, and clothing them, but was informed that one of Major Campbell’s deputies would be notified of their needs. Major John

148

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

John Stuart . Anglican missionary to the Mohawks at Fort Hunter

and a staunch Loyalist, he helped to keep the Mohawks faithful to the king. C o u r te s y o f P u b lic A r c h iv e s o f C a n a d a , O tta w a

Campbell was the gentleman who had replaced Claus as superintendent of Indians in Canada. Captain Alexander Frazer was his deputy. Neither spoke any Indian language but had to rely on the French officers of the de­ partment who did have a good knowledge of the various Indian languages. Claus and Carleton had always disliked each other, but Claus refused to let the Indians be the sufferers in the feud. He provided for them at his own expense.36 No sooner had the Mohawks departed Fort Hunter than their pastor, John Stuart, was arrested on suspicion of being a Loyalist but was finally paroled within the limits of Schenectady. The Anglican Chapel at Fort Hunter was turned into a tavern by the Americans and a keg of rum stored in the reading desk. The chapel was later put to use as a stable, and

THE TREE UPROOTED

149

finally as a fort. Stuart was subjected to constant abuse from the populace, his possessions stolen, and finally his farm confiscated. He at length at­ tempted to open a Latin school in order to support himself, but was for­ bidden, as “a Prisoner of War,” from carrying on any remunerative work within the confines of the state. At last he applied for exchange and was permitted to go to Canada in 1781 on promise of having an American of­ ficer returned in his place. In Canada, he secured a chaplaincy in the Sec­ ond Battalion of Sir John Johnson’s regiment and occasionally ministered to his old Mohawk flock.37 Now that a large sector of the Six Nations had taken up the hatchet, the northern Indian commissioners hastened to call a council in Albany to recruit warriors for their side in the conflict. St. Leger’s undignified retreat and the courageous defense of Fort Stanwix were both duly impressive to the Iroquois. Many of them went armed to the Albany conference, fully intending to leave for battle on the side of their American brothers.38 About three hundred men, women, and children of the Six Nations as­ sembled in Albany on September 14, 1777. Most of them were Oneidas and Tuscaroras, but a few were from the Onondaga and Mohawk nations. On September 15, the council opened with the usual preliminaries, during which the Americans inquired as to the sympathies of the delegates. Find­ ing them favorable to an active participation in the war, the commissioners prepared an appropriate speech and a war belt, both of which were pre­ sented on September 16. The warriors of each nation took hold of the belt, signifying their acceptance of the hatchet from the Americans. The next day, the war feast was held and the declaration of war approved by the whole assembly. The fragmentation of the Confederacy was now complete. The next two days were devoted to issuing supplies to the Indians and equipping the warriors. On the evening of September 19, General Schuyler had three of the leading warriors in to dine with him. These were presum­ ably Louis Atayataghronghta, Honyery Thawengarakwen (Doxtater), and Peter Bread, who later led the Oneidas and Tuscaroras at Saratoga. Louis was a Caughnawaga and the other two were Oneidas. At 10:00 p .m ., while still entertaining his guests, Schuyler received a notice of the engagement of the American army with Burgoyne’s forces at Freeman’s Farm. He turned to the Indians and requested them to render their immediate assis­ tance to the American army. Timothy Edwards, another commissioner, also urged upon them the necessity of marching without further delay. The warriors cheerfully agreed, gathered a few more of their band together, and left that night, arriving at General Gates’s camp before midday. The

150

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

rest of the one hundred fifty Oneida and Tuscarora warriors arrived in camp the evening of September 20. In a week’s time, they had already ren­ dered essential service to the American army, having intercepted several of Burgoyne’s dispatches to General Powell and taken thirty prisoners.39 Burgoyne had been advancing from Canada since mid-June with an army of about seven thousand British regulars and German mercenaries, with about two hundred fifty Canadians and Tories. He also had with him about five hundred Indians from the St. Regis, Caughnawaga, Lake of Two Mountains, St. Francis, and Huron settlements. Over a hundred Ottawas and other western Indians under La Corne St. Luc and Charles Langlade joined him after he reached Skenesboro. His force of Tories also increased along the way.40 The expedition began favorably with the capture of Ticonderoga on July 6, after its hasty evacuation by the Americans. Generals Fraser and Riedesel routed the fleeing Americans at Hubbardton, and Burgoyne with the main army sailed down toward Skenesboro. From this point onward, the invading British army was to encounter one disaster after another until it finally came to a complete halt at Saratoga in October. Burgoyne very early in the campaign began complaining about his In­ dian forces because they seemed more concerned with pillage than with war. What Burgoyne refused to recognize was that the Indians had no real cause in the war save personal glory and plunder. The shift in administra­ tion in the Indian department in Canada in 1775 also had put Indian af­ fairs into the hands of officers who were not fully qualified. Daniel Claus had held the office for fifteen years but was replaced by Major John Campbell, a son-in-law of La Corne St. Luc. Captain Alexander Frazer * was made his deputy. Neither possessed Claus’s extensive intimacy with Indian affairs and neither spoke any Indian language. As a result, neither could effectively function in councils but were completely dependent upon French-Canadian interpreters. Though Major Campbell and Captain Fra­ zer were responsible for leadership of the Indians on the expedition, their effectiveness was limited by their unfamiliarity with Indian affairs. Bur­ goyne encountered his first difficulties while he was still at Skenesboro. By July 11, his Indians had not come forward, for they were still plundering around Ticonderoga. These were the semi-civilized Indians from the re­ gion of the St. Lawrence. He longed for the arrival of the more warlike western tribes under St. Luc who, he was certain, were more interested in * The name of St. Luc’s deputy is spelled both Frazer and Fraser in the British documents.

THE TREE UPROOTED

151

war than in pillage. Before long, he was to become disillusioned with even these ferocious western allies.41 General Philip Schuyler’s axemen had felled trees along the route from Skenesboro to Fort Anne and Fort Edward. Instead of retracing his route northward on the lake and then sailing south on Lake George and cutting his way across to Fort Edward, Burgoyne chose the longer and more en­ cumbered way through the forest. As a result, his march was held up at least three weeks while his Canadians cut their way through the tangled mess the Americans had left for them. While the British army was plod­ ding forward, General Schuyler was recalled to answer for the hasty evacu­ ation of Ticonderoga and was replaced by General Horatio Gates. On July 27, with Burgoyne at Fort Anne and his army moving ahead to Fort Edward, a tragedy happened that was to be turned into very effec­ tive propaganda against the British. John Allen and his entire family were murdered by Burgoyne’s advance Indians, but this distressing event did not contain the same dramatic potential as the murder of Jane McCrea, which took place the same day. Miss McCrea had gone to Fort Edward to await the advance of the British army so that she might be reunited with her be­ trothed, David Jones, a Tory officer with Burgoyne. She with her friend, Mrs. McNeil, were captured and were being escorted back to the army, when a quarrel ensued between two warriors over whose captive she was. One of the warriors settled the matter by killing, scalping, and mutilating her. When Burgoyne heard of the outrage, he went to the Indian camp, or­ dered the culprit delivered up, and threatened to have him executed. St. Luc, who had been Indian superintendent in Canada under the French, now interceded, assuring Burgoyne that such an act would cause the entire defection of the Indians and might also cause them to take revenge as they passed through Canada. Burgoyne relented and pardoned the murderer.42 When General Gates assumed command of the American army in Au­ gust, he made much of the McCrea tragedy, writing a reproachful letter to Burgoyne about it. The story spread throughout the colonies and to Eng­ land. New England volunteers came in to Gates’s army in droves, deter­ mined to enlist under their fellow New Englander and prevent any future repetition of the Jane McCrea murder in their own villages. Up until this point, Burgoyne had had little or no trouble from his In­ dians on account of atrocities. He had issued a bombastic speech to them at the beginning of the campaign forbidding such outrages, and evidently they obeyed his orders. The embarrassed general later went to great lengths to describe how humane they had been in several instances, bring-

152

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

ing in safely prisoners that had been taken in arms, and even carrying wounded prisoners away from the battlefield to his camp.43 After the McCrea incident, Burgoyne restricted the operations of his Indians, requiring them to have a white officer with them on their patrols. After the army arrived at Fort Edward, St. Luc reported discontents among the Indians and advised a council. Burgoyne held a conference on August 4, and was surprised to receive the news that the western tribes wished to go home. He refused, and they seemed to accede to his direc­ tions. The St. Lawrence tribes asked for and received permission to send parties back to their homes in relays to gather in their harvest. The tribes granted this privilege are not specified. A number of Caughnawaga and St. Regis warriors were on the expedition. It was very unusual for Iroquois men to labor in the fields, but here is clear evidence that these Indians had made this cultural transition. Burgoyne believed that the discontents were settled, but received another surprise the next morning to learn that most of the western Indians had departed.44 The unfortunate expedition to Bennington caused a further defection of Indians from the ranks. Colonel Baum and his two hundred heavily laden and dismounted German dragoons were accompanied by Tories, rangers, Canadians, and Indians, to the total of about six hundred fifty. Sources differ as to whether there were one hundred, one hundred forty, or one hundred fifty Indians along. Whatever their number, when the coura­ geous but ill-fated Baum was surrounded by an overwhelming number of American militia under Stark, they departed in a body and left the white men to fight it out. Lieutenant James Hadden contemptuously commented on the Bennington fiasco: It does not appear that the Dragoons made any violent efforts, the Indians to a Man, and most of the Canadians Ran away at first and got safe in to us. Luke Le Corn [Luc de Chapet dé la Corne St. Luc] and his Son in Law M. Lenodier [Charles Louis Tarieu de Lanaudiere], the former Commanding the Indians (famous for his cruelties to the English Prisoners during the last War) and the latter the Canadians were among the first who got in, and scarce making a stop at the Army their panic made them proceed to Canada, where they were followed by most of the Indians: Had Gen’l Burgoyne known of this, further flight he declared he wou’d have secured the Heroes as Deserters; in Canada they were out of his power and cou’d tell their own story.45 Hadden’s slur against the Germans is totally unfounded. His opinion of the Indians may be similarly touched with prejudice.

ST. JOHNS

ISIE-AUX-NOIX

FT.

TICONDEROGA

• BENNINGTON

ST. LAWRENCE-CHAMPLAIN REGION Scale

of

Miles

154

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

An American woman, taken captive by Baum’s men on the Benning­ ton expedition, gave the following testimony, which seems to indicate that the Indians took cover, rather than retreating precipitately back to camp. That they rendered any essential assistance to Baum from their hiding places is doubtful, for the main battle centered around the German en­ trenchments, though the Indians had at least seven men killed on this ex­ pedition. Soon after the action commenced, she saw the Indians, she says, flying in all directions, and skulking behind trees, rocks, and other places of concealment. On the retreat of the Indians, after the defeat of Colonel Baum, she was taken with them, and soon met the rein­ forcements under Colonel Breymann; when she returned to camp and remained during the second battle, and was again compelled to travel on foot with them on their retreat to the place where they encamped during the night.46 The sources of Burgoyne’s troubles with his Indians are difficult to de­ termine. Those who discussed the issue— Claus, St. Luc, and Burgoyne himself— all had reputations to uphold or grudges to settle. Lieutenant James Hadden, who was the closest to being an impartial observer, did not know the whole story. Baum had between one hundred and one hundred fifty Indians with him at Bennington. There must have been at least twice that many back in camp; yet most of them quit the army after Bennington. Only about fifty remained by September 19, when the Freeman’s Farm battle was fought. Burgoyne claimed that they deserted, with St. Luc at their head, because he had stayed their savage passions and inhibited their desire to commit depredations. St. Luc countered that their disaffection arose over their astonishment that Burgoyne sent “no corps to collect the remains of the two scattered detachments at Bennington,” their disgust of the general’s indifference toward their services on the Bennington cam­ paign, and their loss of confidence in his conduct of the war. Nor, St. Luc said, did he himself desert; rather, Burgoyne sent him to Canada to fetch the Indians who had left the army. St. Luc was a man of learning and ability but of absolutely no integ­ rity. It is hard to know how much truth there is in his claims. Lieutenant Hadden and Lieutenant Digby both accused him of desertion; so, this must have been the view current in the army at the time. Claus in November, probably referring to Captain Alexander Frazer, said: “This Deputy of Majr Campbell’s, as I am told, is one of the gentlemen who by their harsh and indiscreet treatment of the Indians, were the occasion of the greatest

THE TREE UPROOTED

155

part of them to quit General Burgoyne’s army.” The Indian department was evidently as mismanaged as the rest of the expedition. Indian adminis­ tration was always a delicate task, and Campbell and Frazer did not have adequate control over their department during the expedition. Even Burgoyne admitted that, because of their lack of knowledge of the languages, they were often at the mercy of the French-Canadian interpreters, who were all too prone to give vent to their jealousies and resentments by disaffecting the Indians.47 Thomas Anbury, one of the British soldiers with Burgoyne, took a dim view of the value of the Indian contingents on this expedition. He summa­ rized these sentiments in his memoirs: They were of vast service in foraging and scouting parties, it being suited to their manner; they will not stand a regular engagement, ei­ ther through the motives I formerly assigned, or from fear, but I am led to imagine the latter is the case, from the observation I have made of them in our late encounter with the enemy. The Indians were running from wood to wood, and just as our regiment had formed in the skirts of one, several of them came up, and by their signs were conversing about the severe fire on our right. Soon after, the enemy attacked us, and the very first fire the Indians ran off through the wood.48 Although Burgoyne was distressed over the behavior of his Indians, Gates was quite happy with the performance of his red allies who had joined him on September 20. The one hundred fifty Oneidas and Tuscaroras were under the leadership of Louis Atayataghronghta, Peter Bread, and Honyery Thawengarakwen. Their service was steady, loyal, and de­ pendable. One of the Mohawk Valley inhabitants who served under Gates and who knew these Indians well and observed them under battle condi­ tions said that they were all “Brave men and fought Like Bull dogs” until Burgoyne surrendered. On October 12, while the Americans were batter­ ing the British and German forces at Saratoga, Gates wrote a report to Congress in which he included an evaluation of his Indian contingent: “The Six Nation Indians having taken up the hatchet in our favour has been of great service and I hope the Enemy will not be able to retreat from them.” 49 The failure of the British campaign of 1777 meant that central and western New York would become subjected to a vastly different type of warfare. Had St. Leger and Burgoyne succeeded, Tryon County would have known a long period of peace and quiet. The fate of the Mohawk

156

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Valley was now to be determined by British partisans— Tories and Indians— whose only possible strategy was to destroy that valley, settle­ ment by settlement. If they could not conquer and hold, at least they could make the valley a no-man’s land and deprive the state and the Continental army of one of the richest granaries in the colonies. The war in the valley meant more than just a ravaging of white men’s homes and a shedding of white men’s blood. It was a war within a war. The passage of armed warriors along the Mohawk and through the forests caused the ground beneath the League of the Iroquois to quiver and shake as though convulsed by an earthquake. The Tree trembled and the Lodge divided. First the English and then the Americans had hacked at the White Roots of Peace until at last the Tree had toppled over. In the cavern below lay exposed all the weapons of war which the ancients had so carefully buried in the deepest recess of the earth. The white men quarreled, and the Indians seized their hatchets to protect themselves against their kinsmen. Hail, my grandsires! Now hearken while your grandchildren cry mournfully to you, because the Great League which you established has grown old. . . . O my grandsires! Even now that has become old which you es­ tablished, the Great League. You have it as a pillow under your heads in the ground where you are lying, this Great League which you established; although you said that far away in the future the Great League would endure.50

VII A Scourge Unleashed

T he unity of the Iroquois Confederacy had been sundered by the cam­

paign of 1777. In the winter months following that campaign, the constitu­ ent tribes of the League would be forced to face the grim realities ahead should they continue upon their present path. Whether to retreat into their former neutrality or to enter into open alliance with one side or the other was a vital issue with them. The eventual decision would be fateful for the Americans and the British no less than for the Six Nations. There were no material rewards to be had for some of the participants in the campaign just past. Daniel Claus, for instance, on his return to Can­ ada from Oswego, had been instructed by Brigadier General Maclean to collect as many Indians as possible and send them to St. John’s. He com­ plied, and at the insistence of the last party, accompanied them to St. John’s where he inquired of General Carleton for orders. Carleton replied that he had no orders to give, that Claus’s command was now at an end. Technically that was true. Claus’s commission was for the St. Leger expe­ dition only. Carleton’s distaste for Claus was scarcely veiled. He would not even honor Claus’s accounts for expenses on the ill-fated expedition and forced him to appeal to London for his reimbursement. John Butler, how­ ever, was amply rewarded. His accounts were not only honored but his re­ quest to raise a corps of rangers to serve with the Indians was granted by Carleton. Butler now would have his militia rank of lieutenant colonel re­ placed by that of major commandant of his own elite corps. Later in the war, when he succeeded in raising another corps, he received a promotion in rank to lieutenant colonel.1 Claus, though denied any rewards by Carleton, nonetheless gave his at­ tention to Indian diplomacy for the coming winter. He well knew that after the reverses of the past campaign, the Iroquois would need continued en­ couragement. He was confident that both Joseph and Mary Brant, who would be living in the Six Nations country that fall and winter, would be indefatigable in turning the Indians to the British cause. Miss Mary, be157

158

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

cause of her status as a leading clan mother, granddaughter of King Hen­ drick, and widow— or “relict,” as Claus put it— of Sir William Johnson, received invitations to reside in several villages. She finally decided upon Cayuga, where she had distant relatives. Joseph also made Cayuga his base of operations that winter. Claus sent further encouragement in the form of two officers from the Indian department. Captain John Johnston went to reside among the Senecas, and Lieutenant John Dockstader among the Cayugas. Both men were well-liked by the Indians and were thoroughly fa­ miliar with their customs and language. Sir John Johnson and Claus also instructed the Widow McGinnis, who had fled to St. Leger when he was at Stanwix, to reside with the Indians that winter. Because of her attachment to the crown and her ability to speak the native language, she could render great service and keep the Indians loyal, particularly after their losses at Stanwix and Oriskany the preceding summer. She, too, chose Cayuga.2 General Schuyler sent a wampum belt to the Six Nations after the Bat­ tle of Saratoga informing the Indians of the American victory over Burgoyne and warning the hostiles to make their peace with Congress. As the news spread westward with the progress of the belt to the distant tribes, the friends of the Americans rejoiced and the friends of the king wavered. When the belt came to Cayuga, the Widow McGinnis, assuming the privi­ lege accorded matrons among the Iroquois, seized upon it and canceled it and convinced the Indians to send on to the tribes another message more favorable to the British.3 Mary Brant that winter also played an extremely important role in keeping the western tribes of the Six Nations loyal to the British. Their losses of the previous summer and the failure of British arms had demoral­ ized many who were now willing to make their peace with the Americans. Though she has been overshadowed in history by her more colorful younger brother, Mary Brant exerted in the Confederacy far more influ­ ence than he did. Joseph’s genius, his education, his urbane manner, and his reliability endeared him to whites, who paid more attention to him than was good for his standing with his fellow Indians. Joseph was an In­ dian who was most like the whites, and they respected and admired him for his degree of acculturation. Further, he was zealous and active in the British cause. His complete dependability— so different from the usual fick­ leness found in Indians— attracted the British officials to him and raised him high in their esteem. His literacy assured that his own wartime ser­ vices would be remembered when those of other leading chiefs who had no skill with the pen would be forgotten. He could send frequent letters and

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

159

reports back to the army and Indian department officers, while other chiefs just as active as he could not. His exploits have thus been assured a niche in history, and rightly so. Despite all his capabilities, however, he was not ranked by the Iroquois as their leading war chief. That honor belonged to Sayenqueraghta, whom General Haldimand had once described as “by many degrees the most leading and the man of most consequence and influence in the Six Nations.” It was to this venera­ ble chief that the majority of the warriors looked for leadership. There were other distinguished warriors, with deeds far surpassing those of Brant, who soon came to resent his ubiquitous zeal and the constant atten­ tion paid him by the whites. He was like a new star in the heavens, whose light outshone that of the older luminaries. As such, he often aroused as much jealousy among Indians as he did admiration among whites. Mary Brant, however, enjoyed a much more influential status than did her brother. A significant part of her influence stemmed from her relation­ ship with a white man. Sir William they had honored as a great counsellor and a great warrior, as well as the representative of the powerful and be­ nevolent king of England. Miss Mary was his “relict,” and they esteemed her for this connection. It was also through his relationship with Mary Brant that Sir William had been able to exert so much influence over the Iroquois, for she came from a very distinguished family. Each had thus bolstered the status of the other. In the unique Iroquoian government, the mothers held a position of power and authority. Mary Brant was also a person of great importance within this governmental structure, for she was head of a society of Six Nations matrons. Her words carried much weight and her advice was frequently sought. Claus in commenting on her influ­ ence with the Iroquois very accurately said, “one word from her goes far­ ther with them than a thousand from any white Man without Exception who in general must purchase their Interest at a high rate.” 4 When the Indians that fall could reflect at leisure on their alliance with the British, they began to become less sure of seeing it through. Already it had cost them dearly in lives lost, and even though they had inflicted many more casualties upon the enemy, they were still distressed at the cost to themselves. Nor did they observe that the British had conducted a very brilliant campaign the season just past. Not only had Burgoyne’s and St. Leger’s expeditions both fizzled out after an encouraging start, but the British had withdrawn from Fort Ontario on the Oswego River, leaving their Indian friends in a most exposed condition. Misgivings were voiced. The Covenant Chain became a bit tarnished.5

160

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Even Sayenqueraghta wavered. The fearless and wise elder warrior, most respected throughout the whole Confederacy, began voicing regrets and thinking of peace. Mary Brant rebuked him in council. He came from a line of ancestors distinguished for their fidelity to the British as far back as the time of Queen Anne. One of his forebears had been presented with a coronet by that worthy monarch— the only such honor ever accorded a member of the Six Nations. He had been a staunch friend to Sir William and a faithful warrior for the Iroquois and for the English. Now he stood at the crossroads. Miss Mary pleaded with him in council and reminded him of his former loyalty and firm promises of enduring friendship to her dear departed spouse and the Great Father beyond the seas. Her tears flowed freely when she mentioned the name of Sir William. The sachems and other leading men present were deeply touched. Sayenqueraghta could not resist. He pledged again his honor and his loyalty and determined to remain constant to the great king. The crisis had passed. Once again the Covenant Chain shone brightly.6 Sayenqueraghta and Joseph Brant consulted together to plan their strategy for the coming spring and summer. The former agreed to direct his activities toward the Pennsylvania frontier and to cut off Wyoming; the latter looked toward the Mohawk Valley region around Cherry Valley and Schoharie. Seneca warriors went out that fall in small bands harassing the frontiers of Pennsylvania and Virginia, taking scalps, prisoners, and booty. Kayashuta and White Mingo, formerly so firmly in favor of neutrality, were also actively at war during the autumn and winter. Kayashuta partic­ ularly complained of his treatment at Fort Pitt and voiced the belief that the Americans intended to cheat the Indians of their lands. The major In­ dian campaign, however, would not begin until the spring of 1778. Indian warriors were always dispersed in the late fall and winter of the year be­ cause of their absence on the hunt to provide stores for their families. As a result, no coherent winter campaign was possible at that time.7 When Major John Butler returned to Niagara from Montreal in the fall of 1777, he learned of Mary Brant’s presence at Cayuga. Knowing of her great influence, he sent her repeated messages begging her to come reside at Niagara where she could be of great service to the cause since so many Indians constantly visited that post. Miss Mary hesitated a long while, for not only was she happily situated among her friends and relations, but she did not wish to give offense to her hosts by departing so soon after her ar­ rival. Finally she did arrange to make an amicable departure and moved her family to Niagara, where she kept open house for all the leading men

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

161

and women of the Confederacy. She remained always available to Indians who came seeking her advice. She listened patiently to their complaints, provided counsel, prevented mischief, and served as their valued confi­ dante. Even as she had once encouraged the Loyalist fugitives by hiding, feeding, and protecting them, so now she encouraged her own people and kept them steadfast in the king’s cause.8 By the time Butler held a great council with the Six Nations and their allies at Niagara in December of 1777, the Indians were again firmly at­ tached to the British and determined to avenge their losses at Stanwix. Butler made good their material losses in the past campaign by presenting them with rich presents from the king. Even more significant, Onondaga and Tuscarora chiefs who had hitherto been friendly to the Americans at­ tended this conference and delivered to Butler the war belt they had re­ ceived from the United States in September. They assured the British that they had taken up the hatchet only to secure prisoners which they might exchange for the three Indians captured with Walter Butler in August. This belt, according to their custom, had been deposited at their capital at Onondaga and was now surrendered to the British at Fort Niagara, with a promise “never to go again to the Councils of the Oneidas, or of the Rebels.” That these representatives .were not speaking the sentiments of the whole of their respective nations is evident from sub­ sequent events, for the Onondagas remained divided until 1779, and the Tuscaroras continued contributing warriors to the American cause throughout the war.9 While the friends of the crown in America were busily engaged in re­ taining the Indians in the British interest, certain opposition forces at home were raising horrified cries against the use of these barbarous allies. The government, it was claimed, had stooped to the lowest possible level and sullied Britannia’s name by employing these offspring of the devil against a civilized people. Edmund Burke had delivered a three and one half hour speech in Parliament on the immorality of the government’s ac­ tion. William Pitt, Lord Chatham, also vented his ire against the govern­ ment for attempting to subjugate a brave people by hiring foreign merce­ naries and untamed redmen. According to the Marquis de Noailles, Pitt “was, above all, violently angry at the barbarous employment of the Indi­ ans. He regarded it as a marked disgrace for the English nation.” Pitt fur­ ther denied that he had ever used Indians against the French during the last war. When Lord Bute heard this, he remarked incredulously, “Good Heavens, did Pitt really deny it? Is it possible? Why, I have here lying by

162

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

me letters of his that sing Paeans on the advantages we gained by employ­ ing Indians in the Canadian war.” The criticism came from gentlemen who were out of favor with the government at the time, and out of power. Pitt’s pompous piety was especially hypocritical. Lord Amherst, commanding general in the colonies during the last war, asserted that he did employ In­ dians but would not have done so “without express orders from govern­ ment at home.” Lord Denbigh referred to Pitt as “The great oracle with the short memory.” Guy Johnson commented acidly on all this unrighteous indignation: “It is also certain that no objection was made to them [the In­ dians] formerly, that the King’s instructions of 1754 to Genl. Braddock and many since, direct their being employed, whilst some of the American colonies went further by fixing a price for scalps. Surely foreign Enemies have an equal claim to humanity with others.” 10 General Schuyler that winter sent a belt to the Six Nations calling them to council at Johnstown in February. The Senecas utterly refused to accept the invitation, contemptuously sending back the belt with the com­ ment that they had no ears to hear anything from their enemies and could never consult peacefully with them while the hatchet wielded by the Amer­ icans was still sticking in their heads, a reference to Oriskany. The Cayugas were similarly disinterested. The delay in gathering the Indians to­ gether meant that the council would not be held until March.11 Toward the end of January 1778, Joseph Brant left Niagara with a party of nearly thirty Mohawks to spend the winter with the Six Nations, ready to give notice and raise a defense if the Americans should venture into Indian country. After he had left, Butler wrote a high recommenda­ tion of him to General Carleton, which, in light of the interminable feud­ ing within the Indian department, warrants quotation in full: Mr. Brant who is I believe known to your Excellency, and very deserving of the Character of an active, and intelligent man, and very willing to do Everything in his power for the public good; having represented that he had been employed two years past without any allowance, and out of hopes of receiving any reward for his past Ser­ vices from Colonel Guy Johnson, has desired me to lay his situation before your Excellency, praying that you would allow him some cer­ tain pay for his future support. I humbly hope Your Excellency would be pleased to attend to his request, as he is very deserving of your favor.12 Butler’s praise of Brant is interesting in view of his refusal of ammuni­ tion to the Mohawk chieftain a year previous. The relationship between

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

163

Brant and the Butlers seemed always to have been strained, however. Jeal­ ousy was rife and the members of the Indian department had their own lit­ tle private wars to conduct in conjunction with the big war at hand. It is entirely to Butler’s credit that he could rise above the pettiness and give responsible judgments for the good of the service.13 On March 7, the council called by Schuyler assembled at Johnstown. Though there were over seven hundred Indians present, no Senecas and only three or four Cayugas came. There were also a few Mohawks, but the Oneidas, Tuscaroras, and Onondagas made up the majority. The Marquis de LaFayette, then in command of the northern department, also attended. The commissioners spoke strong words to the Indians, threatening them with severe punishment for future treacheries and demanding a strict neu­ trality from them. They also requested that the four erring nations of the Confederacy be gathered together at the Onondaga council fire to deliber­ ate on the speech from the United States. Tenhoghskweaghta of the Onon­ dagas agreed to this request. He further asked the pardon of the commis­ sioners, assuring them that it was not the sachems but the young warriors who were guilty. He explained: “Times are altered with us Indians. For­ merly the warriors were governed by the wisdom of their uncles the Sa­ chems but now they take their own way and dispose of themselves without consulting the Sachems. While we wish for peace and they are for War, Brothers they must take the Consequences.” He reminded his white breth­ ren that they also had similar difficulties in controlling their own people. “As for the Senecas,” Tenhoghskweaghta continued, “they have long since forsaken our Council Fire.” He promised another attempt to bring them to a general conference. His confessions are significant in that they indicate the manner in which the governmental structure of the League had broken down. The council and the sachems had no method of enforc­ ing their decisions except by persuasion. If a significant segment of the population disagreed, it might break away and go in an independent direc­ tion without fear of reprisal. The warriors were thus following their own inclinations, and the whole Seneca nation was contemptuously refusing to attend a grand council at the old capital.14 The Oneidas and Tuscaroras pledged their continued friendship and later, in private, warned the commissioners against trusting too closely the promises of the Onondagas. They further represented their fear of attack from the other tribes and requested that a fort be built at the main Oneida village of Kanowalohale and that a body of troops be quartered among them. Schuyler acquainted LaFayette with their requests, and the latter.

164

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

soon after the close of the council, ordered the erection of a small picket fort for the Oneidas. The Indians at the council generally made a strong plea for a perma­ nent trade to be opened at Stanwix. The Oneidas and Tuscaroras particu­ larly could obtain no clothing save what the Americans gave them as pres­ ents. A trading post was therefore essential to supply their needs. The Indians reminded the commissioners that one of the greatest sources of British influence over the tribes was their ability to supply needed goods.15 After the council was over, Schuyler wrote to Henry Laurens, presi­ dent of the Continental Congress, that it would be a wise move to carry the war into the Indian country as early as possible in order to prevent the depredations that were certain to come in the spring and summer. This operation “would not require a greater Body of Troops to destroy Towns than what would be necessary to protect the Frontier Inhabitants,” he as­ sured Laurens. He greatly feared that the British would take post at Os­ wego, thus shortening their own supply line and their distance from the American frontier. A British garrison at Oswego would make assaults against the Americans more certain and more numerous and would put the Indians in a position where they could not possibly maintain a neutrality or a pro-American sentiment. Prompt and “most vigorous Measures” should therefore be taken, Schuyler felt, to thwart the British and hostile Indians in this area.16 In order to prevent more disaffections than already existed among the Indians, Schuyler requested the cooperation of the Tryon County Committee of Safety in discovering the culprits who had pillaged the Mohawk settlement of Canajoharie and requiring them to make restoration of the goods stolen or pay the value thereof. He also warned of the chaos that could result from a current pastime indulged in by some of the residents of that county in encouraging friendly Indians to despoil the homes of suspected Tories.17 For months, the Indians had been pressing the British to garrison Fort Ontario on the Oswego River. They gave the same strategic reasons for this move that Schuyler presented in his letter to Congress, adding that the fort would be a place of refuge for their women and children should the Americans ever invade their country in overwhelming force. The British professional soldiery, however, were usually reluctant to be guided by the advice of Indians and provincials. In the case of Oswego, they did nothing until it was far too late.18 In mid-April of 1778, possibly April 18, Walter Butler, who had been captured at German Flats the previous year, escaped from Albany with the

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

165

help of Richard Cartwright, in whose house he had been confined on his parole. He traveled through the Indian country and met his father, Major Butler, who was at Kanadesaga consulting with Sayenqueraghta and the Senecas. Walter, who had now received a captaincy in his father’s corps of Rangers, arrived at Niagara on May 17, 1778, and proceeded from there to Quebec to transmit information of the Indian department and Rangers to General Carleton. When he did come back to Indian country later that year, it would be to lead the notorious expedition against Cherry Valley.19 The Continental Congress had recently approved of recruiting three or four hundred Six Nations warriors for service in Washington’s army. Schuyler and LaFayette both sent messages to the Oneidas and Tuscaroras on the subject, asking for volunteers to serve with the grand army. The total requested by Congress was unrealistic. To have supplied that num­ ber would have meant taking most of the able-bodied warriors of both tribes and consequently leaving their families undefended. A group of fifty fighting men from these two tribes offered their services and fought with LaFayette at the Battle of Barren Hill in Pennsylvania in May. But the Americans had little success with the other Iroquois because the Senecas and Cayugas shunned the council held at Onondaga during the month of May. They were out on raiding parties and also were holding their own conferences with Sayenqueraghta and Major Butler. At these latter delib­ erations, some Indians still spoke strongly for neutrality and for keeping peace with the Americans. Butler had to exert himself constantly to pre­ vents others from being carried away by their views.20 In May, Joseph Brant was at Onoquaga, collecting Indian warriors and sending out calls for Loyalists to join him. On May 30, 1778, his force of more than three hundred Tories and Indians came to Cobleskill. A detach­ ment of between thirty and forty American regulars under Captain Patrick of Colonel Alden’s regiment and fifteen militia under Captain Christian Brown had been reconnoitering when they discovered a party of about twenty Indians not far from the house of George Warner on the southern edge of the settlement. Against the better judgment of Captain Brown, Pat­ rick ordered a pursuit. They engaged in a running fight with the fleeing Indians for about a mile before they realized they were being drawn into a trap. They took cover and exchanged fire with an enemy which hopelessly outnumbered them. Brant’s men succeeded in killing Patrick, his lieuten­ ant, and corporal. As the Indians and Tories began to close in. Captain Brown ordered a retreat. On their withdrawal, they passed again the house of George Warner, where five of the harried soldiers took refuge and fired

166

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

on the pursuers. The Indians, in an attempt to dislodge them, set fire to the house. The five defenders perished in the flames. Besides these casualties, there were at least fourteen others killed in the battle and a number wounded. The bodies of Patrick and some others of the dead were muti­ lated and at least one might have been tortured. A Tory Negro who had fought with Brant’s men in this engagement and who came back after the war reported that there were twenty-five killed on his side and that seven later died from their wounds. After its victory over the American detachment, Brant’s party plun­ dered and laid waste the settlement, burning ten houses with their barns and killing the cattle that could not be driven off. Brant took five prisoners at Cobleskill and gave them the choice of being dispersed among Indian families or going to Niagara and waiting for exchange. The prisoners chose the latter. The nearby settlement of Durlach * was also attacked, but only one house was plundered.21 Abraham Wemple, who later helped bury the dead at Cobleskill, re­ ported that “they were Butchered in the most Inhuman manner.” Jeptha Simms, who secured his information from three participants in the battle, claimed that one soldier had “his body cut open and his intestines fastened around a tree several feet distant.” 22 The news of the attacks spread quickly, and militia Lieutenant Mat­ thew Warmuth rode hastily to Cherry Valley to inform the inhabitants that Colonel Jacob Klock would be arriving the following day with a body of militia. On Tuesday afternoon, June 2, Warmuth prepared to return to the Mohawk Valley in company with Peter Sitz, who was carrying some dis­ patches. Brant, meanwhile, had heard that the militia was coming and took five Indians toward Cherry Valley for a scout. They intercepted the two rid­ ers and ordered them to halt. The two ignored the challenge and at­ tempted to escape. The Indians then fired, killing Warmuth and Sitz’s horse. Sitz was taken prisoner. A deserter from Brant’s army later said that the chieftain, after the deed was done, recognized Warmuth and re­ gretted his death because he believed him to have been “a good Kings man.” 23 Brant continued increasing his forces and gathering supplies, making Onoquaga his headquarters. According to one Robert Jones, a deserter, it was during this period that the chieftain went to Tioga to hold a confer­ ence with John Butler, then on his way to Wyoming. Brant then returned * Durlach was variously spelled Turloch, Torlogh, Turlag, Dorlah, Dorlach, and was later renamed Sharon.

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

167

to Onoquaga and sent out parties to gather in cattle and other provisions from willing Tories and unwilling Whigs to supply him for future cam­ paigns. He and his bands roamed Ulster * and Tryon Counties, protecting Loyalists against attack and striking terror into the Whig populace. Sacandaga, above Johnstown, was also attacked in June, and a number of men and cattle killed or taken and several houses burned, though Brant’s party was probably not responsible. The whole countryside was in a panic and people were flocking into Schenectady, Cherry Valley, and other larger set­ tlements for safety. A group of the prominent citizens of Schenectady sent an urgent appeal for assistance to Governor George Clinton, apprizing him of the “distressed situation of . . . the whole of our Western Frontiers” since the enemy were “determined to destroy and burn up that whole country.” The threat was not idle. Brant more than once warned that be­ fore the end of the summer he would lay the countryside in ashes. Fort Stanwix, far removed from the new scene of conflict, would be useless to protect the white settlements in Tryon County. If the Mohawk Valley were overrun and devastated by Indians, the source of supplies and line of com­ munication of Fort Stanwix itself would be endangered or wholly cut off.24 The Board of War of the Continental Congress meeting on June 10, 1778, reviewed the evidence of hostilities on the frontier and concluded that a major Indian war was in the offing. Since a defensive war would prove to be “an inadequate Security against the inroads of the Indians,” the board called for a major expedition of three thousand men against De­ troit and a similar thrust into the Seneca country to punish the offending Iroquois and “dispossess the Enemy from Oswego, in case they should have taken Possession of that Post.” For the latter expedition, Congress designated Major General Horatio Gates. The sum of $932,743Vâ was ap­ propriated for the Indian campaign. Despite these plans, no expeditions against the Indians such as Congress envisaged were organized in 1778.25 During June, a large force of Six Nations Indians under Sayenqueraghta and Rangers under the elder Butler came down the Susquehanna bound for the Wyoming Valley in Pennsylvania. The possession of this area had been in dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania for years, and a small-scale war had been waged on and off between Pennsylvania and Yankee settlers. Though the area was thus no stranger to conflict, it was to be faced with devastation hitherto unknown. Butler commanded one hundred ten Rangers. There were in addition four hundred sixty-four * The western portion of old Ulster County was later detached and renamed Sul­ livan County.

168

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Indians, mostly of the Seneca and Cayuga tribes. Sagwarithra, the Tuscarora sachem, was there. So was Gahkoondenoiya of the Onondagas and Fish Carrier of the Cayugas. Cornplanter was second in command of the Indians. Many noted warriors were along, as well as some who were to achieve fame in later years. Sequidonquee', or Little Beard, a prominent Seneca was present; so was Mary Jemison’s fierce husband Hiadagoo (var­ iously spelled Hiakatoo), a resident of Little Beard’s village. The Seneca contingent included Jeskaka, or Little Billy, Honeyewus or Farmer’s Brother, Dahgonwasha or Twenty Canoes, Donnegoesha or Jack Berry, Gahgeote or Half Town, and Blacksnake. Cornplanter’s half brother was along as a common warrior. Many years later as the sachem Ganiodaio, or Handsome Lake, he would lead a great traditionalist religious revival among the Iroquois. The young Red Jacket, still unproven as a warrior, was also on the expedition.26 The invaders arrived at Wyoming on June 30 and encamped on a high point of ground that gave a good view of the whole area. Scouting parties were sent out and came back with scalps and eight prisoners. Two Loyal­ ists also went in to Butler’s camp to inform him of the strength of the Americans, which they placed at eight hundred able-bodied men. The Indians were dismayed to see the whole populace secure from at­ tack in the forts and desired to compensate for their frustration in battle by burning the settlement, killing the cattle, and plundering. Major Butler vigorously opposed such action and finally persuaded them to keep to­ gether until he could see what effect an appeal to the forts to surrender would have. On July 1, therefore, the Rangers and Indians disposed them­ selves in an advantageous position a half-mile from Wintermoot’s Fort while Lieutenant Turney went with a flag to demand surrender. The garri­ son of the fort willingly capitulated, agreeing to the following terms: 1. That Lieut. Elisha Scowell (Scovell) surrender the Fort with all the Stores, Arms, and ammunition that are in said Fort as well as Publick as private to Major John Butler. 2. That the Garrison shall not bear Arms during the present con­ test, And Major Butler promises that the men, women and Children shall not be hurt either by Indians or Rangers. Shortly thereafter, on the same day, Jenkins’ Fort surrendered on similar terms, save for the proviso against future bearing of arms. Forty Fort, however, rejected Butler’s demand for a surrender.27 Cornplanter with ten warriors crawled up a hill overlooking Forty Fort and counted the American militiamen within, watching them as they went

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

169

through various military exercises. The Indians and Rangers were thus well informed as to the strength of the enemy force they would have to face.28 Colonel Zebulon Butler, a regular officer who was on furlough, was chosen by the besieged settlers to command their forces. Colonel Nathan Dennison was second in command. The subordinate officers and soldiers were overwhelmingly in favor of marching out to meet the enemy rather than allowing them to devastate the valley and themselves suffer a long siege in the fort. Accordingly, on June 3, a force of over four hundred left the fort in search of the invaders. About 2:00 p .m . different Indian foraging parties out collecting cattle detected the American force on the march toward them. The Indians were in high spirits at this turn of events for they knew they could meet the enemy on their own terms in the woods. Between four and five o’clock, the Rangers and Indians noted that the Americans were within a mile of them. They then resorted to a ruse to at­ tempt to throw their enemy off guard. Major John Butler ordered both Wintermoot’s and Jenkins’ Forts fired to give the impression that he was retreating. They then chose their field of battle, posting themselves in an open wood, with the Rangers on the left and the Indians on the right with their rear edging upon a swamp. Red Jacket stationed himself far enough behind the main body of Indians as to afford as little danger to his person as possible. All lay flat upon the ground, quietly awaiting the approach of the Americans. As they neared the woods, the Americans formed their battle lines. Colonel Zebulon Butler instructed his men: “Stand firm the first shock, and the Indians will give way. Everything depends on standing firm the first shock.” They then marched steadily forward, guns at the ready. When two hundred yards off, they gave their first volley. Sayenqueragthta’s Indi­ ans and Butler’s Rangers lay still without returning the fire. The Americans gave three volleys in all, marching forward to within one hundred yards of their silent foes. When they had reached this distance, Sayenqueraghta gave the signal and the Indians opened fire, followed by the Rangers. The distance was so close and the fire so accurate that the Americans suffered greatly. The Indians closed, in around the flanks and the American left wing attempted to fall back to a more advantageous position. The move was mistaken by the rest of the militiamen for a retreat, and the result was a rout. Many threw away their guns in their flight, while the Indians pur­ sued relentlessly, giving no quarter. A few of the militiamen were fortu­ nate enough to reach Forty Fort. Others were forced into the river where they were tomahawked. A number were able to swim to safety. Others

170

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

C ornplanter . Painting by F. Bartoli. Descended from a white father and a Seneca

mother, the young Cornplanter was chosen as one of the two leading war chiefs by the Iroquois during the Revolution. C o u r te s y o f T h e N e w - Y o r k H is to r ic a l S o c ie ty , N e w Y o r k C ity

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

171

were cut down while they fled from the field of battle. The shooting had lasted only a half hour before the militia fled in all directions. It was a pa­ thetic remnant that made its way back to the fort.29 The next day, in the absence of Colonel Zebulon Butler, who had fled, Colonel Dennison with the minister and four citizens came to Major But­ ler’s camp to arrange a capitulation of the remaining forts. He claimed that three hundred one men had lost their lives in the battle: one lieutenant colonel, two majors, seven captains, thirteen lieutenants, eleven ensigns, and two hundred sixty-eight privates. When John Butler submitted his Loyalist claim several years later, he noted that three hundred seventy-six Americans had been killed in the battle. The discrepancy may have re­ sulted either from Dennison’s having given an early preliminary count, or from faulty memory on Butler’s part. The Indians and Rangers had taken five prisoners and two hundred twenty-seven scalps. Red Jacket, from his position of security in the rear of the lines, had killed no one.30 The articles of capitulation for the Lackawanna forts were similar to the Fort Jenkins terms. For the rest of Westmoreland, the terms were as follows: 31 1. That the Inhabitants of the Settlement lay down their Arms and their Garrisons be demolished. 2. That the inhabitants are to occupy their farms peaceably and the lives of the inhabitants preserved entire and unhurt. 3. That the Continental Stores be delivered up. 4. That Major Butler will use his utmost influence that the pri­ vate property of the Inhabitants shall be preserved entire to them. 5. That the Prisoners in Forty Fort be delivered up and that Samuel Finch now in Major Butler’s possession be delivered up also. 6. That the properties taken from the people called Torris up the River be made good and they to remain in peaceable possession of their Farms and unmolested in a free Trade in and throughout this State as far as lies in my power. 7. That the Inhabitants that Colonel Denniston now Capitulated for, together with himself do not take up Arms during the present contest. Nathan Denniston * John Butler Zarah Beech, Samuel Gustin John Johnston, William Caldwell * Colonel Dennison's name is spelled differently in Pennsylvania and British doc­ uments.

172

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Before Butler marched into the forts, he ordered all the liquor de­ stroyed to keep the Indians from it. Although no inhabitants were injured or molested after the surrender, the Indians did plunder some of their per­ sonal effects. Butler had much difficulty in restraining his red allies from dispatching the five captives, for they still had a desire for revenge for the losses they sustained at Fort Stanwix and Oriskany the previous year. In the action at Wyoming, according to Butler, the attackers’ losses were “killed one Indian, two Rangers and eight Indians wounded.” In re­ calling the battle many years later, Blacksnake said that the Indians lost six men, including the two war chiefs Soskawek and Sohnage. This could mean that five of the Indians later died of their wounds. Cartwright also mentioned seven Rangers wounded, two of whom later died. On July 5, Butler and Sayenqueraghta gave a written immunity and promise of future protection to Lieutenant Elisha Scovell and the people under his command in reward for having surrendered their garrison will­ ingly and having given promises to remain neutral. An itemized list of cat­ tle taken from his men was appended to the paper. Sayenqueraghta signed the agreement with his Turtle Clan totem.32 Though Butler, according to Articles 2 and 4 of the general capitula­ tion, had promised to permit the inhabitants to remain quietly in posses­ sion of their farms and private property, he evidently lost control of his Indians at this point. Not only were a number of people plundered of clothing and other effects, but Butler reported that, in addition to the eight forts that were destroyed, one thousand dwelling houses were burned. Also, all the mills were destroyed, and a thousand head of homed cattle, sheep, and hogs were driven off. “But what gives me the sincerest satisfac­ tion,” he concluded, “is that I can with great truth assure you that in the destruction of this settlement not a single person has been hurt of the In­ habitants, but such as were in arms, tö those indeed the Indians gave no Quarter.” 33 On July 8, Butler sent a raiding party out to the Delaware to destroy a settlement there. A few days later he was up the Susquehanna, back to­ ward Indian country and Niagara. At Tioga he detached a party of Rangers under Captain William Caldwell and some Indian officers to proceed to Onoquaga to reinforce Captain Brant.34 Much has been written about this bloody encounter in the Wyoming Valley. Almost as soon as the invaders left, the rumors began to fly, mag­ nifying the horrors of the battle and fabricating atrocities. The Indians were accused of scalping and burning men, women, and children indiscrim­ inately. Brant was charged with numerous cruelties, though he was never

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

173

Red J acket . Painting by Robert W. Weir. Although he later became a famous ora­ tor and civil leader. Red Jacket was only an indifferent warrior in his younger days. C o u r te s y o f T h e N e w - Y o rk H is to r ic a l S o c ie ty , N e w Y o r k C ity

174

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

there. Butler was depicted as a beast who would give no terms but the hatchet. After the surrender, he was said to have gathered women and children into houses and set fire to them. The half-blood Indian Catherine Montour was said to have been there and to have presided over a macabre scene. Some reports said that it was Esther Montour. As prisoners were brought to this woman, so the story ran, one after one she tomahawked them to a total of fifteen, singing all the while her wild, weird war song. All this is completely fictional. No women were along on the expedition, and no such sanguinary tortures took place. When Blacksnake was asked by historian Lyman Draper whether prisoners had been tortured by burning at Wyoming, he replied that he knew of no such instances at the time but that this often did happen during the war. There is some indication in Cart­ wright’s journal that the Indians killed some of the prisoners whom they took back to camp. If so, this was probably by running the gauntlet. The Indian-Tory victory was overwhelming, and this in itself was a se­ vere shock to the now wretched inhabitants who had lost more friends and kin than they could possibly bury. Grieving and destitute, they could easily have embellished their own very real misfortunes with tales of even greater horror. Others who had not been there could readily fill in the de­ tails they lacked to the greatest extent that their own vivid imaginations permitted. Some of those who fled after the settlement was burned later perished in the wilderness, and this tragedy added to the despair and panic of the survivors. The affair became known in history as “The Wyoming Massacre.” Whites have always been prone to label any overwhelming In­ dian victory a massacre and to call any of their own battle triumphs over Indians a great victory. When the Indians who had been on the Wyoming expedition heard of the accusations that were being leveled against them by the Americans for their actions there, they smoldered with a resentment which would have tragic repercussions later that year.35 Early in July of 1778, Peter Gansevoort sent a detachment of men under Lieutenant McClellan from Fort Stanwix to destroy the buildings at Oswego. On July 10, they returned with their mission accomplished. The British would now be unable to take post at that place without totally re­ building the fort.36 On July 18, Captain Joseph Brant and his men raided Springfield at the head of Otsego Lake and Andrew’s Town * a few miles to the north* The settlement of Andrew’s Town was also called Andrus Town, Andreastown, Anderstown, Andrewtown, Anderson's Town, and Anderson’s Purchase. It was on the north of present-day Warren.

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

175

west. At Springfield he gathered the women and children into one house and burned the other dwellings. Brant’s men also destroyed the barns and other out houses, wagons, farm implements, and haycocks. At Andrew’s Town, a small settlement of seven families, four men were killed and the entire area laid waste. Colonel Peter Bellinger reported: “The Indians at Andrews Town did no hurt to the Women and Children, but after talking to them, told them to come out to this Place [German Flats].” They killed in all eight men and took fourteen prisoners, at least two of whom they later released. The Indians then left, driving the cattle before them. Several bands of raiders proceeded to within four miles of German Flats to burn houses. By the time the Palatine and Canajoharie militia turned out in pursuit, the Indians had disappeared.37 The Oneida Indians of Oriska sent an express off to Philip Schuyler in Albany telling of the recent attack and warning that German Flats would be next. Schuyler sent this intelligence on to the governor, lamenting “that the finest Grain Country in this State is on the point of being Entirely ru­ ined for want of a body of Continental Troops.” 38 Four Oneida and Tuscarora chiefs, in conference with Schuyler the previous week, had expressed despair at bringing the Cayugas and Senecas to a peaceable disposition and offered their services to assist in chastising their western brethren. Schuyler thereupon ordered a scout of Oneidas out in the Schoharie neighborhood and another to the German Flats area. The chiefs had also requested army commissions for some of their head war­ riors. Schuyler transmitted the request to Congress and added, “As they expect no pay I should be happy if I might comply with their Request.” 39 There was a change in British administration in Quebec in the summer of 1778. General Frederick Haldimand replaced Guy Carleton as military commander and governor. Haldimand in turn appointed Daniel Claus as agent for the Six Nations in Canada that August. The appointment was a pleasant surprise for Claus and came at the request of the Six Nations In­ dians residing in Canada. Once the other Indians heard of the appoint­ ment, they began circumventing Major Campbell’s French interpreters and appealing directly to Claus, though he did not have command of their af­ fairs.40 The garrison at Fort Stanwix had little to do that summer, and morale was at a low ebb. Save for the ever-attentive Indian scouting parties that lurked in the woods to cut off straggling soldiers, there was no military ac­ tivity to give the men a feeling of usefulness. In addition, sickness was high at the fort during the hot months. As a result of the idleness and the

176

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

S ir F rederick H aldimand . Painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds. Haldimand was a for­

mer Swiss mercenary who had risen to high position in British service. He suc­ ceeded Carleton as governor of the Province of Quebec and commander in chief of His Majesty’s forces in that province and its frontiers. C o u r te s y o f P u b lic A r c h iv e s o f C a n a d a , O tta w a

consequent employment of soldiers primarily in work details rather in mil­ itary pursuits, desertion was also high. A party of five soldiers who had deserted on August 10 and were on their way to Canada were seized by the Tuscarora Indians fifty miles distant and brought back to the fort where they faced a court martial. Others were more fortunate and escaped undetected. Gansevoort and his officers petitioned General Washington for a transfer of the regiment to some useful post in the grand army, where

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

177

Sir G uy C arleton . Governor of the Province of Quebec during the early years of the Revolution, in military matters Carleton was always overly cautious. C o u r te s y o f i’P u b lic A r c h iv e s o f C a n a d a , O tta w a

ilthey could obtain more military knowledge and an opportunity to d is t i­ nguish themselves in the service. Now that the Indians and Tories were cir­ cumventing Stanwix and attacking the settlements from the south, the fort stood as a lonely sentinel in the forest, forlorn and nearly forgotten.41 A substantial fort with a large body of regular troops in the Schoharie «region was what was now needed to meet the new strategy of the Ranger land Indian raiders. General LaFayette had ordered a fort built at Cherry [Valley that spring. Colonel Ichabod Alden’s regiment of more than two

178

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

hundred men were assigned there, with about one hundred fifty one-month militia stationed in shifts during the summer. The last detachment of mili­ tia left when their service was up on September 17, much to the discomfi­ ture of the inhabitants. There were three small forts in the Schoharie Val­ ley known as Middle Fort, Upper Fort, and Lower Fort. None of these posts was capable of coping with an attack in force such as might be led by Brant with his Indians and Tories. It was furthermore impossible to know where they would strike next. Also, the inhabitants, particularly at Cherry Valley, were frequently in danger more from the plunder of the troops sent for their protection than from the Indians or Loyalists.42 There had been no major Indian eruption into Tryon County in two months, and the inhabitants, though still apprehensive, were somewhat more at ease. Captain Brant therefore planned a raid on the rich grain­ growing region along the Mohawk known as German Flats. He had much difficulty in convincing fellow officers of the necessity of the expedition but at last overcame their hesitancies. Captain Gilbert Tice, newly arrived from Niagara with thirty-three Indians, largely Mohawks, joined him. With three hundred whites and one hundred fifty-two Indians, Brant set off through the woods in the middle of September. On their way, they came upon five Oneida men whom they took prisoners. The Indians refused to take them along and insisted they be left where they were with three of their own men to guard them, since the Oneidas had promised not to es­ cape. On September 16, at the head branch of the Unadilla River, they fell in with a scout of nine men that Colonel Peter Bellinger had sent out two days previously, and killed three of them. One of the scouts, John Helmer, escaped into the bush and concealed himself until more than two hundred men had marched by his hiding place. He hastened back to Bellinger and gave the alarm, assuring the colonel that the party he saw must have repre­ sented less than half the total strength of the invaders. Bellinger sent out a call for help to the militia commanders to march immediately with their regiments to German Flats. The attack was expected either that night or the next morning, and the inhabitants gathered up their personal possessions and furniture and flocked into Forts Herkimer and Dayton. Brant came upon German Flats that night, but a hard and steady rain kept him from attacking. About six o’clock the next morning, they swooped down upon the settlement north of the river, plundering whatever the inhabitants had left behind, driving off the cattle, burning the dwellings, barns, and mills, and destroying the grain. They attacked Fort Dayton, but were driven off. Only two houses,

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

179

the church, and the fort were left standing on the north side of the river. On the south bank, they began their depredations six miles above Fort Herkimer and burned the whole settlement, gathering in the cattle for their own use. When they left about noon, only three dwelling houses remained standing: the minister’s and those of the Tories Shoemaker and Thompson. They had destroyed sixty-three houses, fifty-seven barns, three gristmills, one sawmill, and carried off two hundred thirty-five horses, two hundred twenty-nine horned cattle, and two hundred sixty-nine sheep. About a hundred head of cattle had been destined for Fort Stanwix. Klock’s regiment, which had been requested immediately the night be­ fore, did not arrive until after the raiders had left. Three men had been killed, and one man, who had been mentally incompetent for some time, died in the flames. Captain William Caldwell, who commanded the Ranger detachment, somewhat sadly commented: “We would in all probability have killed most of the Inhabitants at the German Flats had they not been apprized of our coming by one of the Scouts getting in and warning them of our approach, and perhaps got their Forts.” In all, seven hundred nine­ teen people, including three hundred eighty-seven children, had been made homeless but had also escaped the wrath of the bloodthirsty Captain Cald­ well.43 The tardy militia and Colonel Alden’s regiment from Cherry Valley took out after the Tory-Indian raiders, but without success. The Oneidas and Tuscaroras were more fortunate. The five Oneida prisoners whom Brant left behind escaped and gathered together some reinforcements. While Brant and Caldwell were occupied at German Flats, a party of Oneidas and Tuscaroras descended upon the Tory stronghold of Unadilla and Butternuts in the Old England District, plundered them, and took five men prisoners at each place, including two sick Rangers. They also freed William Dygert, whom Brant had made prisoner several weeks previously. The women and children they left unmolested. Grasshopper, the Oneida chieftain, adopted one of the prisoners. The rest were delivered to Fort Stanwix.44 One of Brant’s urgent desires was to take his body of volunteers south­ ward to join the British army. Many of the white men had formerly been his neighbors along the Mohawk and had elected to serve under him out of friendship and admiration for his abilities. Brant realized the near impos­ sibility of moving with a large body of men undetected through Ameri­ can-held territory, however. He also knew that his band was not large enough to be able to force its way through. He therefore began to make se-

180

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

rious plans to take only three or four with him to penetrate to the British lines and be of service with the army. After due consideration, he decided the risks would be too great and that he could continue rendering service in his present capacity. He kept up small raiding expeditions, particularly into Ulster County from his base in Onoquaga, and waited fdr the arrival of young Captain Walter Butler with the Rangers and Indians so that he could join with them in the last campaign of the season.45 Not all of the Senecas had been unanimously for the British. Chief Great Tree and several of his warriors had visited General Washington and Philadelphia that summer and were friendly to the American govern­ ment. On their way back to the Indian country, they had stopped off in Albany and given assurances they would preach neutrality when they reached home. Great Tree kept his word but quite suddenly changed his mind when he heard tales of an impending invasion of Indian country by the Americans. He, like the rest, flew to arms to protect Indian homes and families.46 In September, Colonel Thomas Hartley, commanding on the northern frontier in Pennsylvania, pushed up the Susquehanna with some two hun­ dred men to attack the Indian settlements in that quarter. They destroyed Sheshecunnunk and Tioga and some scattered settlements, in addition to taking a number of prisoners and scalps. They decided not to proceed farther north than Tioga because Walter Butler with a reported three hun­ dred Rangers had just left before they arrived and had retreated twelve miles northward to Chemung, where they were prepared to give battle to the advancing Americans. Hartley knew that Butler would receive addi­ tional reinforcement at that place; he accordingly turned his men about and headed homeward. On September 29, they were sharply attacked at Wyalusing by the pursuing Indians, who fought stubbornly and bitterly and were defeated primarily because of their overconfidence and lack of caution. The Indians lost at least ten killed before retreating; the Americans lost four killed and ten wounded. Hartley commented on his Indian opponents: “They are a strange enemy, they shun Danger when among us, but near their own Country they fight brave.” Although thwarted from entering the Seneca country, he sent a message to them on October 1 in which he accused them of scalping women and children in their raids and burning prisoners and promised that if the practices continued, the Seneca country would “be desolated by Fire and Sword.” He further warned: “We have with my party done but small Injury to the Indian possessions. Those Warriors who

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

181

meet us must be convinced they have not Women and Children to Deal with.” Although the Indians had not molested noncombatants at Wyoming, there had been a number of instances of small war parties having done so on the Pennsylvania frontier— sometimes wiping out whole families. Hart­ ley had not been specific enough in his accusations. Already fanciful tales of Indian barbarities at Wyoming had come back to the Senecas, and these they deeply resented. The Senecas, taking Hartley’s warning as an untruth­ ful account of their behavior at Wyoming, were not only not intimidated but, rather, thoroughly incensed. They began collecting their warriors to­ gether to march to the frontiers against the Americans.47 Governor George Clinton and militia General Abraham Ten Broeck had long contemplated an offensive operation against the Indian and Tory settlements on the frontier. Lieutenant Colonel William Butler of the Fourth Pennsylvania Regiment, then stationed in New York, learned the gover­ nor’s thoughts on the matter and was fully convinced of the urgency of such an expedition. Accordingly on October 1, he set off from Schoharie for the Susquehanna River with two hundred sixty-seven men, including detachments from his own regiment and Major Posey’s Rifle Corps, Lieu­ tenant Deitz’s Rangers, and a few militiamen. The weather was cold and rainy, the trip long and arduous, and the men ill-clad. On the evening of October 6, they reached Unadilla and prepared for an assault, only to be informed by a prisoner the advance party had captured that the enemy they sought had left a few days previously for Onoquaga, thirty miles to the south. The next day, Colonel Butler sent a small party to Unadilla to seize the Tory Glasford to serve as a guide to Onoquaga. On October 8, they were just three or four miles from the Indian settlement. In the chill of the Oc­ tober night, with the water up to their armpits, they waded across the Susquehanna— the riflemen in front with orders to attack the flanks, the infantry behind with fixed bayonets, ready to charge the center. They reached the other shore without incident and entered the empty village at eleven o’clock that night. “It was the finest Indian town I ever saw; on both sides the River,” said Butler; “there was about 40 good houses. Square logs, Shingles & stone Chimneys, good Floors, glass windows &c. &c.” The colonel directed that a great number of camp fires be made to deceive the Indian scouts as to their numbers. The next morning, the raz­ ing of the settlement was carried out on both sides of the river. At least two thousand bushels of corn were also destroyed. The soldiers took some

182

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

of the livestock for the return journey. Only one house was left standing in the village. It belonged to a friendly Oneida— most probably Good Peter, who was from Onoquaga. Only one man was lost on the expedition. A packhorseman who went unarmed in search of a stray horse was shot through the side and the head. He died on the return journey. When Butler heard the firing, he ordered his whole force, with pack animals, toward the place below the village. He sought by this move to deceive the Indian scouts into thinking that he in­ tended to march downriver and thus draw them away from his troops. He was constantly on the alert for Brant, but Brant was away at the time raid­ ing in Ulster County with a force of eighty whites and a few Indians. Butler took post in the woods two miles below the ruins of Onoquaga and sent Captain James Parr with thirty men to destroy the small settle­ ment of Tuscarora three miles down the river. Parr and his men burned the seven or eight houses in the little village and came back driving some livestock before them. By 3:00 p .m ., Colonel Butler was on his return march. They reached Unadilla on October 10 and burned the whole settlement on the south side of the river, except for Glasford’s house, which was left as a reward for his services as a guide. The next day, Butler sent two men over on a raft to burn the houses on the north side. They then set off for Schoharie, which, with much difficulty, they reached on October 16.48 Both Onoquaga and the Tory settlement of Unadilla had been central meeting places for the border raiders. With their places of refuge wiped out, the Indian-Tory forces would be pushed farther back and their ap­ proaches into Tryon County made more difficult. The Patriots now had a greater sense of security. Since the season was so far advanced, and the wasps’ nests were destroyed, there would undoubtedly be no more major incursions this year. Or would there? While the border was in flames all that campaign, Colonel Guy John­ son was still puttering about in New York City. He had been there since the summer of 1776 while his deputies carried on the affairs of the Indian department. He determined, however, to reach Canada, and from there the Indian country before the end of the campaign of 1778. By the time he was able to take ship for Canada, though, the weather had become change­ able and had forced the vessel to the capes of Virginia. His ship finally en­ tered the Gulf of St. Lawrence on October 4, but two days later was bat­ tered by a violent storm which seriously damaged the sail and forced the ship out to sea again. By October 11 they had made another approach

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

183

but were again forced out, with much damage to the rigging. The ship finally docked at Halifax, with the crew and troops in a sorry state. Be­ cause of the disrepair of the ship and the advanced season of the year, the owners refused to allow the vessel to go farther. Johnson would be forced to winter in Halifax. He was no closer to his post than he had been when he left New York! He would thus miss having any connection with one of the most controversial of all Indian operations in the entire war.49 Captain William Caldwell and a Ranger detachment had gone to Tioga to rendezvous with Captain Walter Butler. There were eight hundred with young Butler. Four hundred Senecas had turned out to push back the threat­ ened invasion into their country. Since Colonel Hartley had thought it prudent to withdraw to Wyoming, Butler planned to make a stroke on the frontiers of New York to bring the season to a close. The place chosen was Cherry Valley.50 This would be Walter Butler’s first independent command. Up to that time, his war experience had been very slim. He had trained for the law in Albany prior to the war, then went to Canada in 1775 at the beginning of the disturbance and served during the campaign in that province that sea­ son. He went to England with Guy Johnson in the fall and returned to Canada in 1776. He went along on the Fort Stanwix expedition the follow­ ing summer as an ensign in the 8th Regiment, was captured in August, and spent eight months in confinement in Albany. After his escape, he as­ sumed a captaincy in Butler’s Rangers. He had a high sense of his own im­ portance and a deep dislike of Joseph Brant. After Brant had joined the expedition under Walter Butler, the young captain and the other Rangers treated him with constant disdain. Brant was so exasperated that he determined to quit the campaign and go directly back to Niagara or to Canada. The Indians would not hear of his leaving. They told him that Walter Butler had command only over the Rangers and not over them and that he might carry his complaints to Butler’s superiors when they returned to Niagara. They prevailed upon him to stay and join with the Indian contingent. Although Brant remained, ninety white volun­ teers who had served with him all summer did not. They had preferred to serve under Brant and had no desire to be at the command of the young novice officer who treated their own captain so ill. Butler threatened them that if they did not join him, they would be treated as rebels. Brant’s vol­ unteers thereupon left and made their way back to the frontiers where they could conceal themselves until the following spring. The significance of this departure was not lost upon the numerous In-

184

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

dian allies who were along on the expedition— it was plain that Butler was not going to have any control over the Indian warriors. Indians were al­ ways very independent creatures. They considered themselves under the command of no one save possibly their own war chiefs. A white officer could control them only if he held their* admiration and respect. Major John Butler, who had far more wisdom and greater administrative and war experience than his son, might have had more success with them. What young Butler lacked in experience, he made up for in hauteur. The Indians were unimpressed.51 There were other matters which disturbed the Indians. They were still indignant over Colonel Thomas Hartley’s threats against them and his ac­ cusations of cruelties. They had also heard that Colonel Nathan Dennison, despite his promise of future neutrality at Wyoming earlier that year, had accompanied Hartley’s expedition against the Indian villages. Hartley had also burned a small Indian settlement which hitherto had been peaceable. In addition to these provocations, the recent destruction of Onoquaga by the Americans had made the Indians extremely angry and resentful. Given the vengeful nature of the Iroquois warrior, all the ingredients were pres­ ent for the later tragic explosion which came at Cherry Valley.52 Before Captain Butler left for Cherry Valley, he detached the Indian Captain Montour with three hundred men for Shamokin. When Butler set out on his march for Cherry Valley, he had a force of three hundred twen­ ty-one Indians, one hundred fifty Rangers, and fifty men of the 8th Regi­ ment. His senior white officers were Captains John McDonell and William Caldwell of the Rangers, and Captain John Johnston of the Indian depart­ ment.53 It is rather difficult to determine who the Indian commander was. Blacksnake said that Sayenqueraghta was not along. The Indian party was made up primarily of Senecas, and Blacksnake named the following as head warriors: Complanter, Half Town, Little Beard, Little Billy, Farm­ er’s Brother, Jack Berry, Twenty Canoes, Wundungohteh, Hiadeoni, Conneuesut, Souetdo, Hohnogwus, and Onoongadaka. There were about thirty Mohawks commanded by Brant, and a few Cayugas, Onondagas, and Delawares. Sagwarithra commanded a few Tuscaroras. A white de­ serter later informed the Americans that the Seneca chief Cadaraqua and Brant were the Indian leaders. Since Blacksnake had earlier indicated that Cornplanter was one of the two leading war chiefs of the Confederacy, it is likely that the Indian command on this expedition was his. His Seneca name was variously spelled by whites as Kayontwakon, Garganwahgah,

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

185

Gyentwaka. The Cadaraqua mentioned by the deserter is probably a cor­ ruption of this name. Red Jacket had also started with the expedition. When it was encamped somewhere between Chemung and Tioga, he began complaining bitterly of the hardness of the service during that very late and inclement season. With three friends, he accordingly turned about and went home.54 Red Jacket later became a great orator and statesman and was thus able to rise above his rather dismal war record. His timidity on the war­ path was the cause of constant teasing by his fellow warriors. In later years, at least, some of his tribesmen were able to overlook his shortcom­ ings as a warrior and hold him in high esteem because of his abilities as a civil leader. When Lyman Draper interviewed Red Jacket’s cousin Blacksnake long after the Revolution, he reported: “Blacksnake seems to have more reverance for Red Jacket than for any other Indian. Has one of the Weir engraved portraits of him framed, hanging up in his room . . . & often took it down, & would smilingly show it to me, saying ‘Jack-et.' Says the engraving . . . is a good one. . . . Blacksnake smiles when he speaks of Red Jacket’s innate cowardice.” 55 The settlement of Cherry Valley was poorly prepared to receive an enemy attack. The fort was built by the people themselves shortly after Cobleskill had been burned. They picketed their church and brought their possessions into the enclosure. When Colonel Ichabod Alden arrived with his regiment, he ordered all the inhabitants with their possessions out of their fort, which now became known as Fort Alden. The officers were quartered in comfortable homes in the settlement rather than in the fort itself—an arrangement that would prove to be disastrous in the event of a surprise attack. The garrison was inadequately supplied with both food and ammunition. Major Daniel Whiting reported that on November 11, the day Butler and his Indians appeared, “we had not a pound of bread pr man in the garrison; had it not been for a barrel of powder & half a box of Cartridges belonging to the Town, our ammunition would have failed us.” 56 On November 6, an Oneida Indian came to Fort Stanwix bearing alarming intelligence. The commander immediately sent notice to Colonel Alden: We ware just now informed by an Onyda Indian, that yesterday an Onondago Indian arrived at their castle from one of the Branches of the Susquehana called the Tioga that he was present at a great Meeting of Indians and Tories at that place and their Result was to

186

The Iroquois in the American Revolution attack Charevally and that Young Butler was to head the Tories. I sent you this information that you may be on your guard.57

Alden received this urgent message and sent back his reply on Novem­ ber 8: Receivd yours of the 6th Instant by Express Informing me of the Intelligence you obtained by one of the Onyda Indians of a Large Boddy of the Enemy who ware Collected on the Susquehanna and Ware Desird to attack this place. I am very much obligd to you for your information, and am Sir your very I chabod A lden

P. S. General Hand is now here; arrivd at this place the Day before yesterday. Will return Soo [n] to Albany I A 58 General Edward Hand, now in command in Albany, had ridden down to Cherry Valley on an inspection trip. It is not known whether Alden communicated the intelligence of November 6 to him, but we can assume that he probably did. Before departing, Hand advised the inhabitants to move their possessions into the fort. When he had left, Colonel Alden would hear none of it and refused to allow the people to bring any of their personal effects into the fort. He assured them that he had good scouts out and would give due warning of the approach of an enemy. It was part of the tragedy of Cherry Valley to be at the mercy of a criminally incompe­ tent commander.59 As Butler and the Indians approached Cherry Valley, Brant and Cornplanter, leading an advance party of forty warriors, came upon a picket of nine men from the fort, commanded by Sergeant Adam Hunter. Hunter had been a former Loyalist, confined at the same time as Walter Butler in Albany. He told all that Butler wanted to know about the condition of the fort and settlement. Butler learned “that the Enemy had notice of our ap­ proach two days before by means of an Oneyda Indian; and also that the Colonel with his principal officers usually lodged at an house about 400 yards from the Fort.” He thereupon called the chiefs together and pro­ posed an assault that night, as soon as the moon rose. One party was to surround the house and seize the officers, and the larger party of Rangers and Indians was to attempt the fort. The Indians agreed and also promised to observe the same humanity toward women, children, and noncombatants as they had at Wyoming.60

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

187

Late that night it began to rain incessantly. This discouraged the In­ dians, and they refused to carry out the attack, which on their account had to be postponed until the next morning. At daylight on November 11, But­ ler planned his tactics. Captain John McDonell, two subalterns, and fifty Rangers with the Indians were to march ahead and surround the house of Robert Wells where the officers with their guard were lodged, and cut it off from the fort. Another body of this advance party was to begin the at­ tack on the fort, which Butler was to join with the main body of Rangers. A mile from the fort, two of the Indians in advance of the rest fired on two men cutting wood. One escaped and gave the alarm, the Indians and Rangers rushing up after him. Major Whiting and a few others got safely to the fort. Little Beard with his party of Indians attacked the house and sus­ tained one fire, which wounded three of his men. They then rushed the house. Colonel Alden was tomahawked and scalped while trying to escape. Two captains, two lieutenants, one ensign and a number of privates were killed; Lieutenant Colonel Stacy, with a lieutenant, an ensign, the sur­ geon’s mate and a few privates were taken prisoners. Little Beard and his Indians then proceeded to massacre the Wells family. Thirteen, including three servants, were killed in the Wells’s house­ hold. This family had been close friends of Joseph Brant’s. Lieutenant Hare noticed that the Indians, contrary to their promise, were slaughtering the Wells and Dunlap families and hastened to their assistance. He found one of Pastor Dunlap’s daughters lying across her dead mother to prevent her being scalped. He managed to rescue both the minister and his coura­ geous daughter. William Campbell, whose grandmother with her children had been taken captive, credited an Onoquaga Mohawk named Little Aaron with saving Dunlap and his daughter.61 The Indians, instead of supporting the attack on the fort, spread out over the settlement and began plundering and massacring indiscriminately. Whigs and Tories both fell before the hatchet. Butler was dismayed. Un­ able to abandon his attack on the fort for fear of a sally from the garrison, he sent Captain McDonell with a few Rangers to do what they could to save the inhabitants. Joseph Brant, as distressed as Butler at the turn of events, was active in saving a number of lives that day. When the Indians descended upon the property of William McClellan, he pleaded with them not to fire his house and bam for he was a good king’s man. The Indians explained to him with perfect seriousness that they had to do it so that the Americans would not find out who were Loy­ alists. McClellan had to stand helplessly by and watch his house, bam,

188

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

crop, furniture, clothing, farming utensils, and weaver’s tools go up in flames. As the Indians made off with his two horses, they told him that if they had not burned his possessions, the Americans would have discovered that he was a Loyalist and would have done it themselves.62 Loyalist James Ramsay suffered the same fate. The Indians assured him that they were compelled to destroy his house and barn to prevent the Americans’ doing it. Since Ramsay wanted to join the Rangers and leave the settlement with them, the Indians also had to destroy his personal ef­ fects, they said, to keep them from falling into the hands of the rebels. Helpfully, they also made off with some of his livestock.63 The Indians ranged throughout the settlement, plundering, burning, and killing. They just as readily dispatched the king’s friends with the reb­ els. A number of Indian women were in the rear lines, armed with toma­ hawks for protection, watching for a safe moment to go pillaging. Some of the white soldiers were as active as the Indians in plundering. The Seneca warrior Blacksnake took no plunder on this expedition because, as he later explained, he thought it was bad enough to kill men and destroy their vil­ lage.64 Later in the day, Brant burst into the Shankland home. Robert Shankland was away but his wife, Katy Shankland, was busy spinning. Aghast, Brant asked her, “My good woman, what are you doing here when all your neighbors are murdered around you?” Mrs. Shankland assured him that the family had nothing to fear for they were good Loyalists. Brant replied that her loyalty would do her no good that day for even his friends, the Wellses, had been killed. Katy answered, “If there is one Joseph Brant among the Indians, he will save us, for my husband is a great friend of his.” Brant thereupon identified himself, told her that he did not have the command, but would do what he could for her. Spying some Senecas ap­ proaching, he told her to get into bed and pretend she was sick. She put her three eldest children in the cradle and took the two little ones into bed with her. Brant met the Senecas at the door and told them there was only a sick woman and children within. The Senecas then left. Brant put his mark on the woman and children with his red war paint, indicating that they be­ longed to him. This was meant to protect them from harm during the bat­ tle. Later the chieftain opened the door and gave a whoop. Nine Mohawks came running. They made themselves comfortable, butchered a hog, made a fire, and roasted some meat. They then went into the cellar for the but­ ter, took all the bread they could find, and had their first feast in many days. In the evening, they cut apart the feather and straw beds, shook out

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

189

the contents, and lay down to sleep for the night. Early the next morning, Brant helped Mrs. Shankland dress the children. Putting eight-year-old Jane on his shoulder, and carrying Robert, the youngest, in his arms, he led the family to a hiding place in the woods, leaving them with some In­ dian corn bread. He promised he would send back her husband and eldest son, who had been taken prisoners.65 That same morning, November 12, Walter Butler sent Brant with fifty Indians and Captain McDonell with sixty Rangers back into the settlement to finish burning the houses and bring off the cattle. The remainder of the Indians he sent on ahead to commence their return journey, while he and the other Rangers kept the garrison amused to prevent a sally. When they turned their backs on Cherry Valley, the only building left standing was the fort. Sixteen soldiers and thirty-two inhabitants lay dead— most of the latter being women and children— and seventy or more were carried away captive. Young Butler noted sadly: “I could not prevail with the Indians to leave the Women and Children behind; tho’ the second morning of our march Capt Johnston (to whose knowledge of the Indians and address in managing I am much indebted) and I got them to permit twelve, who were Loyalists, and whom I had concealed the first Day with the humane assis­ tance of Mr. Joseph Brant and Capt Jacobs of Ochquaga, to return.” There were actually nearly forty sent back, including women and chil­ dren. At least one prisoner was not so fortunate. Elderly Mrs. Cannon, mother of Mrs. Colin Campbell, was unable to keep up and was toma­ hawked by a fierce warrior who waved his bloody hatchet over Mrs. Campbell and threatened her with a like fate if she did not move more swiftly. The next day, Mrs. Campbell, who was carrying an eighteenmonth-old infant in her arms, was given over to another guard— an elderly warrior who treated her with great kindness. The remaining prisoners were taken to the Indian villages by the warriors except Lieutenant Colonel Stacy, who was retained by the Rangers and delivered up at Niagara. The prisoners the Indians kept were placed in Indian homes and kindly treated until exchanged.66 Save for an attack on Coil or Kyle settlement near Andrew’s Town a few days later in November, Cherry Valley brought to an end the 1778 campaign in the Mohawk Valley and Schoharie regions. Until this bloody affair, the Indian-Tory incursions had been fairly humane, as wars go. With some scattered exceptions, noncombatants had not previously been attacked. Now the type of Indian war the Whigs feared most had become a reality. We could perhaps minimize the calamity and say that only thirty-

190

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

two— or thirty-three, counting Mrs. Cannon— were killed while one hundred eighty-two out of Cherry Valley’s total population escaped death or capture.67 The British themselves, however, did not minimize the incident. The Tory Richard Cartwright spoke of “such acts of wanton cruelty committed by the bloodthirsty savages as humanity would shudder to mention.” Ed­ ward Pollard, the Niagara trader and assistant to John Butler, knew Indi­ ans intimately, having had two Indian wives and several Indian children, some of whom served in the war. Even he was shocked by the barbarities at Cherry Valley. “The bloody scene is almost past description,” he wrote to a friend at Detroit. “I think it hath determined Capt. Butler and McDonald [McDonell] from ever having any more to do in such a service where savages make the principal part of army.” In these days of total war, perhaps Cherry Valley is not so shocking. It was shocking at the time, however, and was most particularly embarrassing to the British.68 The Indians were quite frank in admitting to Walter Butler after the battle their reasons for killing women and children. First, they had been falsely accused by the Americans of committing cruelties at Wyoming. Secondly, Colonel Dennison and his men had laid down their arms at Wy­ oming and promised not to take them up again during the war, but shortly thereafter were engaged in a destructive expedition into Indian country. These dishonesties had thoroughly exasperated them, and “they declared they would no more be falsely accused, or fight the Enemy twice,” which meant that in the future they would give no quarter. Captain William Johnson, the Mohawk war chief, writing to an American officer on behalf of himself and three other chiefs, gave an additional reason for the fury of the Indians at Cherry Valley. “The Reason of this your Rabies came to Oughquago when we Indians were gone from our place, and you Burned our Houses, which makes us and our Brothers, the Seneca Indians angrey, so that we destroyed men, women, and Children at Chervalle.” 69 So went the Indian reasoning. Even in the midst of the bloodiest scenes at Cherry Valley, there were Indians who took risks to save the lives of the inhabitants. We have the names of Little Aaron, Captain Jacobs, and Captain Brant. There were others whose names we do not know. The commanding officer at Fort Niag­ ara in writing to General Haldimand had special praise for the behavior of the Mohawks in this tragic affair: “Mr. Brant (the Bearer of this) with his Indians from Captain Butler’s acct, as well as every other report made to me, behaved with great humanity to all those who fell into his hands at

A SCOURGE UNLEASHED

191

Cherry Valley; This (I am convinced) will recommend him to your Excel­ lency’s notice much more than any thing else I could say in his favour.” 70 Certainly a great many Indians were more interested in plunder than in murder. Insensitivity to pain and suffering— whether his own or his opponents’— was part of the training of an Indian warrior. Perhaps it was too much to expect that the Iroquois soldier should all at once abandon his traditional concepts just because he was fighting a white man’s war. When there was one who showed both bravery and chivalry, he aroused a strain of romanticism in his white opponents. The following letter, written by John Henry Livingston to his brother less than a fortnight after Cherry Valley, is interesting because, though untrue as to facts, it marks the be­ ginning of the Brant legend: There is an anecdote of the famous Brant mentioned upon this occasion which deserves to be made public and if true reflects im­ mortal infamy upon the Tory rabble who have fled among the sav­ ages and upon every occasion prove themselves worse than the heathen, it is said when this party came out, their orders were read by young Butler upon which Brant turned round and wept and then recovering himself told Butler he was going to make war against America but not to murder and butcher; that he was an Enemy from principle but wod never have a hand in massacring the defenceless Inhabitants upon which the bloody department was committed to a seneca Indian while the noble Brant with another party attacked the fort, had the British leaders or the British king been actuated by sen­ timents of this sort the American war wod not have been stained with such unparralled cruelty, nor the name of Briton so justly exe­ crated throughout these states.71 Although Brant might have assumed the stature of a noble foe, he was still a foe. The increasingly distressed state of the frontier, the disruption of agriculture, the promise of further forays against those settlements still left standing— all caused consternation and dismay. What is more signifi­ cant, these misfortunes pressured the governments— state and congres­ sional— to assume more defensive measures. In this case, the best defense was deemed to be an offense. It became the general view that the Indians must be made to suffer even as the frontier had suffered. Their power must be broken once and for all. In the next campaign, the Americans would take the initiative.

VIII Our Children Trembled

When your army entered the country o f the Six Nations, we called you Town Destroyer: and to this day when that name is heard our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks o f their mothers. CORNPLANTER tO GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1790

1779 was a significant and fateful one for the Six Nations. The Americans, after suffering for nearly two years from Iroquois devastation of their northern frontier, were now determined to strike back. Not only was the state itself undergoing irreparable damage as a result of these con­ tinued onslaughts, but the Continental army was being deprived of valu­ able foodstuffs by the destruction of New York’s western settlements. Mili­ tarily, the situation was also precarious because the New York frontier was being steadily pushed farther eastward. Both General Washington and the Congress felt that a major effort must be made to secure the state henceforth from the constant menace of Indian war parties. When the year opened, the Iroquois had no hint of the impending cri­ sis. Rather, the divided Confederacy was still agonizing within itself over its fragmented state. The Oneidas and Tuscaroras resisted pressure from the Cayugas, denied that they had acted in any blameworthy manner to­ ward the rest of the Confederacy, and determined to maintain their friend­ ship with the Americans. The Onondagas were a nation rent, containing at least three factions: pro-British, pro-American, and neutral. The situation seemed to have reached an impasse. In January, eight Onondaga chiefs who had hitherto been neutral visited the Oneidas and told of their deci­ sion to join their fortunes with those of the Oneidas. Achswachta was their speaker. James Dean reported to Schuyler that these representatives had told the Oneidas “that they now let go their Hold of peace; extinguished the Council Fire; sunk the Tree of peace into the Earth and caused total Darkness to overspread the Confederacy and were determined to join their Children the Oneidas and Tuscaroras to oppose any invaders.” When they T he

year

192

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

193

returned to Onondaga, Dean continued, they intended to bring about a clear separation in their nation and insist that everyone declare himself “for one side or the other.” 1 These Onondagas, true to their word, made their resolves known to the rest of their nation upon their return and asked for the tribe to choose which side they would serve, for it had become impossible to remain neu­ tral. They themselves had determined to go and live with the Oneidas. “At this the Rest of the Village were highly dissatisfied, and told them they had done what they had no Right to do: that they looked upon that Land as given them by the Great Spirit, and were resolved to die thereon: that they (the Chief and seven aforementioned) had Nothing to do with the Fire; nor would they (the others) who were the Guardians of it consent that it should be put out; and that they would send to Niagara to call Home their Chiefs and others before any Thing should be done.” Notwithstanding this rebuff, the eight reiterated their determination to depart. In February, a delegation of forty Onondagas delivered up to the Americans a medal and a commission one of their number had received from the British. Later, more turned in their medals. Significantly, a body of them removed from their own castle and went to live with the Oneidas. By this timely move, they escaped the imminent destruction of their village.2 The command for a proposed Indian expedition was settled in March. General George Washington first offered it to Major General Horatio Gates. In the event he should refuse, Washington enclosed with Gates’s let­ ter a separate letter to Major General John Sullivan, asking Gates to for­ ward it if he did not wish the command. Gates very promptly did so.3 Sullivan accepted reluctantly. His health was poor, he had financial difficulties, and he was hesitant to leave his family. Brushing these prob­ lems to one side, and bolstered by a loan from a friend, he left Providence, Rhode Island, on March 28 for headquarters at Middlebrook, New Jer­ sey.4 The expedition against the Six Nations would be one of the most care­ fully planned campaigns of the entire war. General Washington, fully aware of the significance of the Indian-Tory devastations on the frontier, wanted to remove the menace once and for all. Not only were settlements being broken up and numbers of people on the border being killed or crip­ pled, but the economy was being seriously disrupted. Calling militiamen away from their fields during planting and harvesting time to defend theirs and their neighbors’ homes meant the deterioration of agriculture. Burned barns and ruined crops meant less food for both the populace and the

194

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Continental army. New York had frequently been unable to meet its quota for provisions on this account. People fleeing from the frontiers to the more populous centers would also mean that the British would have won that much more military advantage. Governor Clinton warned that soon New York’s western frontier would be the Hudson River. A strike against the Indians would humble them and perhaps cause them to ask for peace. Total destruction of their villages and crops, even if it did not pacify them, would make them a greater burden to the British and divert foodstuffs re­ quired by the British army to the support of the Indians. An expedition against the Iroquois was, in a larger sense, an expedition against the Brit­ ish army. Washington had been careful to collect the most detailed information about the Indian country— much of it inadequate because the Iroquois homeland was largely unknown to whites. A special committee of the Pennsylvania State Assembly which conferred with Congress on frontier defense and the Indian expedition reported optimistically and inaccurately: “We are informed that the Country between Tioga and Lake Ontario is fine and open.” Sullivan would later find much of it to be a mountainous, wooded tangle.5 The problem of the most advantageous route had to be settled. Wash­ ington favored an advance up the Susquehanna, with a subsidiary move­ ment from the Mohawk. Sullivan preferred the order to be reversed, with the main force moving along the Mohawk. Philip Schuyler wrote to Sulli­ van that a large army moving westward from the Mohawk could not be ad­ equately provisioned. Sullivan then abandoned his earlier preference in favor of Washington’s plan. As the design of the expedition developed, three movements were planned. Sullivan with three brigades, baggage, and artillery would move up the Susquehanna. General James Clinton of New York with his brigade would move south from the Mohawk and meet the main army at Tioga. Daniel Brodhead, at Pittsburgh, would march north to the Seneca settlements in northern Pennsylvania and western New York.6 Sullivan’s demand for troops and supplies was insatiable. The entire success of the campaign, he believed, depended upon being fully supplied. He refused to move until all his food stores, clothing, and other materials were at hand. He complained constantly that his supplies were not coming in, his provision was spoiling, he did not have this, and he did not have that. Nathanael Greene, quartermaster general, feared that the expedition would be oversupplied. “It will be a great misfortune should General Sulli-

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

195

Lake Ontario

SULLIVAN-CLINTON EXPEDITION

1779

wyomingJ *

van get his Army too unwieldy for the nature of the service he is going upon,” he commented. “This cannot fail to bring disgrace upon himself and reproach upon the army as well as injury to the cause.” 7 The expedition was supposed to move in May. Sullivan found that a road had not as yet been built through the swamp to Wyoming. Nor were his stores ready there as they should have been. Nor had all the boats needed been built. Sullivan fretted and pushed the preparations as hard as

196

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

he could. At the end of May, he was still at Easton, waiting to move on to Wyoming. Although the expedition seemed to be hopelessly bogged down, Colo­ nel Goose Van Schaick had already given it a rousing start by a successful attack on the Onondaga villages in April: With five hundred men, Van Schaick marched by way of Fort Stanwix and laid waste the whole Onon­ daga settlement, killing twelve and taking thirty-three prisoners. Most of the latter were women, some of whom he surprised in the cornfield. The Indians later bitterly accused Van Schaick’s soldiers of using the Onon­ daga women for their own purposes, though General James Clinton had specifically warned against this circumstance, reminding Van Schaick that the Indians never treated their women prisoners thus. “Bad as the savages are,” Clinton had written, “they never violate the chastity of any women, their prisoners. Although I have very little apprehension that any of the soldiers will so far forget their character as to attempt such a crime on the Indian women who may fall into their hands, yet it will be well to take measures to prevent such a stain upon our army.” Brant, upon hearing of the raid, feared that one of his children had been captured. The Onondagas made homeless by Van Schaick’s expedition went to live among the Senecas and later began to plant their corn in that area. In the meantime, they were forced to depend upon Major John Butler to supply them with provisions because they had been unable to bring off a thing with them be­ fore the Americans descended upon their village.8 Sullivan’s activity on the Susquehanna did not escape the notice of the Senecas. Toward the end of April, they gave Lieutenant Colonel Mason Bolton at Niagara intelligence of a large party advancing toward Wyo­ ming. General Haldimand refused to believe that the rebel forces could be in such large numbers as the Indians reported and directed that “some in­ telligent white person” be sent to spy out the situation. Nor did he make a move to take post at Oswego, as the Indians had been begging him for over a year, or to send any reinforcements to Niagara. A British garrison at Oswego might have successfully stymied the Van Schaick expedition, which the Indians had intelligence of beforehand. It would furthermore have made access to the Indian country much easier for the British. Haldi­ mand had promised the Indians in the spring that he would reestablish the post at Oswego, but soon became diverted because of a belief that the Americans would invade Canada. He therefore countermanded orders that he had given Sir John Johnson to proceed to Oswego. Haldimand believed that any expedition against the Indians would be sent to Detroit rather

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

197

than to the Iroquois country. He accordingly sent reinforcements to that post and to Niagara and Carleton Island, as Buck Island was now called.9 Congress on April 3 had approved Philip Schuyler’s request for twelve blank commissions to be filled in by him with the names of friendly Indian warriors. On June 1, 1779, he signed commissions for the twelve Oneida and Tuscarora warriors who had been recommended by the chiefs. Four were given captains’ commissions: Tewaghtahkotte, Hanyere Tewahongarakon,* James Wakarontharane, and John Otaawighton. Eight were made lieutenants: Christian Thonigwenghsohare, John Sagoharase, Joseph Kanaghsatirhon, Cornelius Okonyota, Cornelius Kahiktoton, Hanyost Thaosagwat, Totyaneahawi, and Nicholas Kaghnatsho (Nicholas Cusick, the Tuscarora). A few days later, Schuyler remembered that he had forgotten the faithful Caughnawaga, Louis Atayataghronghta, and hastily sent off to Congress for another blank commission. The fortunate Louis would be made a lieutenant colonel.10 Sullivan, in the early days of June, was still bogged down with his usual problems at Easton, while the rest of the American officialdom waited impatiently for the start of his expedition. General Greene wrote to him on June 6: “I wish you to begin your operations as that is the only glorious part of the Campaign that I have any expectations from.” At last, on June 18, Sullivan’s army left Easton for Wyoming. He still did not have his full complement of men but was anxious to be off. While he was yet on his march. General Greene wrote again: “The expedition you have the honor to direct will fix the eyes of the whole Continent upon you. . . . Great preparations and great exertions have been made to pave the way for your success.” Sullivan reached Wyoming on June 23. There he squat­ ted until the end of July, waiting for the remainder of his supplies and ex­ pected troops to catch up to him.11 On July 20, General Haldimand and the newly arrived Guy Johnson were holding a council with the Iroquois in Quebec. Haldimand explained to the worried Indians his reasons for not taking post at Oswego as he had promised. He had assigned Sir John to Oswego because he believed the Americans were about to seize it. Certain troop movements in the Con­ necticut Valley, however, had given him cause to fear an American inva­ sion of Canada; so, he changed Sir John’s orders to meet this new threat. Clearly, Haldimand was short of manpower. He attempted to soothe the Indians by relating to them the activities of the king’s troops in other parts * This is possibly the Honyery Thawengarakwen, or Honyery Doxtater, who fought for the Americans at Oriskany.

198

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

J ohn S ullivan . Painting attributed to Richard Morel! Stargg. The Indian expedition

was General Sullivan's only really successful military undertaking during the entire war, but its long-term effectiveness was doubtful. C o u r te s y o f I n d e p e n d e n c e N a tio n a l H is to r ic a l P a rk C o lle c tio n , P h ila d e lp h ia , P e n n s y lv a n ia

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

199

of the continent. The general also disregarded any notion of an American invasion into the Iroquois country: “As to your apprehension of the Reb­ els coming to invade your Country I cannot think they are well founded; if they mean any Thing it is to secure their Frontiers against your Incursions and Depredations, and in order to enable you to keep them the better at Bay, I shall give my Leave and encourage the seven Nations of Canada * to cooperate with and join you in opposing your Enemies the Rebels.” Haldimand would not believe what he did not want to believe. He had ample notice from Colonel Bolton at Niagara of a party advancing toward Wyoming. Bolton also had received word of another army preparing to march by way of Albany and Schenectady. Constant and accurate news was coming in of the planned American expedition against the Indians. None of the British commanders could conceive of an expedition of the size and strength that was then forming. Once the British had gotten the Indians into the war, the sad fact was that they had not the forces readily available to assist them in any large-scale invasion of their territory. Haldimand’s ready solution was to call upon “the seven Nations of Canada” to go to the aid of their Iroquois brethren when needed. In truth, the Indi­ ans were meant to be an appendage to the British war effort, and not the other way around. Sullivan’s incessant delays also seemed to give credence to Haldimand’s assurances that there was nothing to worry about.12 Although Sullivan was inactive, the Indians were busy. On July 20, 1779, Joseph Brant with sixty Indians and twenty-seven Tories attacked the settlement of Minisink, which lay about ten miles west of Goshen, New York. One of the primary aims of the incursion was to obtain provisions, of which they were in great want. Brant had planned on an attack just be­ fore daybreak, but was unable to reach the settlement until noon, when all the cattle were in the woods and mostly out of the reach of the raiders. Four persons were killed— including the lame schoolmaster, Jeremiah Van Auken— and their scalps taken. The killing of the schoolmaster was par­ ticularly senseless. He had told the children to run and save themselves at the first approach of the Indians and Tories, and then had gone out to the road to meet the warriors. He stretched out his hand and called out * The “Seven Nations of Canada” had been a group of French allies during the French and Indian War. They were: Lake of Two Mountains Oka (Mohawk), Lake of Two Mountains (Algonquin), Lake of Two Mountains (Nipissing), Caughnawaga (a mixed Iroquoian settlement founded by the Jesuits in the seventeenth century, which later became Mohawk in language), St. Francis (Abnaki), Lorette (Huron), Oswegatchie (Cayuga and Onondaga). The Oswegatchies later went to live at St. Regis.

200

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

“Brother!” The Indians responded by tomahawking him. One Indian who was approaching three fleeing schoolboys saw Van Auken being murdered and, finding that activity more of interest to him, left the boys and ran to­ ward the men gathered around the teacher. .The schoolmaster’s death thus saved his pupils from either a like fate or capture. Brant placed his paint mark on the aprons of the little girls and the dresses of those who were not wearing aprons. He told them to show that mark to any of the Indians passing and they would be safe. The girls made the paint marks do extra duty by sitting beside their brothers and spreading their dresses and aprons over the boys’ laps. Whenever any of the Indians came by and saw the marks, they would wave a hand and pass the children by.13 The Indians and Tories were quite anxious to capture or kill Major Jo­ hannes Decker, since he was one of the most active rebels in the area. Decker’s large stone house was stockaded and contained furniture and pos­ sessions of various neighbors, put there for safekeeping. Brant had the co­ operation in this raid of one Anthony Westbrook, one of the Tory resi­ dents of the Minisink area. Westbrook led Brant and his party to the house, but only the Major’s mother and one child were at home. His wife and a female slave were at the spring doing the washing. Old Mrs. Decker dashed two pails of water over the fire that Westbrook had built on the wooden floor and was warned, if she valued her life, not to repeat the per­ formance. Decker’s wife, seeing the Indians, began running, but Brant sent a warrior after her to bring her back. She asked Brant if she might be per­ mitted to save some of her possessions, and he consented. She ran into the house and brought out two feather beds and bedding, which Brant in­ structed one of his warriors to carry out of harm’s way. He then set fire to the house, which, ironically, included Anthony Westbrook’s furniture. Major Decker, returning home from a funeral, saw his house burning in the distance, and spurred his horse forward. He rode right through a startled group of Indian warriors on the path, then, fearing he was riding into a trap, turned his horse and rode back through the same party. The Indians quickly recovered from their surprise and fired on him, wounding him slightly. They then galloped furiously after him. The major’s horse ran into a fallen tree and became entanged in the branches. Decker dismounted and ran to a secret cave, or hole, between two large rocks. He crawled down and secreted himself at the bottom, while the Indians consulted above, wondering what had become of their prey. Thus did the fortunate major by his legendary ride save both his life and his scalp.14 The raiders attacked the main fort for about an hour, without success.

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

201

They then laid waste the entire settlement, except for the fort. In all, ten houses, eleven barns, a church, and a gristmill, as well as much hay and grain, were destroyed. They took three prisoners, including two young boys— Abram Van Auken and his brother. As Brant later explained to Colonel Bolton, “The reason that we could not take more of them was owing to the many forts about the place, into which they were always ready to run like ground-hogs.” Despite the pointless murder of the schoolmaster, for which Brant was not personally responsible, the raid was marked by a humanity toward noncombatants which stood in stark con­ trast to Cherry Valley. Whenever Brant was in command, he was usually successful in controlling his men and keeping them from killing women and children. His own party had one man killed and another wounded in this raid.15 At eight o’clock the next morning, Brant’s men began their return journey. Word of the raid had been sent out to Goshen, and the militia set off in pursuit, catching up twenty-seven miles up the Delaware River at the mouth of the Lackawaxen River. The pursuers totaled one hundred twenty men, under the command of Colonel John Hathorn and included two detachments of New Jersey militia in addition to the Goshen volun­ teers. They caught most of the Indians crossing the river with the cattle and fired, killing and wounding some and scattering the rest. Brant with forty men took cover on high ground in their rear. Much of Hathorn’s rear had already retreated. Both sides now took advantageous cover and kept up a hot fire for four hours. Finally seeing an opportunity, the Indians poured in upon the militia, forcing them to retreat. Pursuing them relentlessly and giving no quarter to the wounded, they took more than forty scalps. One prisoner, Captain John Wood, was about to be dispatched by his captor when he inadver­ tently gave the Master Mason’s sign of distress. Brant, himself a Freema­ son, pushed the warrior aside and grasped Wood’s hand, giving the Master Mason’s grip. Wood pressed Brant’s hand confidently, encouraged by the chief’s friendly gesture, and Brant, certain that he had a fellow lodge brother as captive, ordered his warriors to spare him. The other prisoners taken in battle were put to death. Brant had a total of three men killed and ten wounded.16 That evening, Brant gave Wood his own blanket to sleep in. As Wood lay with his feet toward the fire that night, the blanket began to smolder. The prisoner dared not move for fear of being accused of attempting to es­ cape, still not realizing how his life had been spared. When Brant the next

202

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

day made some mention of Freemasonry, Wood honestly and innocently told him that he was not a Mason. The chieftain thereupon became quite angry, accused Wood of dishonesty and dissembling in pretending to be a Mason, assured him that he had been spared only because of the belief that he was a Mason, and cursed him for burning his blanket.* When Wood returned from captivity many years later, one of his first acts was to apply for membership in the Masonic lodge.17 On July 28, Cornplanter at the head of one hundred twenty Indians and Captain John McDonell with fifty Rangers and some regulars from the 8th Regiment attacked Fort Freeland on the West Branch of the Sus­ quehanna River. One of the main objects of the expedition was to secure cattle for provisions, for food was continually scarce in the Indian country. There were fifty women with children inside the fort and a garrison of thirty men. Unable to hold out against such a great number, the garrison surrendered. The Indians then burned the fort. Captain Hawkins Boone with about eighty men was marching to the defense of the fort. They were * William L. Stone believed Wood’s deception was deliberate, though material in the Draper collection, including testimony by Wood’s son, indicates that it was an accident.

F ort N iagara, main building. This structure contains the officers' quarters, kitchen,

JA

an indoor well, offices, the dungeon or “black hole,” and a battery behind the win­ dows on the top floor. The fort is a popular tourist attraction today.

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

203

attacked and defeated and the captain with a number of privates killed. The thirty-man garrison was then taken prisoner to Niagara and the women and children allowed to retire unharmed. McDonell drove off one hundred sixteen head of cattle, but returned with only sixty-two. He lost some on the way but complained that the Indians had stolen the greater part of them. Thus the twice-stolen cattle helped replenish the Indian larder.18 The scarcity of provisions had been chronic with the Indians since the start of the war. Sayenqueraghta explained in a council at Niagara in De­ cember of 1777 how the Fort Stanwix campaign had caused a food short­ age. “Provision is scarce with us, owing to our having been at Fort Stan­ wix &ca by which means our Corn, which is our Chief support, was neglected.” Even though farming was a female occupation, the war inter­ fered drastically with Indian agriculture. For one thing, the women fre­ quently accompanied the warriors on their expeditions, and there were women along on the Fort Stanwix campaign. It was also the duty of the men to clear the fields which the women later cultivated. The war had cut down on their 1778 planting. This crop also suffered heavily from natural causes. On May 19, John Butler reported to Colonel Bolton the distressed situation of the Senecas and Cayugas: “The Indians in this part of the Country are so ill off for Provisions that many of them have nothing to subsist upon but the roots and greens which they gather in the woods.” By the middle of July, the situation was, if possible, worse. “Although there was last Fall a considerable quantity of Cattle in the In­ dian Country these have been chiefly consumed by the Indians themselves. It is well known that they never raise more Corn, Pulse and things of that kind which compose the principal part of their food than will just suffice for their own subsistence.” He fully recognized that the previous summer’s campaign had been at least partially responsible for their present straitened circumstances. There were many families who had not “had an ear of com the whole win­ ter and were obliged to live such as had them upon Cattle, such as had no Cattle upon Roots.” There was little likelihood of obtaining any apprecia­ ble quantity of cattle upon the frontiers because the Indians and Tories had broken up most of the settlements, and those inhabitants who re­ mained were now protected by a chain of forts. The food shortage would also inhibit future military operations from the Indian country. Butler la­ mented to Haldimand, “had I a Prospect of being able to take any of these [the enemy’s forts] I could not march against them with a sufficient Body

204

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

for the want of Provision.” Sullivan’s impending campaign would thus hit the Indians in a very weak spot.19 On July 31, Sullivan at last marched to Tioga, which he reached on August 11. A number of the soldiers amused themselves there by desecrat­ ing some of the Indian graves where they “found a good many laughable relicts, as a pipe, Tomahawk & Beads &c.” A scout which Sullivan had sent to the Indian village of Chemung twelve or fifteen miles farther up the river reported on the afternoon of August 12 that there were both whites and Indians in the village. Sullivan decided to destroy the Indian settle­ ment immediately and so remove that menace from the borders of his camp, since it had continuously been a rendezvous for Indian and Tory war parties. Leaving only a small guard at Tioga, he marched with the main part of the army that evening, reaching Chemung by daybreak. The Indians had retreated before them. Indian Captain Rowland Montour at the head of a small party of Delawares offered a brief resistance. General Hand’s soldiers pursued them and finally forced them to give way. There were seven American soldiers killed and thirteen wounded. Chemung con­ sisted of two large public buildings and forty sturdy dwellings built of “split and hewn Timber, covered with bark and some other rough materi­ als, without Chimnies, or floors.” Sullivan ordered the entire village fired. Then the fields of corn and other vegetables amounting to about forty acres were destroyed. The army thereupon returned to Tioga to await the arrival of General James Clinton.20 Joseph Brant arrived at the devastated Chemung on August 14 and awaited the arrival of Major Butler with his Rangers and Sayenqueraghta with the Senecas. The warriors at Chemung were three hundred strong and “in high spirits.” They were fully confident of repulsing the American in­ vasion.21 Colonel Brodhead had left Fort Pitt on August 11 to begin his part of the campaign to the north. He had with him six hundred five rank and file, a few Delaware Indians, and one month’s provisions. Kayashuta sent a hurried call to Colonel Bolton at Niagara for one hundred soldiers to assist in throwing back this invasion of his country. The harried Bolton had also been requested by other chiefs to send soldiers from the fort to the Susque­ hanna to help in repulsing the army approaching from that direction. He complained to Haldimand, “to answer all their Demands, I must have given them every Soldier of this Garrison.” The only help the British could give was a small detachment from Niagara and the Rangers. Together with the Indian warriors, these were no match for the overwhelming forces

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

205

J ames C linton . He was the brother o f Governor George Clinton

and companion general on the Indian expedition through the Six Nations country. C o u r te s y o f N e w Y o r k S ta te L ib r a r y , A lb a n y , N e w Y ork

now advancing against them on two fronts. Had Sir John and his two bat­ talions been sent in time, they could have raised morale and helped in ha­ rassing the invaders, but their numbers were scarcely sufficient to repulse the main expedition. A successful British-Indian counteroffensive would have required a large number of troops and adequate provisions. Such a campaign would have necessitated several months’ careful planning. The garrison at Niagara was too weak to permit its indiscriminate dispersal throughout the Indian country, and food had been scarce all summer. The British had never anticipated such an emergency and would have had al­ most insurmountable difficulties in meeting it even if they had. Communi­ cations were too slow, travel too difficult, provisions too short, and the number of troops available too inadequate. The Indians thus had to bear the full burden of their alliance with the king.22

206

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Clinton’s army made the juncture with Sullivan’s forces at Tioga on the morning of August 22, escorted by the soldiers Sullivan had sent out to meet them. Five Indian villages had been desolated along the route of Clinton’s march, two of them by the Indians themselves before Clinton’s men had the opportunity. Thirteen cannon were fired in greeting as the New Yorkers marched into camp. There were now four brigades present, commanded by Brigadier Generals William Maxwell, Enoch Poor, Edward Hand, and James Clinton. The latter was the brother of New York’s Gov­ ernor George Clinton. There were a total of 4,445 rank and file and 670 noncommissioned and commissioned officers. The total fit for duty was 4,469. General James Clinton was to be second in command.23 The following brigades and regiments made up the army destined for the Indian country: Commander-in-Chief: Major General John Sullivan First Brigade Brigadier General William Maxwell First New Jersey Regiment: Colonel Matthias Ogden Second New Jersey Regiment: Colonel Israel Shreve Third New Jersey Regiment: Colonel Elias Dayton Spencer’s New Jersey Regiment: Colonel Oliver Spencer Second Brigade Brigadier General Enoch Poor First New Hampshire Regiment: Colonel Joseph Cilley Second New Hampshire Regiment: Lieutenant Colonel George Reid Third New Hampshire Regiment: Colonel Henry Dearborn Sixth Massachusetts Regiment: Major Daniel Whiting Third Brigade Brigadier General Edward Hand Fourth Pennsylvania Regiment: Lieutenant Colonel William Butler Eleventh Pennsylvania Regiment: Lieutenant Colonel Adam Hubley German Battalion: Major Daniel Burchardt Artillery Regiment: Colonel Thomas Proctor Morgan’s Riflemen: Major James Parr Independent Rifle Company: Captain Anthony Selin Wyoming Militia: Captain John Franklin Independent Wyoming Company: Captain Simon Spalding

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

207

Fourth Brigade Brigadier General James Clinton Second New York Regiment: Colonel Philip Van Cortlandt Third New York Regiment: Colonel Peter Gansevoort Fourth New York Regiment: Lieutenant Colonel Frederic Weissenfels Fifth New York Regiment: Colonel Lewis Dubois New York Artillery Detachment: Captain Isaih Wool Volunteer Corps: Colonel John Harper as Captain On August 25, the appointed day of march, the general unprepared­ ness and a heavy rain caused postponement. Packs had to be gathered again and stored out of the rain. Another day’s delay meant one more day’s stores consumed while the army was still idle. Only twenty-seven days’ provisions remained, with the major portion of the campaign not yet begun. The forage was growing poor and the animals restless accordingly. The soldiers were generally not well clothed, and certainly not prepared for a campaign which would extend too far into the fall season. The nights were already turning cool, and only one in about twelve men carried a blanket. Dispatch was of the utmost necessity but the army must wait yet one day longer.24 During the morning, three Oneida warriors, including the newly com­ missioned Lieutenant Hanyost Thaosagwat, entered the camp. They were challenged by the dubious sentry but were allowed to pass after giving signs of friendship. They marched through several brigades, causing mild alarm and gathering a crowd wherever they went. They informed their white comrades that a member of their tribe had been killed by the British in Canada and that a number of warriors from their nation were out avenging his death. These newly arrived Oneidas, with the few redmen who were already in camp, brought the total Indian contingent to only a hand­ ful. It was hoped, however, that the Indians would render invaluable ser­ vice as guides through the uncharted Iroquois country.25 On August 26, the army was at last ready and the weather favorable. The brigades formed themselves according to the order of march in a hol­ low square. The artillery was in the center and General Hand’s light infan­ try in the lead. Poor’s brigade marched on the right of the artillery and Maxwell’s brigade on the left. Farther out on either side marched a flank­ ing party. Clinton’s brigade brought up the rear. The horses and cattle were driven between the columns, within the flanking divisions and near

208

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

the artillery. Far out in front, Morgan’s riflemen fanned out to scout for ambuscades. A garrison of two hundred fifty men, in addition to boatmen, was left at Fort Sullivan under Colonel Shreve’s command. Also left behind were the women and children, families of the soldiers who had attended them thus far and had shared the rigors of camp life with them. In all, about twelve hundred remained at the fort. They watched as the army lumbered off across the grassy plain. The American Fabius Cunctator was on his way at last. It was a mys­ tery to many why Washington had chosen John Sullivan to lead this expe­ dition. Up until this point, certainly, Sullivan’s military ability had not been particularly noticeable. His unconscionable delays and complaints and constant requests had bedeviled his superiors and led some to think that once again he was the wrong man in the wrong place. It was most for­ tunate for the success of the expedition that Sullivan had delayed so long, however. First of all, the British officers were lulled into thinking that no invasion was intended and that any campaign against the Indians would be directed toward Detroit. Secondly, Sullivan was entering Indian country so late in the season that the crops he destroyed could not possibly be re­ placed by a new planting. The army moved only about three miles on the first day. On the next day, they made only six miles as the men, artillery, and baggage were impeded by mountains, defiles, and swollen streams. They encamped that evening near some extensive Indian cornfields. On August 28, the army gathered as much of the corn as it could eat and destroyed the rest. During the afternoon, Indian scouts had told the commanders that the foe had a large encampment only a few miles away. Captain Jason Wait of the First New Hampshire Regiment was ordered to the top of a mountain to observe the number of enemy camp fires during the night. The view did not allow for complete observation. Wait was able to make out only the smoke, by which he estimated the enemy encampment to be half the size of their own.26 That evening, Sullivan’s army encamped by the charred remains of Chemung. They had come three miles that day. The forces of Major John Butler and the Indians encamped at Chuknut, or Newtown, did not number more than six hundred men.* Sayenqueraghta, Cornplanter, and Brant were the head war chiefs. Because of * Butler gave this figure. The estimates of American officers as recorded in their journals varied widely. Sullivan grossly overestimated the number at fifteen hundred.

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

209

his advanced years, Sayenqueraghta was now compelled to ride a horse dur­ ing this campaign. Half Town, Little Beard, Farmer’s Brother, Jack Berry, Little Billy, Blacksnake, Red Jacket, and Ganiodaio were also present among the Senecas. Fish Carrier of the Cayugas and Sagwarithra of the Tuscaroras were also there. Hochhadunk was the leader of a small Dela­ ware war party of only twenty. He had promised two hundred warriors. Walter Butler and Captain McDonell were the leading Ranger officers, along with Major Butler. There was also a small detachment of British regulars from the 8th Regiment.27 Scouts brought in constant intelligence of the American advance and probable numbers. For Butler, the veteran Ranger, the situation seemed precarious. Their forces were greatly outnumbered. He was not certain of Sullivan’s exact strength but knew that the Americans had over three thou­ sand men and believed that they were “some of the best of the Continental Troops commanded by the most active of the Rebel Generals, and not a Regiment of Militia among the whole.” His appeals to Bolton and Haldimand for reinforcements to meet the invasion had gone unheeded. All he had in addition to his own Rangers were the small detachment of regulars from Niagara. General Haldimand had refused to believe that the rebels could be in such force as was reported to him and had constantly stressed the difficulty of adequately provisioning any British force sent into New York. Butler and the Indians were consequently left to handle the situation as best they could.28 The physical condition of the Rangers and Indians was not of the best. The Rangers, from living off the country, were generally in poor health. Before the corn was ripe, the Tories and Indians had been forced to grub for herbs and roots in the woods. At the time of battle, three officers and several of the Rangers were suffering from ague. Brant himself had been wounded in the foot in a previous engagement, but that was healing nicely.29 It seemed to Butler that the best course to take would be to withdraw in order to avoid a disastrous defeat and seek out “a more advantageious situation.” For the present, they should follow guerrilla tactics, sending out strong parties “along the Heights to harass the Enemy upon their March and keep them in perpetual alarms.” Captain Brant agreed wholeheartedly and labored unsuccessfully with the Indians to make them see the wisdom of this tactic. But the Indians would not be moved. This was Delaware country, and the Delawares stood firm for meeting the enemy at this place rather than permitting them to reach their nearby villages. The other

210

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Indians— a number of them against their better judgment— agreed. Butler somewhat despondently described the hopelessness of the situation: “The Delawares had pointed out a Place where they said the Enemy ought to be opposed, and the Senecas and others in consequence of this were obsti­ nately determined to meet them in a Body, and I of course was obliged to comply.” 30 Butler then sent his baggage off in the care of a few of the men who were too sick to fight and marched with his force about a mile to the spot the Indians had chosen. “It was a Ridge of about half a mile in length, to the right of which lay a large Plain extending to the River and terminating in a narrow pass near our Encampment, so that having possession of the Heights we would have greatly the advantage should the Enemy direct their march that way; on our left was a steep mountain, and a large creek in Front at a little Distance.” 31 The men then set to work cutting logs which they threw up as a breast­ work in front of the lines. Timber was also obtained from some Indian dwellings near the ambuscade. These were dismantled in order to make use of the wood for the breastworks. Where the wall was low, the men dug holes to afford them more protection as they lay stretched out. In front they concealed the whole of the fortifications “in a very artful manner” by cutting shrub oaks and placing them before the logs. Unfortunately for their plans of surprise, not only had their camp fires been detected but the sound of their axes was “heard distinctly” in the American camp.32 A large party of Indians was sent to occupy the steep mountain to the left across the creek, where it would be in readiness to fall on the Ameri­ can right flank. On the right behind the breastworks, Brant and McDonell were posted with their companies. McDonell was in charge of sixty Rang­ ers, while Joseph Brant commanded his Indians and thirty white volun­ teers. The center was occupied by the fourteen British soldiers from the 8th Regiment and the remainder of the Indians and Rangers. Butler placed his son Walter in charge of the Rangers, and he himself gave his entire at­ tention to the Indians. Here they lay concealed and waited from “noon until Sunset,” when they learned from their scouts that the Americans had encamped not far from Chemung. They then moved back to their camp to spend the night. The next morning the whole force again moved into position and waited the entire day. They had overestimated the speed with which Sullivan’s army was moving through the rough country. The Continentals covered only three miles on August 28 and encamped at Chemung. The Indians

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

211

and Loyalists again returned to their camp after a fruitless day’s wait. Most of their supplies and baggage had been sent off on the first day of preparation. As a result, the men were forced to undergo much hardship. Despite the abundance of growing fields about them, their rations were re­ stricted to seven ears of corn a day per person. For the whole week that they had thus far spent in the vicinity of Newtown, they had subsisted mainly upon corn, with an additional ration of five small cattle, which pro­ vided a very insignificant portion of meat.33 At daybreak on Sunday, August 29, the Rangers and Indians again crawled into position and waited impatiently for the rebels to approach. Some of the Indians had taken it upon themselves to alter the left flank, entirely without orders and without the opposition of the chiefs. The left was turned “quite the contrary way from its original situation’’ and opened the way for the later successful flanking by the American army. There the ambushers remained, stretched out under the hot sun and without food or water until me first of the American troops appeared below at two o’clock.34 Sullivan’s troops had left Chemung at 9:00 a .m ., observing every cau­ tion, as a considerable force of the enemy was known to be nearby. Mor­ gan’s riflemen reconnoitering ahead discovered a party of Indian scouts and exchanged fire with them. The riflemen soon detected the breastworks and sent notice back to Sullivan. General Hand, in advance, halted in the woods and waited for the main army to come up, while the riflemen in front kept the Indians occupied. Parties of redmen would appear a little distance, then retreat, hoping to draw the Americans into the trap. The army deployed behind Hand’s brigade— Poor on the right and Maxwell on the left, and both in readiness. The staff held a council and surveyed the area where their opponents lay hidden. Far off across the creek and forming a point to the right and rear of the army was a high chain of hills. It would be a fit location for an enemy post. Reconnoitering parties were sent out to ascertain if either of the hills was occupied. Poor was ordered around to the right to make an assault on the left flank of the breastworks and to come around the rear of the enemy. Clin­ ton was to follow behind Poor as both a reserve force and a protective guard to the New Englanders’ rear. Colonel Dubois of the Fifth New York Regiment was detached with two hundred fifty men and advanced along Poor’s right. Colonel Matthias Ogden was stationed by the river bank on the left to cut off any escape in that quarter. Hand’s brigade was assigned to a position in the front of the breastworks and was backed by Maxwell’s

212

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

brigade. Proctor’s artillery, also stationed there, would begin a cannonade while Poor performed a flanking movement.35 Major Butler surmised Sullivan’s plan and attempted to persuade the Indians to withdraw to the mountain which would be more advantageous to defend and which would prevent their escape route from being cut off. Brant and Fish Carrier also came to Butler with the same plan. The Indi­ ans, however, stubbornly refused to budge.36 Poor’s and Clinton’s troops struggled for a mile through a thick swamp which caused more delay than had been anticipated. A large creek then re­ mained to be forded after the ordeal of the morass. On both sides of this creek were the houses of a newly built town, with fields yet uncultivated. The army rushed by and began to ascend the hill. Meanwhile, before Poor and Clinton had quite reached their appointed stations, Proctor’s artillery let loose a heavy fire of round shot, grape shot, and iron spikes into the fortifications, which caused much yelling and alarm among the Indians. The defenders were soon obliged to retreat from the forward positions. Many of the “bursting balls,” as the Indians called them, fell and exploded beyond the lines, which made the Indians think that the Americans had surrounded them. Red Jacket was the first to turn and run, and others soon followed his example, many never stopping until they had reached their villages. Unfortunately for the others who remained to fight, many of these early deserters seized the baggage horses and rode off on them, the better to facilitate their flight.37 The Rangers and remaining Indians continued skirmishing along the hill with the Americans until the latter had nearly encircled them. Their small force already reduced by the runaways, they were forced to retreat, making their way the best they could and carrying their wounded with them. On the field behind them, they left eleven dead warriors and one woman killed. Some of the Continentals fired after the canoes bearing away the wounded, but with no effect. The retreat was hasty but skillfully carried out. Butler paid the highest tribute to Brant and Sayenqueraghta. They, with several other chiefs and warriors, fought courageously to the last.38 It was the swamp and creek below which had saved the Indians and Rangers from what would have been a disastrous mauling. These impedi­ ments had held back Poor’s and Clinton’s advance longer than expected. As a consequence, Proctor opened his artillery barrage before the two commanders were in an advantageous position. The artillery fire thus forced the Indians and Rangers out of their fortifications before the Ameri­ cans could completely encircle them.39

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

213

The main army pursued the retreating British partisans for about a mile, and the light corps chased them for two miles further, but all without success. The retreating party gathered together at Nanticoke Town, about five miles from the battlefield, procured their baggage, and camped a few miles farther on. In the evening, Captain Walter Butler with several offi­ cers and forty men, who had been feared lost, came in and joined the main party. The Americans had lost their prey but contented themselves with burning one town and scalping the Indian warriors who lay dead on the field.40 The Americans had three dead and thirty-nine wounded, some of them seriously. Lieutenant McCauley died the next morning after an amputa­ tion. Most of the casualties were in Poor’s brigade, which had taken the brunt of the fighting. Butler placed his losses at twenty-two: “of the Rang­ ers we had five men killed or taken and three wounded, and of the Indians five killed and nine wounded.” He had underestimated the Indian losses, for immediately after the battle, the Americans discovered fourteen dead warriors on the field. There may have been more. When so many warriors deserted early in the battle, it would be difficult to give an accurate count of killed and missing. The prisoners taken by the Americans after the bat­ tle and at other towns along the route later placed the number of their killed and wounded as considerable. So overawed were the Indians by their defeat that they shied away from any future pitched battle with the Americans during the entire campaign.41 On Monday, August 30, the day after the battle, nearly half the army was out cutting down the corn. These were the most extensive fields of crops yet seen. Corn, beans, potatoes, squash, pumpkins, cucumbers, and watermelons grew in unbelievable abundance. Some of the cornstalks were sixteen feet high. Nothing, however, was to be left behind in an edible condition. It is the business of a soldier to know how to kill, but the busi­ ness of this campaign would prove a strange task indeed for men at arms — a warfare against vegetables. While most of the soldiers were busy destroying the crops, others amused themselves in various ways. Lieutenant William Barton reported: “At the request of Maj. Piatt, sent out a small party to look for some of the dead Indians— returned without finding them. Toward noon they found them and skinned two of them from their hips down for boot legs: one pair for the Major and the other for myself.” 42 Because of the scantiness of the provisions and the abundance of fresh vegetables, General Sullivan gathered together the army and requested the men to be content with half allowance while food could be gathered by the

214

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

wayside. He was answered with a ringing three cheers which drowned out the few dissenting groans. In the evening, the general ordered the wounded, all the wagons, and four of the heaviest cannon returned to Tioga by boat. Not the least joy of the army was to be unencumbered of the unwieldy artillery. With plans made for the march on the morrow, the men were in excellent spirits. Al­ ready they had conquered mountains, ravines, rivers, forest, Butler, and Brant. Butler correctly understood the gravity of a defeat at Newtown. It was the place the Indians themselves had chosen to make their stand. From what could be gathered from Indian prisoners later, the Indian losses had been great. The Iroquois had been unable to repulse the invader at the doorway to their country. The rebel colossus was now rampaging through their homeland. What would become of the people of the Longhouse? Again Butler made a desperate appeal: “The Consequences of this affair will, I fear, be of the most serious nature unless there is speedily a large Reinforcement sent into the Country: at any rate those Families whose Villages and Corn have been destroyed will be flocking into Niagara to be supported, and you know the quantity of Provisions that this will consume.” 43 “Too little and too late” might well have been the motto of General Frederick Haldimand. On September 3, he wrote to Butler that he had or­ dered Sir John Johnson with three hundred eighty men besides Indians to go to the rescue of the Six Nations. By the time Sir John was ready to leave Canada, Sullivan would have come and gone. Even had he been in Indian country a month previously, his small force would have been of lit­ tle effect against the overwhelming numbers that made up the American army.44 The western wing of the expedition was proceeding with similar good fortune. Brodhead had left Fort Pitt on September 11; ten miles below Conawago * he had his first skirmish. An advance guard of fifteen white soldiers and eight Delaware warriors discovered an Indian reconnoitering party of between thirty and forty men coming along the Allegheny River in their canoes. The party was largely Seneca, with a few Delawares. Brod­ head ordered his troops into action, but the Indians escaped after a brief * Also spelled Canawago in old documents and Connawango (Hodge) and Ganawagon (Fenton). This was the old site of what is now Warren, Pennsylvania. See Wallace L. Chafe, Handbook of the Seneca Language (Albany: New York State Ed­ ucation Department, 1963), p. 57, for a modern linguistic rendering of this name.

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

215

exchange of fire in which they had a few killed, including Dahgahswagaheh and Dagagahsud. Hutgueote, or the Arrow— known as Redeye by the whites—jumped into the river and swam under water, coming up periodi­ cally for air while the bullets splashed about him. In this fashion, he was able to reach an island in the river and swim around its lower end, thus eluding his tormentors.45 Brodhead encountered no more opposition on his march northward against the Seneca and Delaware towns. The Indians flew before him even as they did before Sullivan. On the evening of September 1, Sullivan reached Catherine’s Town, or Shechquago, just south of Seneca Lake. The next morning the army pro­ ceeded to destroy the village with its crops and gathered in the livestock for the use of the soldiers. They found in hiding there a very aged Cayuga woman whom Lieutenant Beatty estimated to be one hundred twenty years old. They wanted to send her on after the Indians who had fled from the village, but she was too feeble to travel; so, Sullivan’s Indians built her a shelter and the army left her there with ample provisions.46 The army marched up the eastern side of Seneca Lake, destroying scat­ tered settlements, and came, on September 5, to Kendaia or Appletown, a village of twenty houses. Some were quite sturdily built of hewn logs. There were a few peach trees and a large apple orchard, some trees of which were quite old. Here they found Luke Swetland who had been taken prisoner the year before at Wyoming and adopted into an Indian family. They laid waste the settlement and continued their march northward to­ ward Kanadesaga, one of the chief Seneca towns and the one where the Rangers had their encampment. Butler had been attempting to rally the Indians for a defense of Kana­ desaga, and to persuade them to assist him in harassing the enemy along their line of march. The Indians, however, had been thoroughly intimi­ dated both by Sullivan’s numbers and by their defeat at Newtown. As the rebels drew closer, and as no help came from Canada or Niagara, the war­ riors disappeared into the forest, taking their families to safety. Nearly a hundred of the Rangers were sick with fever and ague and unfit for service. With so few white men to support them, the great majority of the Indian warriors believed an attack upon the army would be futile and thought only of removing their families from danger.47 While the army was yet advancing on Kanadesaga, Red Jacket and a companion went out into the woods to reconnoiter. Red Jacket killed a cow and smeared his hatchet with blood. When they returned to the vil-

216

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

läge, he boasted of having killed an American. His companion thought the joke too good to keep quiet and exposed the fraud to the rest, who enjoyed themselves enormously at Red Jacket’s expense. Brant ever afterwards contemptuously referred to the pusillanimous Seneca as “the cow killer.” Red Jacket had a brilliant mind and would later become one of the most renowned orators in his nation. His strength was in the council rather than on the field of battle.48 Kanadesaga was as impressive to Sullivan’s troops as had been the other Indian villages. There were fifty well-built houses, apple, peach, and cherry orchards, and extensive fields of corn and other vegetables. The army spent September 7 and 8 destroying this settlement. Sullivan also sent parties out to the east and down the west shore of Seneca Lake to burn the nearby villages. The army proceeded marching westward from Kanadesaga and de­ stroying the Seneca communities in its way. Kanandaigua and Honeoye were devastated and a strong garrison left at the latter place. The army then turned southward to Kanaghsaws, Great Tree’s town. While a part of the army busied itself leveling this village, another part built a bridge over a creek so that the soldiers could proceed westward. Here Sullivan sent out a small scout headed by Lieutenant Thomas Boyd to find and reconnoiter the Genesee Castle, or Chenussio. Boyd took a larger party than Sullivan had anticipated. Twenty-six men went along with him on this assignment, including Lieutenant Hanyost Thaosagwat. Boyd’s guides were unfamiliar with the territory, and the party lost its way in the dark. They came to the recently abandoned village of Gathtsegwarohare. Boyd sent two of his men back to carry intelligence of his activ­ ity to General Sullivan and waited with the remainder of his detachment on the outskirts of the village until daylight. The next morning, Boyd’s party killed one man seen entering the village and wounded another. The dead man was scalped and mutilated. Two others escaped. The reconnoitering party then turned back to meet Sullivan.49 John Butler was at Kanawagoras on September 8 working with the chiefs, trying to collect all the Indians and Rangers possible to make one last stand against the American army. On September 12, a force of four hundred Indians and whites left Kanawagoras to plan an ambush of the army still at Kanaghsaws. The bridge that the Continentals were building led into a swamp. The Indians lay hidden in front of the swamp and planned to permit part of the army to pass over and then attack them be­ fore the rear could come to their assistance. Among the notables partici-

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

217

pating in this ambush scheme were Sayenqueraghta, Brant, Sagwarithra, Complanter, Little Beard, Fish Carrier, and Blacksnake. On September 13, as they lay in wait for the Americans to come up, they heard firing off to their right. Lieutenant Boyd and his party had un­ intentionally walked into the ambush, meeting with the Indian flankers. The Indians who still remained hidden thought they had been discovered and sallied out. Even though they totally defeated Boyd’s party, they had now spoiled their ambush and departed, leaving blankets and other cloth­ ing behind. Only Boyd’s flankers escaped. The lieutenant and Michael Par­ ker were taken prisoner. Also taken prisoner was the Americans’ Oneida scout, Lieutenant Thaosagwat, with the scalp of the recently slain Seneca at his belt. His elder brother was in the Indian party fighting for the Brit­ ish and immediately began to berate his younger brother, reminding him how he had tried at the beginning of the war to persuade him to follow his lead and support the king. He accused his brother of treachery and told him he deserved death. He, however, could not raise his hand against his own brother, but the Senecas might do as they pleased with him. Little Bear then stepped up and struck Thaosagwat dead with his sword.50 All the soldiers killed by the Indians, including Thaosagwat, were then scalped and mutilated. The Oneida lieutenant’s body was treated with the most indignity and was hacked to pieces. Major Butler questioned Lieutenant Boyd and then sent him and Par­ ker under Ranger guard to Genesee Castle, or Little Beard’s Town, in­ tending to convey them to Niagara. As soon as the Rangers with their pris­ oners entered the village, however, they were overpowered and the two men wrested from them. Both Parker and Boyd were tortured in the most excruciating manner, being whipped, stabbed, having their nails, tongues, and eyes plucked out, and their ears cut off, and finally being decapitated. Mary Jemison, who was a resident of Little Beard’s Town, said that Boyd’s belly was opened and his intestines drawn out, but none of the sol­ diers who kept diaries on the expedition and who viewed Boyd’s remains mentioned this detail. These two men were tortured as a gift to the god of war. By their pain and their sufferings they removed the pain and torment from the spirit of those who had been slain by the rebel army.51 Sullivan’s army destroyed Gathtsegwarohare on the east side of the Gen­ esee River, then marched northward looking for Genesee Castle. To Sul­ livan’s surprise, there was no longer a village on that spot. It was now moved to the west bank of the river. The army moved over the river and on September 14 entered the largest town they had yet encountered. There

218

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

were one hundred twenty-eight houses situated on a flatlands and sur­ rounded by extensive fields of corn and all kinds of vegetables. Here also they found the bodies of Boyd and Parker, which they buried with full military honors. After Little Beard’s Town had been destroyed, Sullivan turned his army about and headed homeward, certain that there were no more settle­ ments west of the Genesee River. There were still the Cayuga settlements to be destroyed, and Sullivan was anxious to complete this task. He had, however, overlooked a few significant Seneca villages such as Kanawagoras, Karachadeia, and Kadaragoras. At Kanandaigua, four Oneida Indians came to Sullivan with a message from their nation asking that the Cayuga villages be spared. Sullivan was not inclined to accept these peaceful solicitations for the Cayugas at this late date. He sent Lieutenant Colonel William Butler with five hundred men to destroy the Cayuga settlements on the eastern side of Cayuga Lake and Colonel Henry Dearborn with two hundred men to destroy those on the west side. Colonel Peter Gansevoort was dispatched with one hundred men to proceed by way of the Mohawk River to destroy the lower Mo­ hawk castle at Fort Hunter. Canajoharie, the upper castle, was already oc­ cupied by the Oriska Indians who were friendly to the Americans. The army then turned back toward Tioga, demolishing in its way iso­ lated settlements that it had missed on the march up. In all, forty villages, numerous isolated houses, at least one hundred sixty thousand bushels of corn, and an uncounted quantity of other vegetables had been destroyed on the expedition. Fewer than forty men had been lost in the whole enter­ prise. Colonel Brodhead had had a similar success and razed a number of Delaware and Seneca towns along the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania and New York. At Dunosahadahgah, where Cornplanter would later settle after the war, the Indians gathered up their corn and other possessions, took them to the east side of the river, and buried them. This much, at least, escaped the ravage of the Americans. On the upper Allegheny, the Americans devastated Yoghroonwago and seven other towns. On the way back, they burned Conawago, Buchloons, and Mahusquechikoken. Like the officers and men in Sullivan’s army, Brodhead and his men were im­ pressed by the advanced state of civilization of these Indians. “The greatest part of the Indian houses were larger than common, and built of square & round logs & frame work,” he wrote Washington. “From the great quantity of Corn in new Ground & the number of new houses Built &

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

219

Building it appears that the whole Seneca & Muncy nations intended to collect to this settlement which entends about eight Miles on the Allegheny River, between one hundred & seventy & two hundred Miles from hence [Fort P itt] B r o d h e a d reported that he had destroyed approximately five hundred acres of corn and vegetables at the very least. The plunder taken was immense, and he held a sale of it in order to divide the proceeds among his troops. He arrived back at Fort Pitt on September 14, full of praise for the stamina and loyalty of his men, many of whom had finished the campaign barefooted and without sufficient blankets and clothing.52 Colonel Gansevoort and his troops were received with great hospitality as they passed through the Tuscarora and Oneida villages on their way to the Fort Hunter settlement. On September 29, Gansevoort surprised the lower Mohawk castle and took every inhabitant prisoner. Only four houses in the village were then occupied, the other Mohawks having fled to the British. He was preparing to destroy the settlement when a number of white frontier inhabitants who had themselves been burned out prevailed upon him to let them move into the houses. Gansevoort complied, let the whites occupy the houses, and took an inventory of all the Indian goods, refusing to permit his troops to plunder. He then sent a letter to Sullivan, via General Washington, explaining his reasons for acting contrary to his orders in this respect and noting further, “this Castle is in the Heart of our Settlements, and abounding with every Necessary so that it is remarked that the Indians live much better than most of the Mohawk River farmers their Houses very well furnished with all necessary Household utensils, great plenty of Grain, several Horses, cows and waggons.” The Mohawk prisoners he took to Albany and secured them in the fort prior to remov­ ing them to headquarters.53 When Philip Schuyler heard about Sullivan’s orders to destroy the Mo­ hawk settlement, he was highly disturbed. He wrote a letter to Gansevoort which reveals his philosophy as a public servant and his views on the ne­ cessity of keeping the national honor. Having perused Gen1 Sullivan’s orders to you respecting the In­ dians of the Lower Mohawk Castle and their Property, I conceive they are founded on Misinformation given to that Gentleman. These Indians have peaceably remained there under the Sanction of the Public faith repeatedly given them by the Commissioners of Indian affairs on Condition of peaceable demeanor, this Contract they have not violated to our Knowledge. It is therefore Incumbent on us as servants of the Public to Keep the Public faith Inviolate— And we

220

The Iroquois in the American Revolution therefore intreat you to postpone the sending the Indians from hence untill the pleasure of his Excellency General Washington can be ob­ tained, and a Letter is Already dispatched to him on the Occasion and in which we have mentioned this application to you.54

General Washington concurred with Schuyler and ordered the immediate release of the Mohawks.55 Did the Indian expedition accomplish its purpose? Washington had wanted to break the Indian power and make the frontiers safe. The expedi­ tion achieved neither of these aims. It succeeded in chastising the Indians but not in subduing them. Major Jeremiah Fogg concluded his diary of the campaign with the following perceptive comment: “The nests are de­ stroyed, but the birds are still on the wing.” 56 The Americans could not conquer the Iroquois because they could neither hold the territory they had invaded nor bring the Indians to terms. Only the capture of Niagara could have induced the Iroquois to sue for peace. Even had Niagara been taken, we do not know for certain that the Indians would have abandoned the war; with this post still in the hands of the British, however, they would receive every encouragement to continue their alliance and their hostilities. Niagara now would become their place of refuge. The destruction of their own country would actually serve to make them more dependent upon the British. Had they abandoned the king at this point, who would have fed and clothed them? Surely not the Americans. The war now became very personal to the Iroquois. If they did not have a cause before, they had one now. They would not lay down the hatchet until the British did, and then, only reluctantly. The expedition had some other significant effects. It opened up to view a hitherto uncharted country and revealed to the soldiers a land of rich soil and luxuriant growth. When the war was over, many of those soldiers would covet for their own homesteads the lands they had passed through. Surprisingly also, the expedition disclosed to the whites, who had always termed the redmen “savages,” that these Indians were living in a state of civilization equal to, and often better than, that of the frontier whites. For the Indians, however, the immediate effect of the invasion was one of temporary despair and resentment against the British, whom they held to blame for their misfortunes. Necessity, though, overcame their resent­ ment, and they flocked into Niagara to be fed, housed, and clothed. On September 21, there were five thousand thirty-six Indians around the fort expecting assistance. Corn and other supplies had to be procured from Canada and Detroit. In order to protect the garrison of the fort from a

OUR CHILDREN TREMBLED

221

G eorge W ashington. Painting by Charles Willson Peale. After the Sullivan-Clinton

Expedition, the Iroquois named Washington ‘Town Destroyer.” This is still the Iro­ quois name for the president of the United States. Because of his just dealings with the Iroquois in later years, Washington was the only white man permitted to enter the Indians’ heaven, according to the teaching of the Seneca religious leader, Hand­ some Lake. C o u r te s y o f T h e P e n n s y lv a n ia A c a d e m y o f th e F in e A r ts , P h ila d e lp h ia , P e n n s y lv a n ia , S arah H a rriso n B e q u e s t

222

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

food shortage of its own, the officers of the Indian department and the commander of the garrison urged the Indians to settle in the few villages that had not been destroyed or to form temporary settlements elsewhere. Mary Jemison went to Gardow flats to live, where she hired herself out as a farmhand to two runaway Negroes who had a plantation there. By Octo­ ber 2, the total number of refugees at the fort was reduced to thirty-six hundred seventy-eight. By November 21, it was twenty-nine hundred. Guy Johnson, now returned and in charge of Indian affairs, tried to get the numbers to go to Carleton Island to be cared for there rather than staying about Niagara, but the Indians were reluctant to separate and even sus­ pected the British had some “evil Design” in so urging them. They consid­ ered it more important than ever to stay together for self-protection, and refused to be scattered on the rebels’ account. Johnson did persuade a large number to go out on the winter hunt and so lessen the total who had to be provisioned at the fort. For many months, a large proportion of the Iroquois would remain dependents of the British. When they were finally encouraged “to go and plant” and establish new settlements, it would be under the oversight of British officers.57 The invasion was an event the Indians would never forget. It had struck a terror into them. It had effectively disrupted their way of life for many months. It had destroyed some of their own independence in throw­ ing them so completely upon the British, but it had not conquered their spirit. Their arm’was still strong and their axe was still sharp. They gath­ ered themselves together and attempted to carry on the old way in a new setting. More important still, they determined to have their revenge upon the people who had caused them so much misery. The Americans would be made to pay dearly for their recent excursion into the land of the Longhouse.

IX

The Path o f Vengeance

T he A m e r ic a n a r m ie s had no sooner left Iroquois country than the Indi­

ans were planning retaliation. Stung by their losses and bitter over their in­ ability to halt or inhibit the destructive march of their enemies, they determined to strike back and strike hard. John Butler had complained that if the British had but contributed five hundred troops, a thousand war­ riors instead of three hundred would have joined with his Rangers and would have given Sullivan reason to repent of his expedition. Without ade­ quate support, the Indians could do little but carry their families out of harm’s way. The battle of Newtown had been too severe a setback to per­ mit more optimism during the remainder of the campaign. Once the op­ posing armies had departed, the Indians could then assess their damages and, impelled by a spirit of revenge, regain their morale.1 Sir John Johnson had been sent by Haldimand to Indian country with his Royal Yorkers, a detachment of the 34th Regiment, a company of Ger­ man Chasseurs, and Captain Alexander Frazer with a force of Canadian Indians. He arrived at Niagara on October 5, in company with Guy John­ son, prepared to march against the enemy’s fort at Tioga. Being convinced by Colonel Bolton and Major Butler that the season was too far advanced and the provision too short for the three-hundred-mile trip, he determined rather to cut off the Oneida village. Accordingly, with the addition of one hundred fifty Rangers, he sailed for Oswego with his little army on October 10 and arrived on October 13. Major Butler followed him a few days later with a body of Indians. Brant had gone by land with his men and was late in arriving. The other Indians, particularly those from Canada, objected strenuously to an attack on the Oneidas. The whole enterprise was there­ upon abandoned, and the troops left on October 26 for winter quarters.2 The winter of 1779-80 was one of the most bitter in the memory of those then living. For a long while, a five-foot-deep snow covered the ground and the temperature remained well below freezing. So severe was the weather that deer and other animals perished in large numbers. Indians 223

224

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

out hunting had much difficulty in obtaining even a small amount of game to feed their families. Not only had their crops been destroyed by the Americans, but even nature seemed to have conspired against them. The sufferings of the Iroquois were intense that winter, and numbers of them succumbed to freezing and starvation. Had the Americans been aware of the true condition of these people, they might have seen the hand of the Almighty in their sufferings. It seemed, though, that the Almighty played no favorites. The New Yorkers also had lost their farm produce through natural causes that fall. Governor George Clinton commented mournfully on the troubles of his people at that time: “Bending under a load of Debt, and groaning under an accumulation of Distress We entered the year 1780 with universal Dismay, as the Hand of God had been upon us in blasting our crops the preceeding Harvest.” 3 Early in February of 1780, the Iroquois war chiefs began recruiting war parties, making snow shoes, and preparing to go out on an early cam­ paign. On the first of the month, Hojiagede * or Fish Carrier of the Cayugas announced to Colonel Guy Johnson that he had gathered together eigh­ ty-eight of his people for a war party and apologized that it could not be more because a number of warriors were yet out on the hunt. Preparatory ritual ceremonies were always necessary before departure for war. Because of the loss of so many of their principal men in the conflict, the Indians had either neglected or even forgotten much of the ancient war ritual. When these leading men were taken from among their nations by death, the knowledge of the old ceremonies was frequently lost also. Those who knew the rituals only imperfectly were not qualified to conduct them. If a leader left out any of the necessary phrases in the ceremony, or misspoke his lines, disaster was certain to overtake the expedition. Fish Carrier ex­ plained to Colonel Johnson that they could no longer perform their old customs with the former exactitude. “We have for some Time past substi­ tuted the smaller kettle, and the small Canoes (in which only a Part join) to the large kettle and great Canoe, which signified that the whole Confed­ eracy were engaged in the Expedition.” On the evening of February 7, Joseph Brant and some of his warriors held their war dance at the home of Colonel Johnson. The party that was to go out with Brant was too large for Johnson’s house so the rest of them had their dance at their camp. On February 10, Captain Shinop of the Nanticokes appeared before Johnson with his war party of twenty-one and * Fish Carrier’s name is given as Kingagegeghte in the old documents but at Ho­ jiagede in Hodge, Handbook of American Indians, I, 392. It is a hereditary title.

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

225

announced that they would be off in a few days. He had a promise that some of the Shawnees would join with him. By February 11, a large war party of two hundred thirty Indians and six whites was ready to leave. In addition to Fish Carrier’s eighty-eight Cayugas and Tederighroonoes (Tuteloes), it included Mohawks, Onondagas, Senecas, Delawares, and warriors from the villages of Onoquaga and Owego. Brant and Captain Nelles of the foresters were in charge. The chief warriors were Fish Carrier and Tagaais of the Cayugas and David Karaghqunty and Tekarihogea of the Canajoharie Mohawks. The latter was the leading Turtle Clan sachem and Brant’s brother-in-law.* As they left, they were complimented by a salute of four guns from the fort.4 Brant was one day along on his journey when he met a party of four “rebel Indians” on their way to the fort with a message from General Philip Schuyler to Guy Johnson. One of them was Brant’s former fatherin-law, Skenandon from Oneida. He was the Oneidas’ leading war chief and a firm friend of the Americans. When Schuyler asked for volunteers to go to Niagara with his message to Johnson and a special message for the Indians, none of the younger men offered to undertake so dangerous a mission in such an inclement season. Skenandon, who was about seventythree at the time, offered his services. Agorondajats, or Good Peter, of­ fered to accompany him. Two Mohawks from Fort Hunter also volun­ teered. These were Tigoransera, better known as the sachem Little Abraham, and Unaquandahoojie. The latter was known by the whites var­ iously as Johannes Schrine, John Crine, and White Hans.5 When Brant met these four, he hurriedly sent a letter back to Guy Johnson at Niagara warning him of their approach and expressing his con­ cern lest they stop off to talk with other Indians along the way. He could not spare men from his war party to escort them to Niagara, but held them up one day in order to give Johnson an opportunity to send a guard out after them. Johnson sent Captain Powel in charge of two white men and four Indians to fetch Schuyler’s emissaries and to make sure that they held no communication with any other Indians.6 When they were brought into the fort, they were taken directly to Johnson. The superintendent received them before Major Lernoult and the * The title of Tekarihogea is that of a civil or peace chief. It was unusual for sachems to go on the warpath and still retain their status and titles as peace chiefs. Sagwarithra, or Dragging Spear, a Tuscarora Turtle Clan sachem, also served the British on the warpath all during the Revolution while retaining his sachem's title. In later years, Brant’s son John inherited the title of Tekarihogea, being so desig­ nated by his mother Catherine after the death of her brother.

226

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

officers of the Indian department, and told them of his surprise and deep regret and disappointment that they had deserted their engagements after he had left them several years before and gone in an opposite direction from the rest of the Confederacy. Little. Abraham, speaking for himself and the others, expressed a desire to live in peace with both sides. He thereupon delivered Schuyler’s letter regarding an exchange of prisoners. After Johnson had read this, the Indian emissaries informed him that they wished, on their own account, to have a meeting in Johnson’s presence with the other Indians. They also delivered up a packet of letters from Loyalists to their friends and kin at Niagara.7 Johnson then brought in Kanonraron, or Captain Aaron Hill, the Mo­ hawk chief, and repeated before the whole group the substance of what had passed. He then had the four taken to private quarters in the fort where they could have no intercourse with the other Indians. The next day, he consulted with Sayenqueraghta about what to do with the four. Sayenqueraghta promised to consult with the chiefs and return an answer to the superintendent. On the afternoon of February 14, the four emissaries were again brought in and examined separately. Sayenqueraghta first examined Skenandon and asked his business there at the fort. The Oneida replied that he come on a mission of peace. He regretted the deplorable situation the Six Nations were now in as a result of their hostile activities. He and his com­ panions wished to request the Indians to return and settle on their old lands and live peacefully henceforth, lest their continued warfare drive them to destruction. Sayenqueraghta was indignant. He told Skenandon that the past conduct of the Oneidas belied his professed concern for the welfare of the rest of the Six Nations. It was the duty of the Oneidas, as the Eastern Door of the Confederacy, to give warning of an enemy inva­ sion; instead, Oneida warriors had led the enemy directly into their terri­ tory. As for the proposal to settle again in their country, it was ridiculous as there was now nothing left.8 Skenandon was taken out and Little Abraham brought in for question­ ing. He very readily told his listeners that the Continental Congress was ready to offer peace to the Six Nations if they would but return to their own country and remain quiet. If they did not accept this offer, no further terms would be given. Schuyler had requested him, he said, to tell Colonel Johnson that if he were really the friend of the Indians, he would encour­ age them “to embrace this offer, and save themselves from Ruin.” 9 The chiefs were to have held a meeting on February 15 to decide what

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

227

to do about the request of the four Indians sent by Schuyler, but the ven­ erable warrior Sayenqueraghta and some of the other chiefs were a little in liquor that day. The meeting was accordingly postponed until the chiefs could think more clearly.10 On February 17, a meeting was held with Johnson and his officers, the Six Nations chiefs, and the messengers from Philip Schuyler. Little Abra­ ham then arose, first paying his respects to Johnson, and in the name of the sachems delivered his plea for neutrality and peace to the assembled Indians. Good Peter then spoke in the name of the warriors, giving his ap­ proval to Little Abraham’s appeal, and begging that his hearers would ac­ cept the good advice offered them. Following this, he gave a second speech in the name of the women, to the women of the Confederacy, requesting them to exert their influence on the warriors to persuade them to accept this offer. When he had finished, Abraham arose again and presented the proposals of Congress to the assembly. Return again to your old homes and fields, “lay down your arms,” and be assured of the future good will of the American leaders. All these speeches had been verified by several wampum belts. When they had finished speaking, Colonel Johnson said that the other Indians might answer as they pleased, but as for himself, he would have nothing to do with people of their character, and threw their belt back to them con­ temptuously. Sayenqueraghta promised an answer to their speeches when he and the other chiefs had had an opportunity to deliberate on them. Li­ quor was then brought in and the old chief drank to the health of all there, specifically omitting the four messengers. The meeting then concluded and the chiefs returned to their camp.11 The following evening, the meeting reassembled at Johnson’s quarters to give answer to the four Indians. Sayenqueraghta spoke first and re­ marked on the insolence of “such an inconsiderable People” as they were to tell the rest of the Confederacy what to do. He reminded them that the Six Nations had land enough and would settle where they pleased. Aaron Hill, the Mohawk, delivered the main speech, reaffirming the loyalty of the Six Nations to the king. “We have no Reason to be ashamed of what we have done,” he reminded them; “we have acted agreeable to our Treaties and Engagements with our Father the King, with whom our Ancestors have for many ages been connected, and let what will happen we shall never be ashamed to show our Faces, for we have not been De­ ceivers.” Carried away by his own rhetoric, Aaron forgot that the Six Na­ tions had made a treaty of neutrality with the Americans at Albany in

228

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

1775. This treaty had later been ratified by the Grand Council of the Six Nations meeting at Onondaga. In 1777, the Senecas had had a severe struggle with their consciences in deciding whether or not to maintain this treaty when prevailed upon to take up the hatchet against the Americans. It had been the king’s ever-flowing rum and trinkets which had helped them to make up their minds. The Mohawks had perhaps been somewhat less culpable in this respect since their decision for war seemed to have been based more on sentimental attachment to their old allies and desire for personal glory rather than outright bribery as was the case with the Sen­ ecas. Still it could not be denied that many who had given their word at Albany and confirmed it at Onondaga later went back on it.12 Aaron continued, accusing the four hapless envoys of perpetrating falsehoods and coming only to spread confusion among the rest of the Six Nations. He charged them with shameful fraud in pretending their people were neutral: “Have you not taken Prisoners and Scalps at Oswegatchie? Did you not fight against us at Fort Stanwix? Did you not go out to War against the Kings people at Saratoga, the Highlands and other Places? And did not some of you even join the Rebels who invaded our Country, and assist them to destroy us? And yet you have the Assurance to come, while the Hatchet you employed against us is yet in Your Hands, and tell us that you have a great Regard for our Peace and Welfare. Deceitful Set!” The In­ dians, he said, were determined to take no notice of either them or their message. He ended on an ominous note: “This is all we have to say to you; but you must not think of being dismissed yet: we have several Parties lately gone to War, and if we were to let you go now, we know you would run and acquaint Schuyler of them, in Order to shew what useful Spies you are. If we let you go at all, we shall let you know when we think it proper you should set off.” Aaron then returned the belts the four men had brought and the meet­ ing ended. Colonel Johnson gave orders that the four messengers were to be confined in the jail at the fort, and they were taken off to “the black hole”— a windowless, unheated stone vault. Schuyler’s attempts to neutral­ ize the Confederacy thus came to naught but would cause much suffering to the men who had had the courage to undertake this delicate diplomacy. Their harsh and prolonged confinement would later cause the death of Lit­ tle Abraham and at least partially break the wills of the other three. Schuyler’s request for an exchange of prisoners was to have more success, however, for the Tories were anxious to receive their friends and families now in American hands.13

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

229

The Iroquois now had nothing to lose in serving the British. It was useless to ask them to return to their homes and be peaceable, for, as Sayenqueraghta had noted, there now was nothing left. Their homeland had been desolated even more effectively than they had destroyed the Ameri­ can frontier. Even though the women had pleaded with the warriors during Sullivan’s expedition to make peace, the warriors would not. Vengeance now was their legacy. After Brant and his party left the fort on February 11, a number of smaller war parties were constantly going from Niagara toward the fron­ tiers of Pennsylvania and New York. Captain Shinop set out on February 16, his party increased to twenty-five. He would go to war on the Susque­ hanna, in the Wyoming Valley. Men coming in from the hunt saw the war­ riors going out and were fired by a spirit of emulation. Little Beard and Tanaghkewas jointly recniited a party of sixteen and left on February 26. Chew Tobacco and his eight warriors left the next day. Rowland Montour with eight warriors and Fish Hook with fifteen also departed for the war path. For the next eight months, the Iroquois warriors would ravage the white settlements with a steady and furious assault. Between February 11 and July 1, a total of four hundred ninety-five Indians and whites from the Indian department went out on service. After July 1, about four hundred at a time would be ranging the frontiers. The vastly expensive expedition of the previous year had brought no safety and no security to the border­ lands.14 In late February, a group of Onondagas who had gone to live with the Oneidas after the destruction of their village left the latter and proceeded to Niagara, where they arrived in the first part of March. Cakadorie, son of the late Chief Bunt, was leader of the party. They had brought off with them a number of wampum belts which comprised the records of the Con­ federacy. On March 25, Cakadorie delivered up to Colonel Johnson the seven belts that the Americans had presented to the Iroquois between 1775 and 1776 in their councils and treaties with them. One was the origi­ nal covenant belt between the United Colonies and the Six Nations— “a large white Belt of 16 Rows, with two Rows of black Wampum running through it, so as to divide it into three equal Parts, the middle of which represents a Road, and on each side are seven large Squares.” The import of this belt was to keep the road clear between the Colonies and the Six Nations and to guarantee that no blood should be spilled on it. Another belt was of black wampum seven rows wide, with some white beads inter­ mixed in it. One end was torn and shattered, indicating that the Americans

230

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

had struggled so violently for control of this continent that they had bro­ ken loose from the king’s grasp. The next day, Cakadorie brought in the pieces of a large belt given the Six Nations by the Americans. The Onondagas had cut it to bits in anger over the destruction of their village. Thus in turning these belts over to the Americans’ enemy, this portion of the Onondagas demonstrated the nullification of their former friendship with the United States.15 On March 21, the garrison at Skenesboro was surprised by a large party of Indians and captured. There were only thirteen militiamen on duty instead of the forty that were supposed to be there. The commander of Fort Edward feared that his garrison would be the next to fall. Miracu­ lously, it was the only one in the north that would remain unscathed at the end of the campaign.16 On April 7, 1780, a party of Indians and whites led by Captain Brant were on their way to attack Schoharie when they came upon a group of men boiling sap for maple sugar. These fourteen men, commanded by Captain Alexander Harper, had been sent to spy on the Tories around the head of the Delaware, and also to make sugar, if possible. A new snowfall of three feet, added to the old winter’s snowfall, and the fact that Niagara and the enemy were far away, had made them feel secure. The Indians at­ tacked swiftly, killed three instantly, and took the rest prisoner. Brant waved his hatchet above Captain Harper’s head and informed him that he was sorry to find him there and would regretfully have to kill him even though they had been schoolmates in their youth. A sudden important thought then came to Brant and, with hatchet still raised, he asked if there were any troops at the Schoharie fort. Harper saved both himself and his companions by a quick lie, calmly telling Brant that three hundred Conti­ nental troops had come to Schoharie three days previously. At this unex­ pected news, Brant lowered his hatchet, directed that the men be taken prisoner, and held a consultation with his warriors on their next move. At an all-night conference, Brant spoke strongly against those who wanted to kill the prisoners and finally carried the argument, with the support of his five chiefs. It was decided to abandon the attempt on Schoharie and be content to return to Niagara with the prisoners. Harper said later that he and his fellows received good treatment from Brant and Lieutenant John­ son.* The raiders also took captive an elderly resident of the area named Brown and his two small grandsons. * The “Lieutenant Johnson” is possibly Lieutenant Brant Johnson, who is fre­ quently mentioned in the Indian records. He was an Indian son of Sir William John­ son.

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

231

Deeply disappointed at their frustrated attempt on Schoharie, the invad­ ers made their way southward toward Onoquaga and then to the Genesee. This raid signaled to the residents of Tryon County the fact that Schuyler’s attempt at peace made through the four Oneidas and Mohawks that winter would remain unheeded. Brant told one of the captives, whom he would later release with a letter to the Americans, that those four Indians would remain in custody until after the war parties had returned to Niagara.17 After having kept Walter Elliot prisoner for four days, Brant sent him back to the settlements with a letter written in Mohawk and relating to the treatment of prisoners. Samuel Kirkland translated it for the puzzled offi­ cials. It read as follows: That you Bostonians (alias Americans) may be certified of my conduct towards all those whom I have captured in these parts, know that I have taken off with me but a small number. Many have I re­ leased. Neither were the weak and the helpless subjected to death. It is a shame to destroy those who are defenceless. This has been uni­ formly my conduct during the War. I have always been for saving and releasing. These being my sentiments, you have exceedingly an­ gered me by your threatening and distressing those who may be con­ sidered as prisoners. Let there be no more of this conduct. Ye are or once were brave Men. I shall certainly destroy without distinction does the like conduct take place in future. J o seph B rant

on the Delaware, April 10, 1780 18 Despite Brant’s claim, his prisoners were not always gently treated. He was fair to those prisoners just captured and saw that they received the same amount of rations that his warriors did; but he warned that if anyone gave out along the way, he could not expect to live. Live prisoners and scalps brought an equal reward of eight dollars apiece at Niagara. The prisoners were floundering without snowshoes, which the Indians had, and were pressed down with enormous packs. Old Grandfather Brown became too exhausted to go on and asked to be excused. He was turned over to an Indian with face painted black for the occasion who took him to the rear and dispatched him. This warrior returned with the old man’s bald scalp wedged between the ramrod and the barrel of his musket. This scalp he frequently flapped in the faces of the old man’s grandsons to make them step lively. This same fate might have happened to more of the exhausted prisoners if, fortunately for them, Brant had not been suffering from fever and ague on the journey and been compelled to stop frequently to rest. Also, Captain John Wood, who was taken after the Minisink battle and

232

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

who was saved only because Brant thought he was a Freemason, claimed that his fellow prisoners were put to death by the Indians even though they had been in the Indian camp for some time. The Indians generally thought it no cruelty to put to death prisoners seized in battle. Wounded prisoners were also frequently killed either on the battlefield or afterwards, especially if the wound were too serious to permit the prisoner to march off with his captors. A wounded prisoner could, by his inability to keep up, endanger the lives of a fleeing war party. Brant, however, never harmed women or children and was generally humane to male noncombatants. Nor is there any record of his ever having tortured a captive. In this he proved more the exception than the rule in Indian warfare. Mary Jemison’s husband Hiakatoo was a kind and loving father but a ter­ ror on the warpath. She frankly related a few of his many cruelties during the Revolutionary War, which included butchering infants and beating out their brains. The British frequently despaired of keeping their Indian allies from killing women and children and torturing prisoners. Their attempts to induce the Indians to scalp only the dead were also to no avail. Lieuten­ ant Colonel Mason Bolton’s complaints in this regard were typical: “I am really of opinion that to keep the Indians in good Temper (as it’s called) has cost Old England much more than all the Posts are worth, and as to their scalping Women Children and Prisoners I find it not possible to pre­ vent them, such cruelties must make an Expedition very disagreeable to the Kings Troops when order’d on service with them.” For the Indians, torture of prisoners was a religious rite and a human sacrifice. A scalp was a sacred relic having almost magical properties and was a satisfactory substitute for a relative who had been killed in battle. This concept is illustrated in Kayashuta’s speech at a Niagara council in 1780. Holding up a scalp decorated with wampum strings, he announced: “Brothers! This is the Flesh of a Virginian, taken by your Brothers the Shawnese and Delawares of Sciota, which they have sent to you to replace your Chief Sekanade, that he may be once more amongst you.” As long as war remained a way of life for the Indians, they would continue to follow their traditions in regard to it.19 There is one account of Brant’s killing a wounded man. At the Lackawaxen battle near Minisink in 1779, he spied an American militiaman running away. He asked his captive, Captain Wood, who the man was. Wood answered that it was Squire Wisner and pleaded with Brant not to shoot him. Brant called out to Wisner three times to stop and he would

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

233

give him quarters, but the squire only ran the faster. The chieftain there­ upon took a rifle from one of his warriors and shot the fugitive. When he came up to him, he saw that the ball had broken Wisner’s thigh. He told the wounded man that he could not save him as he had to hurry off before the Americans came in pursuit. One account says that Brant thereupon drew his sword and aimed a blow which Wisner blocked with his arm. Brant struck again and split Wisner’s head open. Another account of the incident says that Brant saw that the wound was so serious that he killed Wisner as an act of humanity.20 It must be said, however, that white soldiers were also frequently bru­ tal to prisoners. Indians often complained of the treatment their people re­ ceived when they fell into the hands of whites. At least white prisoners who were fortunate enough to be adopted by the Indians were treated with fairness, and even deep affection, by their new relatives. The whites did not follow a similar custom in regard to their Indian prisoners. Sir John Johnson left Canada with five hundred Indians and whites that spring and penetrated undetected to the neighborhood of Johnstown. On the evening of May 21, he divided his force and at dawn the next day they attacked and laid waste the whole north side of the Mohawk River in the Caughnawaga District of Tryon County from Tribes Hill to a place called Anthony’s Nose, with the exception of a few Tory homes. At least nine inhabitants were killed and thirty-three made prisoners. A twelve or thirteen-mile strip of country was laid bare in the raid. Among the unfor­ tunate victims who lost their lives were the two brothers of Colonel Visscher and Douw Fonda, the aged father of Major Jelles Fonda. Colonel Visscher was himself scalped and badly wounded but survived. Colonel John Harper gathered together three hundred militia and volunteers and followed the raiders as far as Johnstown, but considered them too strong to attempt battle. The inhabitants thus were able to do little save watch their tormentors flee to safety, knowing they would come again to do what they had left undone on their previous trip.21 Misfortune would fall not only upon the white settlements that season, but also upon the Oneidas and Tuscaroras. The British Indians issued threats and exerted strong pressures upon these people to leave their vil­ lages and go to Niagara to join the king’s friends. Wagondenage, an Onon­ daga chief warrior, stopped off at the Tuscarora village of Ganaghsaraga and persuaded the mixed Tuscarora and Onondaga inhabitants to move to Niagara. It was a victory for the British and a blow to the Oneidas, who saw themselves becoming more and more isolated. The Onondagas who

234

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

had joined the Oneidas after the destruction of their village had also left, as had two Oneida families. Since Wagondenage had promised the destruc­ tion of the whole Oneida village, those who remained were exceedingly alarmed. On June 18, four Oneida chiefs had an interview with Colonel Van Dyck, then commanding at Fort Stanwix, and expressed their concern to him. They requested help in moving their families to a place of safety among the whites. The warriors and sachems were nervous and the women terrified at the prospect of imminent destruction. After the warriors had taken their families off, the chiefs promised they would return to Fort Stanwix to do service for the Americans.22 The appeal came too late to save the Oneidas. A war party led by the Mohawk David Hill and Captain John McDonell of the Rangers arrived at Old Oneida on June 24 to threaten the Oneidas and persuade them to join their brethren at Niagara. In answer, the Oneidas complained of the harsh confinement that Skenandon and Peter were being forced to undergo at Ni­ agara. They were disturbed that these chiefs, who had gone there on busi­ ness, had been seized and held in captivity like animals all this while. This had also been a continuing sore point with the pro-British Indians at Niag­ ara, who made repeated appeals to Guy Johnson to release the four. One chieftain in particular felt it a point of honor, for he had assured the four men that if they went to Niagara on this errand they would not be harmed.23 That evening, the Oneida chiefs consulted among themselves on their predicament. The next day, the Seneca chief Spruce Carrier with his war party arrived at the same village, and another council was held. The Onei­ das thereupon “unanimously agreed to come off.” They asked McDonell to send their apologies for their past actions to Colonel Johnson and prom­ ised that they would in the future behave as dutiful children. They re­ quested only that their chiefs be allowed to return to look after their large families. When that was done, they would then be ready to leave for Niag­ ara. Eleven Oneida warriors departed with them.24 Whether the Oneidas were stalling for time, hoping they would not have to leave, or whether they were actually favorable to joining the Brit­ ish cannot presently be fully determined. The weight of evidence would seem to indicate the former. The threats they had received the previous month and the presence of two war parties in their village, with the inabil­ ity of the Americans to protect them in their present plight would be in­ ducement enough for them to agree to the terms imposed upon them by

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

235

their pro-British brethren. Under such duress, they would do what they felt most advisable to protect their families and possessions. On July 2, two hundred ninety-four of these Indians joined the Iro­ quois at Niagara. Of this number, there were one hundred twenty-three Onondagas from the former Onondaga settlements and sixty-one from the Tuscarora village of Ganaghsaraga; seventy-eight Tuscaroras from the lat­ ter place and thirty-two Oneidas from Kanowalohale completed the emi­ grant party. At Niagara they held two councils with Colonel Johnson and told him that their eyes had now been opened and that they were deter­ mined to serve the king.25 Joseph Brant, who had returned to Niagara after his early spring expe­ dition, set off again on July 11 with a party of three hundred Indian war­ riors, twelve white volunteers, and Lieutenant Joseph Clement of the Indian department. With him were fifty-nine of the Onondaga, Oneida, and Tuscarora warriors who had just come in and done penance. One of his main objectives was the Oneida village of Kanowalohale.26 According to elderly Oneida informants who were interviewed in the nineteenth century, Skenandon, to escape a harsh and crippling confine­ ment, agreed to own allegiance to the British. To prove his sincerity, he was compelled to go along on one or more war parties. In describing what must have been typical of the treatment of all the four prisoners at Niag­ ara, Schuyler later said of Good Peter’s ordeal that he “was confined for 150 days in the black hole and then let out on condition of remaining with, and taking part against us.” Skenandon’s role was not only to act as a pilot but to induce the remainder of his tribe to coihe off and join the British. According to tradition handed down in Skenandon’s family, he and Good Peter were with Brant’s expedition to Kanowalohale. The testi­ mony of Jacob Reed, the Oneida interpreter, confirms this tradition, for he claimed that Brant, Skenandon, and Peter had persuaded him and his fam­ ily to leave their village and go to Niagara. Toward the end of July, Brant’s party set fire to the remaining Oneida and Tuscarora settlements, burned the church, and killed what cattle they did not take with them. Skenandon’s fine frame house was among the buildings destroyed. A number of Indians, formerly in the American inter­ est, were induced to go off to Niagara, but four hundred six of them fled to Fort Stanwix, preferring to remain faithful to their former commitments. Seven of this group were Caughnawagas; the remainder were Oneidas and Tuscaroras. One must ponder the significance of Brant’s requiring his for-

236

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

mer father-in-law to go along on such an expedition. If it does not indicate any particular sensitivity to the old man’s feeling, it at least reveals the depth of Brant’s own convictions about the rightness of his cause.27 Skenandon later returned to the Oneidas after the war and confessed his error, pleading extenuating circumstances. The Americans either never knew of his actions or never held them against him. That he was thor­ oughly trusted by the British after his release from prison is proved by the inclusion of his name in the lists of attenders at important Indian councils held at Niagara between 1780 and the end of the war. Johannes Schrine, the Fort Hunter Mohawk who had been confined along with the other peace delegates, also succumbed to like pressure and readily admitted to Schuyler and others after the war that he had been forced to go on war parties against the American frontier. He returned to his home after the war, professing friendship, and put in a claim for losses which Schuyler re­ luctantly approved.28 Early in August, the Canajoharie District was burned. There were about four hundred Indians and Tories under Sayenqueraghta, Cornplanter, and Brant. Sagwarithra of the Tuscaroras and Fish Carrier of the Cayugas were also present at the head of small parties. The Senecas, how­ ever, made up the largest percentage. A few Indian women were also along on this expedition to obtain plunder for themselves. The warriors burned fifty-three houses and a like number of barns, a church, a gristmill, and two small forts. One of the houses destroyed was that of old John Abeel, the Indian trader. He was taken captive and later was recognized among the prisoners by the Senecas. Abeel, in his younger days, had been an active trader among the Senecas. Like so many of his sort, he had a white wife and fam­ ily back home and an Indian concubine in Indian country. It was from Abeel’s union with a Seneca woman that Cornplanter was born. The Sene­ cas informed Cornplanter of his father’s captivity and the latter apologized to him profusely for burning his house. He offered to take him to his own home and provide for him for the remainder of his days. Or, if his father preferred, he would send him back to his white family. The old man pre­ ferred the latter, and Cornplanter dispatched several warriors to take his father safely home. Most of the other prisoners were also released “as a compliment to Cornplanter.” Others of the inhabitants did not fare so well. Abraham Wemple writing to General Ten Broeck about this latest disaster, remarked: “Such a Scean as we beheld since we left the River, passing dead Bodies of Men & Children most cruelly murdered, is not pos-

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

237

sible to be described.” Tenderness and cruelty were both intermixed in this war.29 While the main body of Indians and Tories headed back toward home, a group of thirty Senecas under Cornplanter, Blacksnake, and Gahnawatdeah broke away and went about twenty miles southeast on their own pri­ vate raiding party to get horses. They achieved their objective, killing eight persons and taking two prisoners besides. This action was typical of the way Indian war parties would frequently become fragmented to suit the whims of a few warriors.30 On August 9, Brant and a small party of Indians and whites attacked a portion of the Schoharie settlement around Middle Fort. Eleven members of the Vrooman family were carried into captivity and three of them killed, including the father, mother, and eight-year-old Peter. The young boy had fled at the first sign of the enemy and hidden himself in the bushes. One of the family’s Negro slaves pointed out the hiding place to the Indians, and Peter was dragged out. Frightened and crying, he tried to run away. The Tory Benjamin Beacraft seized him, slit his throat from ear to ear, and then scalped him. In all, they carried off fourteen prisoners. Brant allowed some of the women and children to return later, but young Tunis Vrooman, brother of Peter, was among those retained by the Indi­ ans. He lived in an Indian family a little more than a year, kindly treated and acting as a sort of chore boy, and was then exchanged. On this raid, some senseless cruelties had been committed which, although not attributa­ ble to Brant, did occur under his command. Ironically, on this expedition, Brant sent back another letter again concerned with treatment of prisoners. Two of his friends, Huff and Cool, had been taken prisoners near Esopus. He warned that unless they were well treated, he would be obliged to retaliate on the prisoners he now held. He regretted having to mention this “for it would be disagreeable to me to hurt any Prisoner; therefore, I hope they will not force me.” 31 In October, Tryon County was again devastated over a wide area by Sir John Johnson leading his Royal Yorkers and a detachment of British regulars from Niagara with a party of Butler’s Rangers. Neither Bolton nor John Butler was able to send a large number of men from Niagara on the expedition for both the garrison and the Rangers were “extremely sickly with Fluxes, Fevers, and Agues.” With Johnson was a body of two hundred sixty-five Indians, again under the command of Sayenqueraghta, Cornplanter, and Brant. There were a few Cayugas under Hung Face and some Tuscaroras under Sagwarithra. They entered the country by way of

238

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Oswego, moved on south, then swung northward in a long, rigorous march to descend upon the Schohaire settlement. For the Indians and British, the Schoharie campaign was one of their most severe experiences because of the scarcity of provisions. Hunters were sent out and brought in a consid­ erable quantity of game, especially ducks, but not nearly enough for so large a body of men. The British officers and commissaries rode horses. These were killed to provide food for the men. Even old Sayenqueraghta’s horse, upon which he rode because of his advanced years, was taken with the rest. When they reached the Schoharie settlement, the inhabitants had received timely notice and had either fled or taken cover in the forts and stone houses before they arrived. Cornplanter, Ganiodaio,* and Blacksnake with five other Indians entered one house which the tenants had left with much precipitation. Breakfast was already on the table ready to serve. The eight hungry Senecas helped themselves to the first food they had had in two days, never even bothering to sit down while they hurriedly ate ev­ erything edible they could find. The army ranged over the whole settle­ ment, laying everything in ashes. Even Red Jacket distinguished himself on this expedition by helping ,a group of white and red warriors to batter down the door of one of the stone houses and take the inmates prisoner. As the army was leaving the ruined Schoharie region, several Indians filled some sacks with a white floury substance they had found in some barrels. Later at meal time they mixed their flour with water and put the dough over the fire to bake. Their bread, instead of cooking, fell apart. Some of their comrades examined the “flour” more closely and identified it as slaked lime. The would-be cooks were thereupon the butt of all jokes in the camp.32 The army then turned toward Stone Arabia on the Mohawk and en­ tirely laid waste that settlement. Other parties from Canada seized Fort Ann and Fort George to the north, burned the settlements throughout the Kingsborough and Queensborough sections of Charlotte County, and part of Saratoga. Another group burned Ballston, a few miles northwest of Al­ bany. When they left, hotly pursued by the militia and the Oneida warriors under Colonel Louis, the frontier was in a shambles. Governor Clinton es­ timated that at the very least one hundred fifty thousand bushels of grain and two hundred dwellings had been ruined in this final campaign of the season. “Schenectady may now be said to become the limits of our western * Blacksnake gives the later chiefly name, Ganiodaio, or Handsome Lake, to Cornplanter’s half brother, but he was only a common warrior at the time.

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

239

Frontier,” he lamented. Many of the Loyalists living in these areas took the opportunity to leave with Sir John’s army.33 Four days before the warriors reached home, their food ran out again. All the colts stolen in their raids had been killed for food, but most of the Indians refused to kill their newly acquired horses, preferring to endure hunger until they reached their destination. Their march had been one of great endurance and suffering. The Indian warriors, from youngest to eld­ est, bore up under the greatest hardships with fortitude and patience. The stamina of a septuagenarian like Sayenqueraghta was particularly remark­ able.34 A significant result of this last expedition by Sir John, aside from the destruction of the countryside, was the defection to the British of Aaron Hill’s sister Mary. The Hills were Fort Hunter Mohawks. Mary was one of those few who had stayed behind when the other fled to the British lines. She had been a particular confidant— some say a mistress— of Philip Schuyler. William Kirby, the Canadian scholar, had the following to say about Mary Brant and her role in enticing Schuyler’s Mary away from him: “Her [Mary Brant’s] few letters I have seen show her to have been warmly, even savagely attached to her children, and full of the spirit of vengeance towards those who had driven them from their natural seat. She hated Gen. Schuyler, and one of her satisfactions was to win from him a Mohawk girl he kept as a mistress, who at Molly’s request or persuasion left Schuyler and came and lived with Molly at Niagara. This I found in some of the letters. There was a deal of scandal going a hundred years ago.” A pencilled note in the margin of one of the letters in the Claus Pa­ pers says: “Mary was a young squaw kept by Schuyler.” Schuyler had fre­ quently used her to spread alarming rumors among the Indians. As an ex­ ample, the last rumor she carried with her from Schuyler was to the effect that Congress had planned several Indian expeditions for the following spring. The first was to be against Detroit, which would be seized by the French and Spanish moving up the Mississippi. The second was to be against Niagara, following Sullivan’s route. After this army took Niagara, it would move on to Montreal where it would be joined by French and New England troops. Quebec would be blockaded by a French fleet and the whole province would then fall prey to the Americans. The Indians were much excited and alarmed by this news. Both Claus and Haldimand dismissed it as “one of Schuylers Terrifyers,” designed to immobilize and confuse the Indians. In this, they were correct.35

240

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

With the exception of some minor raids during the winter, the BritishIndian campaign of 1780 in the north had come to a conclusion. The total damage inflicted on the Americans included three hundred thirty killed or prisoners— fourteen of whom were officers— six forts and several mills de­ stroyed, over seven hundred houses and barns burned, and nearly seven hundred head of cattle driven off. The grain destroyed was immense. Also to be considered was the terror instilled into the frontier inhabitants and their enforced flight from once flourishing settlements in what Governor Clinton described as “the most fertile Part of the State.” The condition of New York State as a result of this campaign was summarized by the gover­ nor in an appeal to Congress: We are now arrived at the year 1781, deprived of a great Portion of our most valuable and well inhabited Territory, numbers of our Citizens have been barbarously butchered by ruthless Hand of the Savages, many are carried away into Captivity, vast numbers entirely ruined, and these with their Families become a heavy Burthen to the distressed Remainder; the frequent Calls on the Militia has capitally diminished our Agriculture in every Part of the State. . . . We are not in a Condition to raise Troops for the Defence of our Frontier, and if we were, our Exertions for the common cause have so effec­ tually drained and exhausted us, that we should not have it in our Power to pay and subsist them. In short. Sir, without correspondent Exertions in other States and without Aid from those for whom we have not hesitated to sacrifice all, we shall soon approach to the Verge of Ruin.36 The campaign of 1780 was an eloquent testimony to the ineffective­ ness of Sullivan’s expedition in quelling the Indian threat to the frontiers. It was, in fact, not only the frontiers but the whole state which suffered as a result of the devastation of these border counties. The failure of the 1779 campaign against the Indians became apparent very early the next spring. After Brant’s Harpersfield raid in April of 1780, the Schoharie set­ tlers made an appeal to Governor Clinton: “We flatter ourselves that your Excellency is Convinced that the Western Expedition has not Prevented the Enemy from making Inroads upon our Defenceless Settlement.” James Madison made a similar observation in June, concluding that the expedi­ tion exasperated rather than terrified the Indians. The Loyalist Richard Cartwright reached the same conclusion, writing in his war memoirs, “the rebels must have found that their grand Western Expedition, attended with

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

241

such vast labour and enormous expense, instead of conquering, had only served to exasperate the Indians.” 37 It was indeed ironic that an expedition so carefully planned and so perfectly and successfully carried out in every detail should have had such negligible results. The results it did have were, at least in part, unforeseen. Though it did not break the Iroquois power, it did push these Indians west of the Genesee River and retard their ability to return to their country to the eastward. It furthermore made them more dependent on the British to the extent that the British were forced to guide their attempts at settlement in the Niagara region. Even though the British kept urging the Iroquois to go back to their former village sites, the Indians just as consistently, with few exceptions, refused, preferring to stay in compact bodies west of the Genesee, where they might quickly come to one another’s aid in the event of another invasion. A final important result of the expedition may not have been felt until after the war, when Sullivan’s former soldiers sought land in the country they had formerly devastated. It is tempting to think that the Sullivan-Clinton expedition was responsible for opening up west­ ern New York to white settlement. Its influence in this respect is over­ rated, however. After the war, there was a rush everywhere in the country to get Indian lands. It would have been so in New York State even had there never been a Sullivan expedition. New York State and the Holland and Ogden Land Companies were merely carrying on an old tradition of encroachment— more vigorously now that British restraints were removed. The friendly Tuscaroras and Oneidas were just as ruthlessly imposed upon for their lands as were the former British Indian allies. The power of the Iroquois was never broken until the end of the war when the British aban­ doned the Indians and turned their country over to their enemies, the Americans. The British suffered one minor tragedy at the end of the 1780 cam­ paign. Lieutenant Colonel Mason Bolton, commandant of Fort Niagara, had been ailing for many months and had requested leave to go to Mon­ treal to recover his health. His request was granted and he set sail on the ship Ontario on Ocober 31. A violent storm which came up that evening broke the ship to pieces, and all on board perished. In addition to Bolton and the crew, there were a lieutenant and twenty-five men of the 34th Reg­ iment on board. It was a sad ending for a gallant and conscientious officer who had served so capably in a difficult and trying post and for the sol­ diers who had endured so much privation in a lonely frontier garrison.

242

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Colonel Bolton was succeeded at Niagara by Brigadier General H. Watson Powell.38 The remnants of the Oneida and Tuscarora nations, with the few Caughnawagas, who had fled to the protection of the American lines, built some miserable huts around Schenectady. A number of concerned individ­ uals informed Schuyler that the huts were “so exceedingly bad” that it would “not be possible for them to pass the winter in them.” Accordingly, in November, Schuyler wrote to Henry Glen, assistant deputy quartermas­ ter general and agent for Indian affairs at Schenectady, and directed that the Indians be housed in the barracks for the winter. “If the barracks are occupied by the french people,” he continued, “they must go to Albany to the barracks there, or into the country into peoples houses where they can get. It is in vain for them to make any representations on this subject; they must comply for it is of vast Consequence to this state in particular and to all the states in general that these faithful Indians should be as well provided as the distressed circumstances we are in will permit.” When the Marquis de Chastellux visited Schenectady in December, he found a num­ ber of these Indians still living in their wretched huts to the east of the vil­ lage of Schenectady. In company with Henry Glen, he paid a call on the Indians and described their dwellings. These huts are like our barracks in time of war, or like those built in vineyards or orchards, when the fruit is ripe and has to be watched at night. The framework consists only of two uprights and one crosspole; this is covered with a matted roof, but is well lined within by a quantity of bark. The inner space is rather below the level of the ground, and the entrance by a little side-door; in the middle of the hut is the fireplace, from which the smoke ascends by an opening in the roof. On each side of the fire are raised two platforms, which run the length of the hut and serve as beds; these are covered with skins and bark.39 There were fifty-four women, ninety-three men, and two hundred fiftynine children destitute of both food and clothing, reduced to the indignity of receiving whatever charitable handouts the general poverty of the coun­ tryside permitted. Not all of them would survive the winter. Lieutenant John Sagoharase of the Oneida Wolf Clan was one who perished as a re­ sult of the miserable living conditions. Schuyler and other officials tried to make the situation of these refugee Indians more tolerable. The Board of War on November 10 recommended that Congress appropriate $6,464 in Continental bills, to be drawn on the Treasurer of the State of New York,

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

243

to purchase clothing for these unfortunates. By December, they still lacked both food and clothing. The merchants who had agreed to supply these refugees with provisions withheld them for lack of payment. Many of the Indians left Schenectady in the late fall and moved farther north to Palmerstown, about twelve miles west of Saratoga, in order to provide for themselves by hunting and obtaining fuel in the woods. Their clothing, ac­ cording to Schuyler, if all collected, would not adequately cover one eighth of their number. In the cold northern winter, they suffered considerably. To add to their miseries, smallpox broke out among them. Their warriors had fought readily and loyally for the Americans throughout the summer and fall campaign and had drawn high admiration from the officers with whom they served. Dispossessed as a result of their support of Congress, they still clung to their alliance while a desertion to the British at Niagara would have assured them of far more adequate shelter, clothing, and suste­ nance. Schuyler expressed to Congress the deep personal distress he felt over the wretched condition of these faithful Indians and emphasized that the United States was “bound by every principal of honor” to come to the as­ sistance of a people who had been reduced to this desperate condition solely through their attachment to the cause of American liberty. On De­ cember 2, he sent to Congress an inventory of the absolute minimum quantity of blankets, caps, shirts, stockings, and yards of cloth needed to clothe these pathetic people and begged that these items be forwarded with the utmost dispatch. On December 26, he sent off another urgent letter in­ quiring about the clothing. On January 18, 1781, he sent yet another letter informing Congress that their Indian allies were perishing from cold and famine and asking again for help. Schuyler had been feeding and clothing the Indians from his own stores, but now even these supplies were gone. Finally in desperation he turned to the New York State Legislature on February 24, offering to advance a thousand dollars on his personal credit to purchase clothing for these Indians. The legislature approved the pur­ chase of two hundred blankets, and on March 8, approved in addition the purchase of a quantity of cloth. Only one hundred eighty-five blankets were finally provided. Thus, when the winter was nearly over, the Indians received some small assistance to cover their nakedness.40 Famine, cold, and disease were not the only problems the Iroquois al­ lies of the United States had to face. The Indians were housed in the same barracks as the soldiers at Schenectady, and were subjected to constant in­ dignities and assaults by the soldiery. After one of the Indians was brutally

244

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

murdered by the troops, Schuyler had the refugees removed to the neigh­ boring woods and supplied them with boards to cover the huts they had constructed. Their friendship with the Americans had thus far brought them nothing but tragedy, true to the predictions of their pro-British breth­ ren.41 These homeless Indians miraculously escaped another disaster that winter. While they were yet in their hunting camp near Palmerstown, Brant planned another raid on them in March. He had never forgiven the Oneidas for the insults and damages suffered by his and his sister’s fami­ lies when the Oriska Indians plundered Canajoharie. The attack was fortu­ nately never carried out because the refugees returned to Schenectady in time to frustrate the plans of the Mohawk chieftain.42 Brigadier H. Watson Powell, who had succeeded Colonel Mason Bol­ ton as commandant of Niagara, had also inherited all his predecessor’s problems. There were many refugee Loyalist families around the fort and others continually coming in. One of his tasks was to settle these families temporarily where they could build huts and plant, thus lessening the strain on the resources of the fort. Colonel Johnson had the same problem with the Indians. He had persuaded some to go to Carleton Island and oth­ ers to settle in the Seneca villages that had missed the ravages of Sullivan’s army. Under his guidance, new villages were also erected in the Niagara frontier region. All during the war, Johnson had stationed several officers from his department in the Indian country, to keep the Indians steadily at­ tached to the British and to combat the blandishments of the Americans. He followed the same practice now with the Indians in their new settle­ ments. A captain in the Indian department was assigned to various settle­ ments. Captain Gilbert Tice had responsibility for the Onondagas and Tuscaroras from the old villages of Onondaga, Otchiningo, and Ganaghsaraga. Joseph Brant had oversight of the Oneidas, Mahicans, and Cayugas from Oneida, Onoquaga, and Owego. Captain Robert Lottridge was as­ signed to the Cayugas and Tederighroonoes from Cayuga and Chughquaga (Shechquago); and Captain Henry Nelles, to the Nanticokes, Delawares, Mahicans, and Shawnees from the villages of Shawnees, Chukhnut, and Esopus. It was the responsibility of these officers to detect any troubles, encourage the Indians, keep an accurate census, and supervise the distribu­ tion of clothing, farming equipment, and other necessities. They could not be full-time administrators of the settlements, for they were too frequently out on war parties. Each tribe and village, furthermore, had its own chief

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

245

whom the British recognized as head man. Later, Captain Powell was as­ signed to the Lower Senecas and Captain William Johnston to the Upper Senecas, and the Indian settlements were designated as “Companies” in Colonel Johnson’s corps.43 During the 1781 campaign, there were sixty-four war parties compris­ ing a total of 2,945 warriors out on the frontiers of New York, Pennsyl­ vania, and the Ohio region. Many of them visited settlements previously devastated in order to destroy all that had been rebuilt. Others raided areas which had not before been hit. Chief Philip Hough, a Mahican of Esopus, led a party of fourteen Delawares as far east as the Hudson River in early January. David Karaghqunty, the Mohawk, followed on January 15 with his war party to devastate the same area. On January 17, Captain Shinop and nine Nanticokes set off for a raiding expedition on the Susque­ hanna. All spring and summer and on into the fall, parties kept going out to make life miserable for the Americans. Most of the groups were small, traveled swiftly, and did much damage. One of the largest war parties to leave that spring was composed of eighty-three men led by the Mohawk Captain David Hill and Lieutenant Brown of the Indian department. Their objective was Durlach, near Otsego Lake. Sayenqueraghta with thirty-six men went down toward Fort Pitt. Chew Tobacco took his twenty-two war­ riors toward Fort Hunter. Captain John Deserontyon with forty-four war­ riors, mostly Tuscaroras, went toward Canajoharie and the Mohawk. Oth­ ers went to Shamokin, Minisink, Easttown on the Delaware, and the Mohawk and Ohio Rivers. Joseph Brant with seventeen warriors left in April for Shawnee country along the Ohio and remained there most of the summer. In all, they burned one hundred two houses, four forts, sixty granaries, and ten mills. Horses and cattle taken and killed amounted to approximately three hundred twenty-seven head. They killed fifty-four men and took one hundred forty-three prisoners, whom they either kept them­ selves or turned over to the British. Forty-four women prisoners were re­ leased.44 In May of 1781, Fort Stanwix and its garrison were in extremely poor condition. The men were on half allowance of beef and very much in need of clothing. The barracks had been largely destroyed by fire, and the heavy spring rains had nearly demolished the fort. Colonel Cochran complained, “the works are all tumbling into the ditch and cannot be repaired without more men.” The fort had been of little service in recent months in keeping the enemy from the frontier. To repair it and keep it in a state of readi­ ness would now require an enormous expense. General James Clinton

246

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

therefore ordered the abandonment of the fort. The garrison was to take up quarters at Fort Herkimer where they could be more readily available for a defense of the Mohawk Valley.45 Philip Schuyler had a very narrow brush with the enemy in August and barely missed being killed or captured. His family was sitting in the front room of the mansion on the outskirts of Albany one evening when the guards sounded an alarm. The family quickly bolted the doors and windows and dashed upstairs while Schuyler collected his firearms from his room. As the war party began breaking down the door, Mrs. Schuyler remembered that her infant daughter was in a cradle in one of the down­ stairs rooms. Schuyler stopped her from going down; but an older daugh­ ter, Margaret, rushed down the stairs, caught up her sister, and started up again when one of the assailants threw a tomahawk at her. The axe missed the girl but lodged in the ballustrade railing. Schuyler shot his firearms out the window to alarm the town and shouted orders to an imaginary rescue party. The marauders quickly snatched up some of Schuyler’s silver plate and departed before the nonexistent rescue party could capture them. They took one of the guards prisoner and left another wounded. The hatchet mark on the railing— now worn wider and deeper by the fingers of thou­ sands of curious tourists— remains as a memento of this perilous escape.46 Captain Brant, expecting the Americans to make an expedition against Detroit or its vicinity, had left in April to visit all the Indian villages along the way and rouse the warriors to a defense of the country. On August 26, with a party of a hundred whites and Indians, he met and defeated a de­ tachment of one hundred one men from General Clark’s army. This force was under the command of Colonel Archibald Lochry and was on its way from Fort Pitt to Sandusky. Lochry with six officers and thirty privates were killed and the remainder taken prisoner.47 The British-Indian successes of that summer and fall were to be given a check in October. In that month, Major John Ross with a detachment of regulars, Loyalists, and Indians, carried out an invasion of the Mohawk Valley. On October 5, Captain Gilbert Tice received notice from Colonel Guy Johnson “to embark aboard the Caldwell with One Hundred Indians to joyn Major Ross” at Oswego. He arrived on October 9 and found Ross with his little army waiting for him. The total force consisted of the fol­ lowing: 8th Regiment, twenty-five; 34th Regiment, one hundred; 84th Regiment, thirty; Sir John Johnson’s Royal Yorkers, one hundred twenty; Butler’s Rangers, one hundred fifty; Lake’s corps, forty; Yeagers, twelve; Indians, one hundred thirty. This would make a total of six hundred seven

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

247

men. They departed Oswego on October 11. Colonel Johnson had sent Lieutenant Ryckman through the Indian castles to recruit warriors for the expedition. When Ryckman met the army encamped at Half Way Creek, he had no Indians with him. Their excuse had been that they had no moc­ casins or anything else to go to war with, which may have been very true. Those Indians who left from Niagara would be well provided by Johnson. Those who had been called upon to leave straight from their villages would most likely have been in rather necessitous circumstances in terms of extra provisions and war supplies.48 They reached Ganaghsaraga Creek on October 15, marched ten miles up, and there left their boats and a store of provisions. According to Cap­ tain David Hill, the Mohawk war chief, it was at Ganaghsaraga Creek that a number of Six Nations Indians joined Major Ross. On October 17, Ross dispatched Captain David with a small party of Indians to go to German Flats and secure a prisoner while the rest of the army proceeded on its way. Two days later, five Onondagas joined Captain Tice with a prisoner taken at Little Falls. The next day, Captain David came in with his pris­ oner. Both captives gave news of Sir John’s being at Crown Point. Ross’s men continued their route north of Otsego Lake, Cherry Valley, and Durlach. On their march they took a number of prisoners, all of whom gave them alarming accounts of the strength of the militia and regulars in the neighborhood. Ross came out at Warren’s Bush before daybreak on Octo­ ber 25, after a forced march which was plagued by heavy rains and bad roads. He ordered Tice ahead with the Indians and a few Rangers to bum the settlement, which they completed by ten o’clock in the morning. Ross reported that “near one hundred farms, three mills and a large Granary” and numerous cattle were destroyed. The true number was considerably more moderate. The total of the damages was five frame houses, seventeen log houses, eighteen frame barns, ten log bams, 5,411 bushels of grain, one hundred nine tons of hay, one gristmill, and two hundred five head of cattle. Most of the latter were killed, though a number of horses were taken.49 Knowing that the alarm had already been given and fearing that an overwhelming number of rebel troops would soon be upon him, Ross or­ dered his men across the Mohawk River. He planned a retreat to Carleton Island rather than risking an encounter with the American forces by going back the way he came. When they were near Johnstown, Colonel Marinus Willett caught up with them. On the advice of Captain David, Ross sought the cover of the woods where the Indians could have an advantage in fight-

248

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

ing. A hot engagement ensued in which Willett’s right gave way and the Indians rushed in upon him. The British captured one of Willett’s field pieces, but gained little else. Willett clung stubbornly to a high piece of ground. Tice described the battle as “very obstinate on both sides” until dark when they were obliged to retire. On October 27 Ross requested that an express party be sent to the boats which they had left behind. Captain David and four men volun­ teered. They reached their destination undetected, and David said, “on our arrival we found the Rebels had left the Boats, we then destroyed them.” 50 Willett sensed that Ross would retreat northward rather than the way they had come, and marched to German Flats the better to cut them off. On October 28, he was joined by four hundred whites and sixty Indians and took off in pursuit of the fleeing army. Willett’s force was as yet unde­ tected by Ross or his Indians, for the latter had no inclination to reconnoiter the rear. The Indians from the Niagara region, in fact, determined to return home through their own country rather than by way of Carleton Is­ land. Only a handful of Indians chose to go on with Ross. On October 29, therefore, Ross came into the camp of these departing Indians “to thank them for their good Behaviour & shake hands with them,” according to Tice. The major later complained bitterly to Haldimand about his Indian allies who were concerned only “with a view to facilitate their own Route, without any regard to our security.” The handshaking incident and good wishes came before Willett had attacked their rear; the letter to Haldi­ mand, after. One can, however, sympathize with Ross. The Indian decision to take off on an independent enterprise in the midst of a campaign was most irregular from a European standpoint and could prove disastrous to either the detached body or the main troops. From an Indian viewpoint, there was nothing unusual in such a decision. Willett continued his pursuit on October 29 for twenty miles through a snow storm. The next day he fell in with the straggling rear of Ross’s army and pursued them closely. Ross was unaware of Willett’s approach until an American advance party fired on one of the Indians bringing up the rear. The British then pressed forward hurriedly to gain the West Canada Creek. The troops had safely forded the creek when the Americans ap­ peared on the opposite shore. A party of Indians and three white men— Conrad Edick, Daniel Herrick, and Hans Crisman— were in the advance. Walter Butler and a body of Rangers were covering the rear. Butler headed his horse forward a short distance away from the shore and being, as he

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

249

thought, out of firing range, turned and taunted his pursuers with the most vexing insults. An Oneida Indian raised his rifle and took a long shot, lit­ tle expecting to hit his mark. Butler tumbled off his horse, and the Oneida, with a whoop, dropped his rifle and blanket, ran to the creek and swam across. When the Oneida came up to young Butler, he found that he had been wounded. Where he was wounded and precisely what his response was differs with the American and British informants. Daniel Herrick, one of the white men who had come up first with the Oneida marksman, said that Butler was wounded in the thigh and cried out, “Quarter! Quarter!” The Indian warrior lifted up his tomahawk and cried out, “Cherry Valley quarter! Cherry Valley quarter!” Whereupon he split Butler’s skull and scalped him. Many years after the event, the son of one of the Rangers on the expe­ dition claimed that his father was with young Butler at the time he was shot, and that the latter received the bullet in the head over his left eye. If so, it was unlikely that Butler was able to cry out, “Quarter!” or anything else. Stone collected statements from two of Willett’s soldiers which cor­ roborate the British version that Butler was shot in the head. In the Mo­ hawk Valley in the nineteenth century there was a tradition among the old settlers that the name of the Indian who shot Butler was Anthony. No other identification of him is known, save that he was an Oneida.51 Willett’s description of the flight of the army and demise of Walter Butler indicates that the latter’s wound was not instantly fatal. “Their flight was performed in an Indian file upon a Constant trott, and one man’s being Knocked in the head or falling off into the woods never stopped the Progress of his neighbour, not even the fall of their favourite Butler, could attract their attention so much as to Induce them to take even the Money or anything Else out of his Pocket, although he was not Dead when found by one of our Indians, who finished his business for him and got a Consid­ erable Booty.” 52 Willett later retrieved Butler’s captain’s commission and preserved it ever after in his own private papers. Willett did not pursue, though Ross had posted his men advanta­ geously in the woods and waited an hour for him. The weather was bitter and many of the soldiers and Indians had dropped their blankets and pro­ visions twenty miles back in order to be less hindered in the pursuit. The Americans therefore turned about and let Ross continue on his way un­ molested. The American losses were thirteen killed and twenty-four wounded.53 It is to be wondered whether Major Ross’s expedition was worth the

250

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

effort. He did burn Warren’s Bush and a few houses across the river. Al­ though he estimated that he had destroyed nearly a hundred fine farms, the Americans put the loss at less than thirty. Ross said that the settlement had been a nest of rebels, and Willett said that most of the farms burned had belong to “Disaffected persons,” or Loyalists. No exact accounting of the British casualties can be determined. Lieutenant Dockstader of the Rangers took sick and died at Old Oneida before Ross had entered the set­ tlements. In the engagements, about sixty British were taken prisoner. Three Indians were killed, including Sagwarithra’s brother, and four wounded. A number of British were killed and wounded at West Canada Creek. How many more had been killed at Johnstown is not known. The death of Walter Butler was a serious loss. Willett marveled that the British had “sent such a fine Detachment of Troops upon such a Paltry Business.” This was the first time so many regular troops had participated in a border raid in this area. Butler’s and Johnson’s men were also seasoned soldiers. From their numbers and their quality, they undoubtedly should have ac­ complished more than they did. The nearness of a body of Continental troops and the speed of the Americans in taking the field frustrated any grand designs that the unfortunate Major Ross might have had. When Ross sat down to write his report to General Haldimand from the security of Carleton Island, he expressed thorough contempt for the In­ dians who had accompanied him on the expedition: I found the promised succour of the Indians was a mere Illusion, for none ever appeared, the few that had joined at Oswego were nothing more than the refuse of different Tribes without a leading man amongst them, and so early as that period, began not only to make difficulties of everything, but to counteract and procrastinate what­ ever I proposed to them. . . . I sensibly felt my situation on an Expedition where Indians were absolutely necessary, nor was it less obvious to the Troops, the officers clamarous particular those from Niagara, even Indian officers declared that Colonel Johnson had it in his power to send useful In­ dians, Chiefs and Warriors abounded in and near Niagara. Your Ex­ cellency knows he had timely notice.54 Since Ross was referring specifically to the Indians who joined him at Oswego, perhaps he did not intend to include David Hill in this category of “refuse.” Captain David was certainly one of the most eminent and re­ spected of the Iroquois war chiefs. Ross, however, had no praise for any of his Indians.

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

251

Captain Gilbert Tice, who was on the expedition as an officer from the Indian department, had a more favorable view of his charges. In sending his report to Colonel Johnson, he said: “This is worth your observation, the Indians did not attempt to meddle with any Women, Children, old men, or men not in arms, neither was any man or person killed by them, or striped of what they had on, only in the engagement, except one man who fired his piece at an Indian that Broke open the Door of his House, they took him out, and shot him, but did not as much as Scalp him, which I think is remarkable.” 55 For refuse, they behaved remarkably well. General Cornwallis had surrendered to Washington at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, in what has generally been conceded to be the last bat­ tle of the American Revolution. On the frontiers, however, the war was still carried on for several months more. Lieutenant Adam Crysler with twenty-eight Onoquaga Indians attacked Schoharie on November 18, killed one man, burned two houses, and drove off fifty cattle and some horses. In two battles with pursuing militia, they killed five men and wounded a few others but lost all the cattle. The refugee Mohawks in Canada had not been permitted to go on Ross’s expedition in October because Haldimand was fearful that, had they known of the campaign in advance, the Caughnawagas would soon have learned of it also and passed the intelligence along to the rebels. They were very much hurt that they had not been sent to help Ross and continually importuned Claus to send them out on ser­ vice. Claus tried to humor them by telling them that the Canadian Indians were never teasing him so much to be sent out. The Mohawks replied that the Canadian Indians had not had their homes destroyed. In November also, two Onondagas and a Huron delivered in council at Niagara a formal request to Colonel Johnson for British troops and cannon to help the Hu­ rons and Shawnees to destroy Fort Pitt in order that they might be able, as they poetically expressed it, to bury the bones of their friends that lay in piles about it. Though peace between the United States and Great Britain was drawing near, the Indians had no desire for peace.56 Indian thoughts were not completely occupied with war. There were those who were also concerned about cultivating the mind and the spirit. The Mohawks, who had been particularly accustomed to the comforts of civilization, desired that, in their present unfortunate situation, they should not lapse into barbarism. Joseph Brant requested that Johnson supply his people with a schoolmaster, as had been done in peace time when they lived along the Mohawk River. Most of the Canajoharie Mohawks had fled to Niagara, and the large part of the Fort Hunter Mohawks to Canada. He

252

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

and others were anxious lest their children should grow up unable to read and write their own language. A native schoolmaster was accordingly se­ cured and provision made for his salary. Brant also was responsible for es­ tablishing the first Protestant church in what is now Niagara County, New York. In this little log Mohawk chapel, the services of the Church of Eng­ land were read, and the faithful given courage and comfort during their days of trial. Daniel Claus likewise saw to the spiritual and educational needs of those Mohawks who had fled to Canada and who were under his care. He provided for them a schoolmaster, Paulus Sahanwad, and a clerk named Thomas to read prayers on Sundays. Both were Fort Hunter Mo­ hawks. They had their own prayerbook in the Mohawk language, printed in England for their benefit. Claus had also completed a primer in Mo­ hawk and English which became quite popular with young and old alike. When the Mohawks at Niagara heard of it, they requested copies for their own use. The Indians thus attempted to carry on the life they had known and to maintain, even under adverse conditions, standards of progress for the betterment of their people.57 In the fall of 1781, Sir John Johnson had left Canada for England. On March 14, 1782, after long negotiating, he received appointment as super­ intendent general and inspector general of Indian affairs. Haldimand had recommended him very strongly for this office. Indian affairs were now to be coordinated under one head rather than remaining in the previous frag­ mented state. Such an arrangement at the beginning of the war rather than at the end would have saved much bickering and resulted in a more effec­ tively run department. Johnson also received the rank of colonel comman­ dant and brigadier general on the American establishment.58 The message to suspend hostilities was slow in reaching the frontiers. In retaliation for some raids and a battle in which they had lost heavily, the Virginia militia destroyed several Shawnee towns. The most brutal act of the entire war took place at this time, during March of 1782. It was performed not by Indians, but by whites. There was a colony of Delaware Indians of the Moravian faith settled on the Muskingum River. They had three villages named Schoenbrunn, Salem, and Gnadenhuetten. Because of their religious pacifism, they were a thorn in the flesh to their more hostile neighbors, who suspected them of pro-American sentiments. The warring Indians therefore forced these Mo­ ravians to remove to Sandusky in the fall of 1781, where they would be farther away from the Americans. In the spring, a number of them went to their former towns in order to fetch their corn and other supplies. About

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

253

this time, some hostile Indians made a raid on the border and killed the whole family of William Wallace, an Irish tailor living on Raccoon Creek. A body of militia under Colonel David Williamson went in quest of the villains. Wallace was along, preaching blood and vengeance. When the mi­ litia came to Gnadenhuetten, the Moravians were just gathering in the last of their supplies and tying them on their horses, ready to depart. Their greetings to the Americans were friendly, for they suspected no violence. A detached body of militia brought the Indians from Salem in to Gnaden­ huetten. In one of the villages, the hat and hunting coat of one Hugh Cam­ eron were found, which confirmed the militia all the more in the resolve they had taken before surrounding the villages. To most of these frontiers­ men who lived in constant threat of Indian raids, the only good Indian was a dead one. They had determined to remove the menace from their fron­ tiers. A small minority of the militiamen were opposed to the planned sav­ agery. Nathaniel Wells, for one, was in favor of saving the Indians. He and his few companions were far outnumbered in their sentiments. Colonel Williamson, evidently not wanting to thwart the passions of the majority, said, “Do as you please with the prisoners,” and took his gun and toma­ hawk and walked off into the bushes to be out of sight when the crime was committed. When the Moravians realized the intent of their supposed friends, they pleaded for their lives, professing their innocence. Seeing the hopelessness of the situation, they sang and prayed together before their death. They were gathered together, tied to stakes, or merely tomahawked without further ado. Then the village was set on fire. Ninety-six men, women, and children— aged and infants alike— were slaughtered by the Americans in this fashion. Then with their booty, the Americans returned homeward and received much praise from their neighbors.59 Just two months after this bloody event, another expedition, headed by Colonel William Crawford, with Williamson second in command, went into the Ohio country. The Americans were defeated and Crawford and two others captured by hostile Delawares. So outraged were the Indians over the treatment of the Moravians that they tortured Crawford and his two companions in a most horrible manner. Crawford was scalped alive, hot ashes put on his head, and then was slowly roasted alive. The British post commanders were utterly revolted by the news of this event, but were well aware of its cause. General Powell told Haldimand that the Delawares “were so closely connected with the Moravians that they must have taken this severe revenge in order to retaliate that massacre, as the conduct of the Indians upon the Ohio last year was so very different.” 60

254

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

In the spring of 1782, various Iroquois war parties set out. Captains Isaac Hill and John Deserontyon destroyed the mill at Little Falls on the Mohawk and took some prisoners. Sayenqueraghta with three hundred warriors went toward Wheeling. Other parties were out on the Pennsyl­ vania frontiers. But there was to be no more full-scale warfare that year. On March 20, 1782, the North ministry fell in Parliament and was suc­ ceeded by Rockingham, and shortly thereafter by Shelburne. The British dispatched delegates to Paris to negotiate peace with the Americans and the French and sent word to the commanders in America to cease hostili­ ties. It was to be the Indians’ great misfortune that the ministry that made the peace was not the same one that made the war. The Shelburne ministry was composed of men who not only had been opposed to North’s policies but who had no sympathies for Britain’s Indian allies, no interest in any promises made to them by previous officials, and no inclination to bear any responsibility for the future welfare of the tribes who had been enticed into the war by agents of His Majesty’s Government. The Indians were, after all, savages, and the British Government had no more need of them.61 After dallying until the war was nearly at an end, General Haldimand determined to take post at Oswego in the spring of 1782 and ordered Major John Ross there to take command and rebuild the fort. Had this en­ terprise been undertaken several years earlier, it might have had some sig­ nificance; now, it had none. It did serve, however, to give the Indians’ morale a tremendous boost. It was what they had been wanting and plead­ ing for all these years. In June, a large body of warriors under Captain Brant made ready to leave for Oswego. Before leaving, they requested General Powell to come from Fort Niagara to their village eight miles away to pay a complimen­ tary visit and to name the village. Powell did so with pleasure and with much grace. The village contained a large number of Mohawks and Oneidas and a smaller number of Onondagas, Tuscaroras, Cayugas, and Dela­ wares. Powell found them “comfortably settled, and their fields well planted with Indian Corn.” He obliged them by naming their settlement “Loyal Confederate Valley,” which pleased them much.62 Joseph Brant with about three hundred Indians arrived at Oswego on June 18. He and they were thoroughly disappointed and disgusted that no war supplies such as moccasins and ammunition were there waiting for them. They were anxious to be out on the warpath. It is interesting to note how deeply dependent the Indians had become upon the British for the

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

255

wherewithal to make war. Since the fort was a much-longed-for necessity, however, they contented themselves with assisting in its repair. Their ea­ gerness in this labor was remarkable and prompted Major Ross to write enthusiastically to Haldimand about Brant: “I cannot say too much in his favor; his conduct is surprising he rules the Indians as he pleases, and they are all rejoiced at seeing this place occupied. I can assure your Excellency that we are much indebted to the Indians for assisting us to work, a Cir­ cumstance which I believe never before happened. Joseph shewed them the Example. I never saw men work so hard, and it greatly encouraged the Troops.” 63 It is almost pathetic to contemplate the deep devotion and un­ stinting energy these Iroquois warriors lavished upon a cause that was al­ ready lost. On July 5, Brant and four hundred sixty warriors finally set off from Oswego for the frontiers, accompanied by the light infantry company of Ross’s regiment. They had scarcely gone out when Haldimand sent a letter to Ross recalling all war parties and asking for a cessation of hostilities pending the outcome of the peace negotiations. Brant brought his warriors back promptly, though it was a great disappointment to them not to be ac­ tively engaged against the Americans. Ross praised the Mohawk chieftain highly to Haldimand, both for his zeal as a partisan and for his capable management of the Indian department. The British officers who worked with Brant could never say too much for him.64 The Indians in general were becoming more and more disgusted at the denial of permission to go to war. They felt that an accommodation be­ tween England and the United States would leave them out. Large groups of Indians, usually no less than five hundred at a time, had been present at Oswego since June. By September, they had all left and gone back to their villages. Sir John Johnson and Brant, on a tour of the upper posts, at­ tempted to explain to the Indians that the new system would not be to their detriment. Captain Mathews, secretary to General Haldimand, passed along to Ross the promise that the Indians might “rest assured that they will never be forgotten. The King will always consider and reward them as his faithful Children who have Manfully supported His and their own Rights.” When Sir John came to Loyal Confederate Village, he assembled the Indians in council and reiterated these assurances. The response was good, and the Iroquois straightaway sent a party of thirty warriors to Os­ wego to act as scouts or in any other way the commander might desire.65 Cessation of hostilities on the frontier and the knowledge that the Brit­ ish would restrain the Indians gave a great impetus to westward expansion.

256

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

While the peace terms were still being negotiated in Pairs, countless num­ bers of white people were flocking over the Ohio River into Indian country to stake out land, build their huts and cabins, and clear the land. In the fall, a group of armed Americans attacked the lower Shawnee vil­ lage at Standing Stone while the warriors were away hunting and killed the women and children. The Six Nations Indians were incensed over the treatment of their younger brothers, the Shawnees, during a time when hostilities were supposed to be in abeyance. The principal chiefs were called into council at Loyal Village, without notifying any officers of the garrison or the Indian department, to determine what steps to take. It was decided that future inactivity would give the Americans more opportunity to attack and destroy them, and so they held a council at Fort Niagara to ask the commander and Colonel Butler to make known to General Haldimand their petition for aid in going to war. Some of the chiefs, like Joseph Brant, were disturbed that the council had not decided to go to war with or without the assistance of the British for he felt that their situation was different. British soldiers could expect clemency when captured, but Indi­ ans could not. Sayenqueraghta asserted that the Americans “gave us great Reason to be revenged on them for their Cruelties to us and our Friends, and if we had the means of publishing to the World the many Acts of Treachery and Cruelty committed by them on our Women and Children, it would appear that the title of Savages wou’d with much greater justice be applied to them than to us.” Despite the fact that the British officers strongly resented and deplored the methods of the American frontiersmen, they steadfastly but calmly refused to countenance an invasion of the American settlements without specific orders from the government. Haldimand did, however, send an extra regiment to Indian country for the pro­ tection of his Indian allies.66 The British attempt to restrain Indian retaliation against their foes during this period often aroused deep resentment in the redmen. Joseph Brant complained bitterly to Sir John that the Indians were “between two Hells,” what with the rebels attacking them on one side and the British grumbling about how much expense they were to the government on the other. “I beg of you dont tell us to go Hunt Deer and find yourselves Shoes because we shall soon forget the War, that Ways,” he said, “for we are gone too far that way already against the Rebels to be doing other things.” 67 Fort Oswego figured in the final campaign of the northern frontier war that winter. Both sides realized that Oswego would be of utmost impor-

THE PATH OF VENGEANCE

257

tance in the event of a future campaign for it would give the British closer access to the American frontier and would be also a convenient rendez­ vous point and supply depot for both Indians and Loyalists headed for the frontiers. Colonel Marinus Willett had asked for and received permission from General Washington to seize the post and accordingly planned a sur­ prise night attack in order to take it by means of scaling ladders and bayo­ nets.68 On February 8, 1783, Willett and his troops gathered at Fort Herki­ mer with Captain John Otaawighton, the Oneida warrior, as guide. They left the next evening, marched to Oneida Lake, crossed over, and pro­ ceeded northward up the Oswego River. They stopped at one point along the river to make their ladders. By eight o’clock on the evening of Febru­ ary 13, they were only a few miles from their destination. The men then left the woods and walked on the ice of the river until about four or five miles from the fort when the ice began to give way, obliging them to take to the woods. Captain John assured them they would soon be on the path to the fort. It was not yet eleven o’clock at night and the men pushed for­ ward eagerly through the deep snow. Four a . m . was the time fixed for the assault. Everyone was full of confidence and expectation, carrying packs, guns, and ladders cheerfully through the snow-covered thickets. After more than an hour, Captain John informed them they were within two miles of the fort. Another hour went by, and still no fort in sight. The Oneida guide was so far ahead that Willett lost sight of him, but followed his tracks on snow shoes with three other white guides. Captain John fin­ ally returned and said he had been in sight of the fort just two miles ahead. Again the weary troops pressed on for another hour, without com­ ing in sight of the elusive fort. Willett stopped his guide and asked him how much farther. “Two miles,” replied Captain John. Willett at last real­ ized that they had been wandering aimlessly in the woods. The moon had already set and dawn was just breaking. A surprise was now impossible and, after giving orders to put Captain John under guard, Willett turned his men about and marched them back. At daylight they were discovered by some British scouts across the river and fired upon, but paid no atten­ tion. Three Seneca Indians came upon them, gave assurances of friendship, and looked over the disconsolate troops as they passed. The men ignored them. Their sole object had been the fort, and in this they had failed. Willett was deeply chagrined, sure that his enemies would rejoice. He was suspicious of Captain John, though the chieftain had always been noted for his integrity. The unfortunate fact was that after Captain John

258

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

left the river, he became lost in the woods and so brought the expedition to naught. Washington wrote a consoling letter to Willett, attributing the failure “to some of those unaccountable Events, which are not within the controul of human Means and which, tho’ they often occur in military life, yet require not only the fortitude of the Soldier, but the calm reflection of the Philosopher, to bear.’’ 69 Oswego’s loss was of no real importance, as it turned out. The war was now at an end. The Preliminary Articles of Peace had been decided upon November 30, 1782. Ahead was yet another war for the Indians— not this time on the battlefield, but on the diplomatic front.

X

Peace Comes to the Longhouse

T he P r elim in a r y A r t ic l e s o f P ea ce between Great Britain and the

United States completely ignored the Indians, making no provision what­ soever for the protection of their lands or even a portion of them, and, in fact, transferring those lands to the ownership of the United States as far west as the Mississippi River. The land encroachments by the Americans and promises of protection of their domain by the king had been important factors in inducing the Indians to take up the hatchet on the side of Great Britain. Now England had forsaken these Indians who had fought on be­ half of the crown and had relinquished all responsibility for them. The officers of His Majesty’s forces in America who had dealings with the Iroquois were appalled by the British abandonment of the Indians. They did their best to keep the contents of the Preliminary Articles from the Indians, hoping perhaps that the final terms wpuld be more favorable. Their efforts to suppress the actual facts were unsuccessful, for the news “burst out in every Quarter.” The Oneida Indians, particularly, saw to it that the British Indian allies got a distorted version of the peace settlement, making it even harsher than it really was. The Iroquois were full of resentment over their treatment. Brant accused England of selling the Indians to Congress. The army and Indian department officers were faced with a situation that was none of their making and which required the utmost of diplomatic skill in handling. For years they had been encour­ aging the Indians to greater efforts on behalf of the king, urging them that war against the Americans was the best way to protect their lands, remind­ ing them of the sacred covenant between their own people and the English, and giving lavish assurances of the king’s great concern for his red chil­ dren. In the eyes of the Indians, the peace terms agreed to by the British government put these officers in the unenviable position of being hypocrit­ ical liars. Both the officers of the army and the administrators of the In­ dian department were understandably embarrassed.1 Although the Indians were generally glad enough for peace, since they 259

260

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

had lost many of their best warriors and chiefs, they were incensed over what they considered British treachery and cruelty in giving away land which was not theirs to give. Speaking through Captain Aaron Hill, or Kanonraron, they defiantly told General Maclean, commander at Niagara, that they “were a free People subject to no Power upon Earth,” and that “they were the faithful allies of the King of England, but not his subjects.” Accordingly, the king “had no right Whatever to grant away to the States of America, their Rights or properties without a manifest breach of all jus­ tice and Equity, and they would not submit to it.” They reminded the Brit­ ish commander that many years ago, their ancestors had granted the French small plots of land within their country for forts and trading posts, but no more. At the conclusion of the previous war between France and Great Britain, they agreed that their ally, the king of England, might retain possession of these forts. The 1768 Treaty of Fort Stanwix, they believed, had settled a permanent boundary between the Indians and whites. It was utterly incredible to them that the king could presume to grant to anyone land that was not his. If, indeed, “it was really true that the English had basely betrayed them by pretending to give up their Country to the Ameri­ cans Without their Consent, or Consulting them, it was an act of Cruelty and injustice that Christians only were capable of doing, that the Indians were incapable of acting so, to friends and Allies.” After this outpouring of wrath and resentment from the Indians, Ma­ clean wrote to Haldimand begging him to detain Brant in Canada as long as possible. This was a necessary precaution to prevent an already lament­ able condition from becoming an inflammatory one. Brant, Maclean ex­ plained, “is much better informed and instructed than any other Indians, he is strongly attached to the Interest of his Country men, for which I do honor him, but he would be so Much More sensible of the Miserable situa­ tion in which we have left this unfortunate People, that I do believe he would do great deal of Mischief here at this Time. I do from my soul Pity these People, and should they Commit Outrages at giving up these Posts, it would by no means surprise me.” 2 At issue was not only a point of honor but differing concepts of land ownership. The British never recognized the Indians as having a right of sovereignty over the soil, but only a right of occupancy.3 In the long debates in both Houses of Parliament on the Preliminary Articles of Peace, only two members of the House of Lords, and Walsingham in particular, expressed any concern over the treatment accorded

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

261

the Indians. General objection in Parliament over the peace terms centered on the tremendous loss of British-controlled territory, the sharing of New­ foundland fishery rights with the Americans, and the seeming abandon­ ment of the Loyalists. On February 17, 1783, Lord Walsingham made a speech in Lords criticizing the unfavorable boundaries secured to Canada and the unfortunate state of the Loyalists. In addition, he went into great detail on England’s “shameful and unpardonable treatment” of its Indian allies in North America. Referring specifically to the Iroquois, he re­ minded the Lords that they had served in all England’s wars and, in the present conflict, “they were invited by the most flattering and seductive professions.” They not only refused offers made them by the Americans, but continued steadily and faithfully in the service of England. As a re­ ward, they were driven from their country to live as refugees around Niag­ ara. “In the name of policy, why not stipulate for their return and peace­ able possession of their native lands?” he asked the House. “Humanity, interest, policy require it.” This would be no innovation. He recalled the provision in the Fifteenth Article of the Treaty of Utrecht which provided for the peaceable return of the Indians. A similar provision was made for them after the surrender of Quebec. Walsingham then touched upon a significant point which was suscepti­ ble of conflicting interpretations. In British eyes, it concerned a land ces­ sion of the entire Iroquois domain. In the view of the Indians, it was a ces­ sion of restricted areas for the building of forts and trading posts only, and the accepting of a mutual protective alliance with England. England agreed to protect the hunting and dwelling lands of the Iroquois. In the terms in which Walsingham explained it, which coincided with the traditional view of the British government, it should have required a British concern for the future secure status of a native peoples whom it had taken under its protection: “In 1701 they [the Iroquois] made over their dwelling and hunting lands to England, on the solemn condition that they should be pro­ tected for ever. In 1726, the treaty was renewed; the King accepted it in trust for ever, and pledged himself to defend it. Again, in 1746, the com­ pact was repeated at different congresses; and in a variety of meetings the most solemn assurances had been given to these unhappy people from the crown, that they should be for ever protected.” He then described the condition of the southern Indians, who had been left in the same predicament by England and recounted the actions of Chatham at the end of the previous war in rejecting a boundary settlement

262

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

that would be unfavorable to these faithful allies. “Our treaties with them were solemn, and ought to have been binding on our honour,” he con­ cluded.4 Shelburne, in a long speech, replied to each charge brought against him by those who had criticized the Preliminary Articles. In his explana­ tion of the government’s attitude toward the Indians, he was both practical and cynical: “But the Indians were abandoned to their enemies!” Noble lords have taken great pains to shew the immense value of these Indians; it was not unnatural for noble lords, who had made so lavish a use of these Indians, to complain of their loss; but those who abhorred their violence would think ministry had done wisely. The Americans knew best how to tame their savage natures. The descendants of the good William Penn would manage them better than all the Mr. Stuarts with all their Jews-harps, razors, trumpery, and jobs that we could contrive. “But our treaties with them bound us to everlasting protec­ tion!” This is one of those assertions which always sounds well, and is calculated to amuse the uninformed mind: but what is the meaning of in perpetuo in all treaties? That they shall endure as long as the parties are able to perform the conditions. This is the meaning of perpetual alliances; and in the present treaty with America, the In­ dian nations were not abandoned to their enemies; they were remit­ ted to the care of neighbours, whose interest it was as much as ours to cultivate friendship with them, and who were certainly the best qualified for softening and humanizing their hearts.5 The Indian question was never thereafter discussed in the subsequent debates in Parliament on the Preliminary Articles of Peace. A war-weary England did not particularly care to belabor an issue involving savages. The king’s servants in America did not abandon the cause so easily, however. Daniel Claus wrote a vigorous letter to John Blackburn sharply critical of what he considered the government’s ineptitude in negotiating the peace settlement. He expressed amazement that Richard Oswald, Eng­ land’s elderly negotiator with the American commissioners at Paris, had not been informed about the boundaries of the Indian country and the Fort Stanwix Treaty line of 1768. “It might have been easily reserved and in­ serted that those lands the Crown relinquished to all the Indn. Nations as their Right and property were out of its power to treat for, which would have saved the Honor of Government with respect to that Treaty,” he complained. The treaty was a matter of record, known to king, ministers,

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

263

and representatives of the colonies alike. Claus, Haldimand, and other offleers of the crown who had dealt most closely with Indians worked consci­ entiously and steadfastly to try in some measure to right the wrong that had been visited upon England’s loyal allies.6 Joseph Brant, though embittered over the results of the peace, was a practical man. The 1768 Treaty of Fort Stanwix had left the Mohawk vil­ lages totally within the areas of white settlement. He knew that it would be impossible for the Mohawks to return to their former homes. Even had the peace treaty guaranteed them their old lands, the outcome of the war and the American victory made it doubtful that they could live in their former neighborhood in tranquility. While he was in Canada, Brant hinted strongly to Sir John Johnson that the people of his nation might easily be induced to remove permanently to the St. Lawrence River region or the west side of Lake Ontario. As an aid to the continued civilization of the Indians, he also indicated that he would like to have the Loyalists settled close by his people. Johnson transmitted this information to General Hal­ dimand, and the latter conferred upon the subject with Colonel Claus and Captain Brant. The general thereupon ordered the surveyor general, Major Samuel Holland, to investigate the region around Cataraqui to determine its suitability for settlement. “I have always considered the Mohawks as Ithe first Nation deserving the attention of Government and I have been ' particularly interested for their Welfare and reestablishment,” Haldimand assured Claus. A few of the leading men of the Mohawks accompanied Holland to pick a site most pleasing to them and adequate to their needs.7 After making these arrangements, Haldimand wrote to Lord North, who had once again come into power in England,9“ revealing his plans for resettlement of these dispossessed Mohawks. North responded favorably, giving the king’s approval. “These People are justly entitled to our Pecu­ liar attention,” he assured Haldimand, “and it would be far from either generous or just in us, after our cession of their Territories and Hunting grounds, to forsake them.” He passed on the king’s approbation of offering [such settlement to any of the other friendly tribes who wished to remove Ifrom the United States to the Province of Quebec. North also advised that he was sending out farming tools for the use of the Indians who desired to emigrate to Canada.8 I * The Shelburne ministry had resigned in late February of 1783, after it had lost ja vote of confidence in Parliament over its conduct of the peace negotiations and the {excessive concessions made to the allied powers. A coalition ministry headed by ICharles James Fox and Lord North then took office.

264

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

The Mohawks, after investigating the north shore of Lake Ontario, de­ cided on a place about forty miles west of Cataraqui on the Bay of Quinté. Here they planned to move in the spring, build their huts, erect a mill, and break the ground for farming. Only one difficulty stood in their way. The land on the north and west side of the lake, in what is now southern On­ tario, belonged to the Missisauga, or Chippewa, Indians. It was necessary to secure the approval of the Missisaugas before moving onto their lands. General Maclean very bluntly suggested to Haldimand that “a Barrel of Rum and some Strouds will gain their consent at any time.” More impor­ tant, however, it was essential that a transfer of ownership should take place so that the Six Nations tribes who moved there should have a perma­ nent right to this country and never face the possibility of being dispos­ sessed. General Haldimand would take personal responsibility for these negotiations in order to secure a permanent home for the faithful Mo­ hawks who had lost everything through their loyal and devoted service to their ancient ally beyond the seas.9 Since the Indians had been ignored in the peace negotiations between the United States and Britain, those who resided within the territories ceded by Britain to the former colonies were now an American responsi­ bility. Philip Schuyler favored a reconciliation with them. It would be far more to the advantage of the United States to have them reside peacefully on their old lands, he felt, than to expel them to British territory and thus increase British military potential. To keep up a perpetual war with them, to attempt to conquer them on the battlefield, would prove costly, difficult, and bloody. It would be far preferable to be patient and conquer them by peaceful means. Such an effect would come about naturally, whenever whites settled in the neighborhood of Indian country. The incompatibility of the two ways of life and the scarcity of game induced by the clearing of the land would then cause the gradual decline and withdrawal of the Indi­ ans, and the whites might have their lands for the asking, “without the expence trifling as it may be of purchase.” Such was the philosophy of Philip Schuyler, and Congress agreed. After the conclusion of peace with England, the United States conducted a whole series of treaties with the formerly hostile tribes, designed to bring about peace with them and se­ cure as large a cession of territory as possible.10 Despite official attempts on the part of the United States to conciliate the formerly hostile Indians, there were unofficial attempts by unauthor­ ized individuals— Indian and white— to cause as much travail to their for-

f

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

265

mer enemies as possible. The refugee Oneidas and Tuscaroras around Schenectady had returned to the sites of their old villages in Indian coun­ try in May of 1783 and had begun new settlements. Two of the British Oneidas from the Niagara region journeyed to Kanowalohale in June to visit some of their kin. There they encountered a group of Americans who, in company with some Oneidas, asked them why they had not been to General Schuyler’s council that spring. Then with great glee, they told the visitors the substance of Schuyler’s supposed speech to the effect that the king of England had turned this whole country over to the Americans and agreed that those who had fought against them had forfeited their right to the soil. As for the Indians, the king told Congress that it could do with them as it wished. Schuyler had asked the Oneidas to report to the rest of the Six Nations that those Indians could now expect no assistance from ei­ ther king or Congress, but they might all remove to Canada where the king still owned land. Furthermore, Schuyler was preparing to meet the whole Six Nations, and if he could obtain no satisfaction from them, he would enter their country as a warrior and humble their pride. If Colonel John Butler fell into his hands, he would hang him. ; It was all a grand piece of fiction on the part of a few irresponsibles and a calculated bit of revenge. The rumor did its work for a while. The two Oneidas hurried back to the Six Nations villages to spread the news. The Indians were most alarmed and held two councils with Colonel Butler on the subject. The latter tried to soothe them, telling them to give no cre­ dence to messages that did not come either written or with wampum to confirm them. General Maclean also considered the message to be “clearly fabricated, and a downright falsehood.” Though he had no high opinion of Schuyler, he credited him with more intelligence and statesmanship than displayed in such a provocative speech. Schuyler, later hearing of the mes­ sage sent in his name, wrote the Indians a reassuring letter affirming that he had sent them no communication since 1780 when Skenandon, Peter, Little Abraham, and Hans Crine went to Niagara on his behalf.11 General Benjamin Lincoln, secretary at war, had sent Ephraim Doug­ lass on a trip through Indian country to meet with the Indians in council, tell them of the peace, and convey to them the good intentions of Congress toward them. When Douglass arrived at Fort Niagara on June 11, 1783, he was received very hospitably by General Maclean and permitted to talk at length with Colonel Butler and Captain Brant, but not allowed to com­ municate with any other of the Indians or to visit their villages. The Brit-

266

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

ish wished to guard against any disaffection on the part of the Indians and to keep them from developing further resentment against the king and his subjects.12 In early December, a delegation from the Six Nations arrived at Sche­ nectady desirous of holding a council with Philip Schuyler. Schuyler and Volkert Douw traveled to Schenectady to meet with these representatives. Spokesmen for the group were the Seneca, Little Beard, and the Oneida captive, Good Peter. They delivered a message from Joseph Brant and a speech from the other Indians, requesting a general meeting to settle peace between the nations. Peter, who was being forced to act in the interest of the British to escape a harsh confinement, later held a private conference with Schuyler and gave him intelligence of Indian sentiments at Niagara, the extent of Brant’s influence, and the stand they proposed to take at the forthcoming treaty. Schuyler returned a firm speech to the pro-British Iro­ quois and asked them to make ready for a council which Congress would call.13 On October 15, 1783, and again on March 19, 1784, the Continental Congress took under advisement the problem of Indian affairs and the set­ tlement of a peace with these people. Instructions were drawn up for the guidance of the Indian commissioners who would conduct the treaties, ad­ vising them on desirable boundaries and suggesting that they attempt to di­ vide the Indians as much as possible by treating with them separately and thus discouraging their old coalitions and confederacies. Five commission­ ers had been appointed on March 12: George Rogers Clark, Nathanael Greene, Stephen Higginson, Oliver Wolcott, and Richard Butler. Only the latter two subsequently served. Significantly, Philip Schuyler was omitted from this list. As an afterthought, Congress on April 8, 1784, appointed him as a commissioner. Schuyler, who carried the burden of Indian affairs in the northern department all during the war, was annoyed at being ne­ glected until he complained and then being chosen as an appendix. He de­ clined serving. Arthur Lee was then added to the list.14 Since Congress desired to expedite the peace with the Indians, it re-: scinded on April 16, 1784, the requirement that the commissioners treat separately with the nations and permitted them to treat collectively with Indian confederates at such times and places as would be most convenient. New York State had already granted much of the Cayuga and Onondaga country as bounty lands to its soldiers, without waiting for treaties oi boundary settlements. Dispatch in treating with the Indians was therefore necessary in preventing another war. The commissioners, however, be-

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

267

lieved that it would be impractical and impossible to deal with the Indians until after their corn was planted and brought on toward maturity. The preparations of the commissioners themselves for the forthcoming treaties would take a certain amount of time. They therefore informed Congress of the necessity of postponing any negotiations until after August 20, at least. They were looking forward to holding these treaties at Fort Niagara and Fort Detroit, particularly. Since Haldimand feared reprisals by the Indians if the British should abandon them by evacuating the forts as required by the peace treaty, he therefore violated the treaty by holding onto the forts, as he explained to Lord North, first to calm Indian fears, and later to at­ tempt to force the Americans to do justice to the Loyalists in accordance with the peace treaty. The British refusal to give up the frontier posts forced the commissioners to hold their first treaty on the grounds of the abandoned Fort Stanwix. New York State was a step or two ahead of Con­ gress, however, and, concerned for its own interests, rejected the Congres­ sional invitation to meet the Indians under its auspices. On March 25, 1783, the New York State Legislature had authorized the governor to ap­ point three Indian commissioners. On April 6, 1784, the governor and commissioners were further authorized to enter into negotiations with In­ dians residing in the state. New York State therefore held a treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix just a few weeks prior to that of the congres­ sional commissioners.15 On April 12, 1784, Governor George Clinton invited the Mohawks, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas to a council with the State of New York to compose their differences. The four nations addressed agreed, and the place fixed for meeting was Fort Stanwix. The primary object, in the view of the state, was not only to conclude a peace but to obtain a land ces­ sion.16 Arthur Lee, one of the commissioners appointed by Congress to treat with the Indians, expressed grave misgivings over New York’s action. He wrote to the chairman of the Committee of the States of the Continental i Congress conveying to him his concern. “How far this State has a right to Ihold such treaties the Committee must judge,” he commented. The action !(clearly put the state in competition with Congress, and Lee issued a fur! ther warning: “But while the Indians are induced to believe, by such proilceedings, that there are distinct, independent and perhaps jealous Powers o treat with them, they will certainly avail themselves of it, much to the lisadvantage of the general Confederacy.” 17

f

The Articles of Confederation adopted in 1781 by the states gave to

268

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Congress, by the provisions of Article IX, “the sole and exclusive right and power of determining peace and war” and of “entering into treaties and alliances.” The same article also gave to Congress the exclusive right of “regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states, provided that the legislative right of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated.” A constitutional issue was thus raised by New York’s action in entering into a treaty with the Indians. Were the Iroquois to be considered members of New York State? And what did the term “members of any states” mean? In their own view, the Iroquois had always been an independent power, holding sovereignty over their own area, and not members of any state or colony or subjects of any European power. Their concept of sover­ eignty was directly opposite to and incompatible with the European, and consequently, American view. Even though no European power that had laid claim to Iroquois territory had ever conquered, or even occupied, more than a fraction of those areas now comprised within the boundaries of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, they all recognized the basic European rather than Indian sovereignty over these lands. The Iro­ quois and the Allegheny Mountains had both kept western New York and Ohio from being explored and settled, except in scattered areas, mostly around the military posts. Prior settlement by non-European peoples and general ignorance of the extent and nature of the territory involved were no deterrents to European monarchs in claiming and granting vast expan­ ses of land in America. When the English seized the colony of New Neth­ erlands from the Dutch, they thereupon extended the sovereignty of Eng­ land over the areas occupied not only by the Dutch settlers in the colony, but also that of the Algonkian and Iroquoian tribes. This concept of sover­ eignty was, of course, not explained to the Indian tribes and nations then inhabiting the areas claimed by England. To have done so would have made implacable enemies of the powerful Iroquois Confederacy and its de­ pendent Algonkian neighbors. The United States and the individual states merely continued the old legal concepts of land holding and sovereignty handed down from colonial days. The first hint to Indians that Europeans harbored such a notion of sovereignty over their lands came with the peace settlement between England and the United States and the transfer of own­ ership of territory as a result of the Preliminary Articles of Peace of 1782 and the Treaty of Paris of 1783. After the end of the war, the United States was never backward to make known to the Iroquois its claim to sov­ ereignty over their soil. It was thus that the State of New York came to as-

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

269

sert its ownership of the Iroquois country, as the successor to the Colony of New York. According to this view, the Iroquois were then within the boundaries of the State of New York. The legal question, however, was not that simply resolved. Although in the view of both Congress and New York the Iroquois lived within the borders of the state, there was serious doubt that they were actually mem­ bers of the state in terms of the Articles of Confederation.* New York certainly did not recognize them as citizens, with the same rights and priv­ ileges as its white inhabitants. It was doubtful that they enjoyed the protec­ tion of the State of New York, as did its citizens and other inhabitants in general. The very fact that New York could hold a treaty with the Iroquois to conclude a peace and secure land for the benefit of the state and its white citizens showed that these Indians were a people apart from the other inhabitants residing within the territorial limits of the state. A nation or state enters into treaties with foreign powers but not with its own citi­ zens or groups of other private individuals. Another important question to consider was whether the Indians ac­ knowledged any obedience to the laws of the state. The question could most accurately be answered in the negative. It was therefore highly prob­ lematical that the members of the Six Nations could, in any respect, be said to be members of the state— apart from merely living within its bor­ ders. Relations with these Indians would, in that case, be managed by the United States in Congress assembled. The land upon which the Iroquois resided, however, had never been ceded to Congress by either New York or Massachusetts, which also claimed it under provisions of its charter. The issue was one of great complexity and delicacy, involving the matter of states rights versus federal powers. James Monroe and James Madison corresponded on the legal ques­ tions raised by New York’s treaty-making activities. Monroe believed that New York’s action stemmed largely from a suspicion that Congress in­ tended in some way to injure the state or place other interests above those of New York, to the prejudice of the latter. Even if the rights of Congress had been trampled upon, he believed it more politic to let matters lie rather than give umbrage to New York State and thus endanger the functioning of the United States Confederacy. * Article IX states: “The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power o f . . . regulating the trade and managing all af­ fairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states, provided that the legislative right of any state within its own limits not be infringed or violated.”

270

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Madison, who was later to play so large a role in writing the United States Constitution, wrestled with the legal problems involved in New York’s action in relation to what the articles did and did not permit. Indi­ ans “not members of any state” meant to him those who did “not live within the body politic of the Society, or whose persons or property” formed “no objects of its laws. In the case of Indians of this description, the only restraint on Congress is imposed by the Legislative authority of the State.” If, however, this provision should be broadly interpreted, then Congress could have no authority whatsoever in such an area since any act of Congress pertaining to a state would in some way limit the authority of that state. The interpretation, therefore, must be restricted, or else the powers given to Congress in this respect would be meaningless. The origi­ nal restraint behind the proviso was meant “to save the States their right of preemption of lands from the Indians.” Such a compromise was made because “this was the principal right formerly exerted by the Colonies with regard to the Indians.” Madison’s conclusion about what course Congress should take in the face of New York’s bold assertion of power clearly indi­ cates the dilemma and caution of a nascent federalism: “But whatever may be the true boundary between the authority of Congress and that of N.Y. or however indiscreet the latter may have been,” he wrote to Monroe, “I join entirely with you in thinking that temperance on the part of the for­ mer will be the wisest policy.” 18 When the New York commissioners assembled at Fort Stanwix on Au­ gust 31, they found that deputies had come from only the Mohawks, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. The Tuscaroras and Oneidas were not represented. Since this was “contrary to the ancient and usual Custom,” the commissioners sent messengers to the two absent nations, desiring to treat with the Confederacy as a whole, rather than just a part of it. The Oneida and Tuscarora delegates arrived on September 3 and the next day, in formal conference, explained that it would have been a scandal had they come earlier since they had not been invited. The commissioners believed that Samuel Kirkland, the Oneidas’ missionary, was the culprit in this af­ fair, for they had word that he had been busily stirring up the two tribes to resist any land encroachments on the part of the state. Kirkland was ac­ tually to become quite active after the peace settlement in securing tracts of Indian land for himself and in assisting the state and also Oliver Phelps and Nathaniel Gorham in negotiating extensive Indian land purchases. The council with the entire Six Nations opened on September 5. Gov­ ernor Clinton was present with the three commissioners— Abraham Cuy-

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

271

G overnor B lacksnake. From a portrait made in his old age. As a young Seneca war­

rior, he served throughout the entire Revolutionary War on the side of the British. In later years, he became a prominent Seneca leader and dictated his war memoirs for the benefit of posterity. C o u r te s y o f T h e S ta te H is to r ic a l S o c ie ty o f W isc o n sin , M a d iso n , W isc o n sin

272

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

1er, Peter Schuyler, and Henry Glen— and a group of seven associates, in­ cluding General Peter Gansevoort. Colonel James Monroe was an observer from the United States Congress. Joseph Brant and David Hill were the chief representatives for the Mohawks. Kashinghtoghare and Hatheghserarum represented the Onondagas; Oghniogueenton and Karonghyageten, the Cayugas; and Cornplanter and Kaweaweatinen, the Senecas. There were a number of other chiefs and warriors present besides. There were also representatives of both the pro-British and pro-American factions oi the Oneidas and Tuscaroras. Governor Clinton, in his opening speech, set forth four aims for the> conference: settling the differences and animosities between the Six Na­ tions and the State of New York, establishing boundaries, promoting trade and commerce, and renewing the ancient covenant of friendship. Brant, who was the chief spokesman for the Indians, expressed on their behalf their approval of reestablishing peace and friendship but denied that they had been delegated with any authority to enter into land negotiations. They would make the state’s desire for an adjustment of boundaries known to the Six Nations and an accommodation might be made at a later date. The Indians also promised to release all prisoners they now held. On September 10, the closing day of the council, Cornplanter formally thanked the commissioners on behalf of the four nations for the candor and civility of their speeches and their attentive treatment of the Indians. The conference then concluded, with goodwill having been exchanged but no land as yet ceded by the Indians. In just a few short weeks, the Congressional commissioners would be holding a treaty with the Six Nations at the same place. The State of New York, ever jealous of Congress and determined to protect its own interests left one of its commissioners, Major Peter Schuyler, behind as a spy tc “observe the Conduct of the Commissioners of Congress in their proposée Treaty, and Dayly note them in a Journal.” To assist him in this enten prise, Peter Ryckman, the interpreter, was left with him, so that Schuyler would have both his own translation of the speeches and ready access tc the Indians should he deem it necessary to try to influence them. Shoulc the Congressional commissioners be found to have anything in mind “tha: may Eventually prove Detrimental to the State,” Major Schuyler was tc use all his efforts “to Counteract and frustrate” the representatives of Con-i gress. Here was a most graphic example of the early rivalries and jealous* ies between the states and the Congress in the early years of the Repubo lie.19

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

273

The negotiations for the Treaty of Fort Stanwix held between the Six Nations and the Commissioners of the United States Congress took place during October of 1784. Captain Brant had waited several days for the Congressional commissioners to appear and the treaty to begin, but was called away to Niagara by family affairs. The lateness of the season and the widespread sickness of the Indians around Niagara, which had already caused the death of numbers, including some of the leading men, would also result in a reduced attendance at the October treaty. Brant said this sickness affecting the Indians was “an infectious disorder known as a Bil­ ious Fever.” Sickness of one kind or another had been frequent among the Indians ever since they moved to the region around Niagara. Brant hoped that because of the epidemic, the commissioners would hold the treaty in the spring. It was not to be so. The Indians were very slow in gathering, but the council was conducted with those representatives who came. Penn­ sylvania had also sent commissioners to Stanwix to transact business with the Indians under the auspices of Congress. The attitude of Pennsylvania toward Congress and its commissioners was therefore much more coopera­ tive and friendly than that of New York State.20 On September 20, while still in Albany preparing to depart for Fort Stanwix, the United States commissioners had publicly proclaimed that no liquor for the use of the Indians would be permitted at the treaty grounds. This announcement was primarily aimed at the suttlers and others who might have dealings there with the Indians and was designed to assure sober deliberations.21 Oliver Wolcott, Richard Butler, and Arthur Lee, commissioners of the United States Congress for treating with the Indians, and their entourage arrived at Fort Stanwix on October 2. Very few Indians had as yet assem­ bled. It was decided, however, to hold a brief introductory meeting on the following day, primarily to get acquainted while awaiting the arrival of a fuller Indian delegation.22 General Wolcott, the senior commissioner, gave a short, friendly greet­ ing to the Indians at the preliminary conference. In attendance, in addition to the commissioners, interpreters, and army officers, were James Madison and the Marquis de LaFayette. The Indians heard Wolcott respectfully and returned a friendly reply by Cornplanter. Then, on October 3, General La­ Fayette, who had been introduced by Wolcott, rose to deliver a very flow­ ery and rather provocative speech, paying high compliments to the Ameri­ cans as defenders of liberty and champions of the cause of humanity, and scolding the Indians for meddling in quarrels that were none of their busi-

274

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

ness by taking the hatchet against the Americans, their brothers, and the king of France, their father. He reminded them that he had given them warning at the beginning of the war not to be involved with those who were blinding their eyes. He had predicted that the Great Warrior Wash­ ington would be victorious. Now his prediction had come true, and how had the false allies of the Indians acted toward them? “Peace is concluded. You know the terms, and I shall be indulgent to some of you by refraining out of pity from repeating them.” He urged them to look upon the firm al­ liance between France and America and take the hand their brothers of­ fered them and join in the covenant. There were those among them who had no claim on the good will of Congress and whose faults called for rep­ arations and whose only resource was in the clemency of the American government. He concluded his speech with wishes of unending happiness for his red children.23 Reaction to LaFayette’s speech seems to have been mixed. Griffith Evans reported in his journal that the Marquis was answered by Grasshop­ per, the Oneida chief, and the Caughnawaga Onengenta, but gave no hint as to what they said. Since these were tribes that had been friendly to the United States, the response was undoubtedly favorable. Neither Evans nor Butler reported any hostile speech nor did any of LaFayette’s companions, but David Hill, the Mohawk war captain, wrote to a friend in Canada de­ scribing a formal rebuff which the Indians gave to the Marquis. He gave the following summary of it: . . . we thank you Father for the fine Speech you thought proper to make to us, we understand you what you mean, and do not disown of having acted for our King for we do not slight or forget old Engage­ ments and agreements which have been handed down to us by our Ancestors, which they made and entered into with our ancient pro­ tectors and Friends the Great Kings of England; and we now tell you we always joined them when at War against you the french for you always begun unjust Disputes; and now have joined those Bostonians against their King, who never were your Friends and hated you french mortally and we the Indians only begun to fight hearty when you espoused their unjust Cause. These Father are our sentiments with regard to you for we Indians love what is just and honest.24 There is no indication who the speaker was on this occasion. In 1825, when LaFayette made his celebrated tour of the United States, he met with the then aged Red Jacket and, in reviewing their first meeting at Fort Stanwix in 1784, asked him “if he knew what had become of the young Indian

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

275

de La F ayette . Painting by Charles Willson Peale. A friend o f the Oneidas and Tuscaroras, LaFayette once commanded a group of warriors from these two tribes and had a Tuscarora bodyguard. C o u r te s y o f I n d e p e n d e n c e N a tio n a l H is ­

T he M arquis

to r ic a l P a rk C o lle c tio n , P h ila d e lp h ia , P e n n s y lv a n ia

276

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

who had so eloquently opposed the burying of the tomahawk” upon that occasion. “He is before you,” answered Red Jacket. It might possibly be, then, that Red Jacket was the orator who delivered the above polemic, though the sentiments seem to be more decidedly Mohawk than Seneca. Despite what seems like strong evidence that Red Jacket was present at the Fort Stanwix Treaty, his attendance there has been debatable. Blacksnake claimed that both he and Brant were at the Fort Stanwix Treaty ne­ gotiations but that Red Jacket was not. This may refer to the earlier coun­ cil with the New York State representatives, for Brant certainly was not at the later council held with the Congressional Commissioners. J. N. B. Hewitt was skeptical of Red Jacket’s claim to have spoken at the Fort Stanwix council, pointing out that “there is no authentic evidence that he was in attendance there in any capacity, and, indeed, he was not then a chief.” It may be that Red Jacket was present but did not speak, and later claimed the honor due to another. If Lafayette met Red Jacket at Stanwix and remembered him well years later, he would undoubtedly also have re­ called that it was Red Jacket who made the passionate speech he referred to— unless, of course, the old general was being humorous in pretending not to remember.25 The next day after his speech, LaFayette and his company departed Stanwix. On October 8, he wrote a letter to Washington telling him what a success he had been at this treaty. “At last it began, and my influence with the Indians was greater than I myself would expect— I was therefore de­ sired to Speak— to Hearken to Answers— I . . . did not leave the ground until they [the commissioners] thought they had no farther occasion for me.” James Madison, who was present, confirmed LaFayette’s estimate of his salutary influence on the Indians. So did a diary kept by one of Lafay­ ette’s French companions. None of the white observers who wrote reports of the conference mentioned any of the hostile reactions described by David Hill and Red Jacket.26 Compared with what was to follow, LaFayette’s rebuke of the Iroquois was mild. The three American commissioners were to accomplish what all the armies of Washington, Sullivan, and the State of New York could not do. Undefeated on the battlefield, the proud Iroquois were finally to be conquered by treaty. Abandoned by the British and deeply divided among themselves, the Six Nations were in a precarious condition when they came to treat with the Americans. Their ally had been defeated on the battlefield by his re­ bellious and disobedient children who, the Indians had long been assured,

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

277

were too weak to overcome the armies of the mighty king. The rebellious children had also given the Iroquois a sample of their power by laying waste to the Indian country while the king’s forces sat by helplessly. The Americans had not succeeded in conquering the Iroquois lands, any more than the Indians had succeeded in conquering the white settlements which they had ravaged. The potential for conquest was there, however, and the Iroquois well knew it. Now that the British and Americans were at peace, it was highly unlikely that the king’s officers would continue to equip the Indians for war. Still more remote was the possibility that they would join their forces with the Iroquois in protecting the Indian homeland. If the English could not do it in time of war, they certainly would not in time of peace. The Americans did not want an Indian war. Although they almost certainly would have won in the end had they continued a war with the Six Nations, that end would not have been achieved without much expense and loss of life. A treaty was by far the preferred method of settling differ­ ences. The Iroquois came to the treaty confused and divided. Sir John John­ son at a council with them in July of 1783 had assured them that though the boundary line agreed upon between England and the United States seemed to give them great uneasiness, they were not to assume that this boundary was meant to deprive them of their country. His words to them seemed to leave no doubt. He told them directly that “the right of Soil be­ longs to and is in yourselves as sole proprietors as far as the boundary line Agreed upon and Established in the most Solemn and public manner and in the presence and with the Consent of the Governors and Commissioners Deputed by the Different Colonies for that purpose” at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768. “Neither can I harbor an Idea that the united States will act so unjustly or impolitically as to endeavor to Deprive you of any part of your Country under the pretense of having Conquer’d it,” he added. There was, of course, a fine line of distinction between ownership of the soil and sovereignty over the soil which the Indians could not have been expected to understand. Nor did Sir John explain that the Americans might have considered that the war and the Six Nations’ part in it might have acted to abrogate the 1768 treaty. His speech served to calm their fears that the British had betrayed them and had given away their home­ land, and his gifts on behalf of the king were a visible evidence that their Father still cared for them and considered them “his faithful Allies.” The Indians, through Sayenqueraghta, returned thanks to Johnson for the words he had spoken to them to take away their anxiety. The Indians

278

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

now were sure that their land was safe. Sayenqueraghta promised, “shou’d the Americans molest, or claim any part of our Country, we shall then ask assistance of the King our Father who still considers us his faithful Allies, and Children, and will continue to promote our happiness by his protec­ tion and encouragement.” Captain Robert Mathews, secretary to General Haldimand, was later, however, very specific in telling Brant that the Brit­ ish army would not be able to help the Indians in any war they might con­ template against the Americans.27 Although the Indians assembled at Fort Stanwix with the belief that the Six Nations country was theirs, the American commissioners had with them the definitive treaty of peace between the United States and Britain, with the seal affixed, to prove differently. Those Indians who read English were free to examine for themselves the wording of the treaty. Small won­ der that these much-imposed-upon people should have been thoroughly be­ wildered when they sat down to negotiate with the Americans.28 Factionalism among the constituent members of the Six Nations was still strong at the Fort Stanwix negotiations. The British and American factions both felt betrayed by the other. Each had suffered dearly during the war, and each harbored deep resentments. LaFayette, during his brief time at the treaty, noted the divisions instantly and wrote to Washington that “the Whigg and Tory distinctions are kept up among those tribes to an amasing degree of private animosities.” Such a state of affairs meant that the Iroquois would not be able to present a united front against the Americans during their negotiations.29 Another factor that worked to the disadvantage of the Iroquois was the widespread sickness in the Indian villages, which kept the council from being so fully attended as would otherwise have been possible. This meant that the American commissioners, with the detachment of troops assigned to them, would effectively be able to overawe the Indians during the dis­ cussions and take some of them hostage at the conclusion of the treaty. All conditions considered, the Iroquois were forced to negotiate from a posi­ tion of weakness rather than of strength. Before the council officially opened on October 12, the commissioners, who had observed that the suttlers were not obeying their warning about dispensing liquor to the Indians, ordered Lieutenant John Mercer to con­ fiscate all alcohol, label, and store it until the end of the treaty. John El­ liott, William Colebreath, and Lawrence Trimper, traders, had the sheriff of Montgomery County serve a writ on Mercer; the commissioners directed the lieutenant not to comply and ordered the sheriff off the grounds. The

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

279

officers of the United States refused to compromise the dignity of the gov­ ernment by submitting to the authority of an “inferior jurisdiction” while acting “in execution of the high and important powers vested” in them “by the United States, for the peace and security of all the citizens of these States.” 30 On October 11, the commissioners also ordered the liquor belonging to Peter Schuyler and Peter Ryckman, New York State’s agents provocateurs, to be confiscated, along with that belonging to any other persons. When the council opened on the following day, the commissioners ordered Lieu­ tenant Mercer to place sentinels around the council booth, and if he de­ tected Peter Schuyler or Peter Ryckman listening or observing, he was to move them off. The Pennsylvania commissioners, who were cooperative, were permitted to be in attendance. Several battles would be fought out on the treaty grounds, and the United States commissioners would win every one of them.31 The council opened agreeable enough on October 12 with a speech by Captain Aaron Hill of the Mohawks. It was answered by Arthur Lee in very bold terms, setting forth the United States’ claim to sovereignty over all Indian lands, demanding the delivering up of all prisoners— white and black— yet held by the Indians, and mentioning particularly Skenandon, Good Peter, and Hans Crine (Johannes Schrine), whom the commissioners desired released. These three had been held in captivity ever since their embassy to Niagara in 1780. Little Abraham had died as a result of his imprisonment. The other three were free on parole to do certain services for the Tory Indians but were not free to return home. The commissioners also let it be known that they wished a boundary adjustment “in order to prevent future difficulties or disputes” between Indians and whites. It was a blunt speech, not at all flattering, and set the tone for the remainder of the negotiations.32 The Indians tried vainly, again and again, in the days following to se­ cure a copy of this speech in writing. The commissioners just as consis­ tently refused, explaining that they had given belts and strings of wampum according to Indian custom, to help recall each provision of their speech. They patiently reviewed each belt and string, repeating the words which each symbolized. The excuse given by the commissioners for not giving a written speech was that they did not wish the Indians to be deceived by those among them who could read English, who might misinterpret the speech while explaining it to others. It was specious reasoning on the part of the commissioners and served only to frustrate the Indians. The latter

280

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

knew full well that the only way to be sure of a white man’s words, and hold him to them, was to get them in writing. In such a vital treaty as this, affecting their future in respect to their claim on their lands, they desired an exact copy to assure themselves they understood correctly every phrase and every proposition. Wampum was no longer completely adequate. They wanted no flexibility of interpretation. They also wanted to carry this speech back to their villages where others might learn for themselves what actually passed at these negotiations. What would certainly have been a reasonable and necessary request had the Americans been treating with a European power was summarily brushed aside with insulting allusions to the Indians’ veracity and reliability. The commissioners could not have made their condescension and their disdain more evident.33 On October 17, word was brought of the death of one of Cornplanter’s children— accounts differ as to whether it was a son or a daughter— and a condolence ceremony was held. The business of the treaty then contin­ ued. Captain Aaron Hill gave a very vigorous and audacious speech in reply to the commissioners. He told them to hearken to the words of the warriors, for there were no sachems among them. “The words of the war­ riors were strong, they are persons who have so travelled through the world, and borne all the difficulties of the war, that it is in their power to make a lasting peace.” Here again is an example, so common in Iroquois history, of the war­ riors asserting authority over the sachems, or civil chiefs. Those who made the war would be those who made the peace. Growth of warfare as a way of life for the Iroquois thrust the warriors and war chiefs into a position of prominence over and rivalry with the sachems. At least one sachem was present at this council, however, and affixed his mark to the final treaty— Tharondawagon of the Tuscaroras. Aaron said further that it was not solely up to the Six Nations to make peace, but rather it was a mutual obligation of both parties. “We are free, and independent, and at present under no influence,” he asserted confi­ dently. “We have hitherto been bound by the Great King but he having broke the chain, and left us to ourselves, we are again free and indepen­ dent.” He claimed to speak not only for the Six Nations but also for the tribes to the westward, some of whom were represented at this council. As for the king of England, he “did not look up to the Great Spirit, which he called as a witness to that treaty,” when he gave away the Indians’ land to the Americans and neglected “those who had been so just, and faithful to him.” Nor did the United States think of the Great Spirit at that treaty,

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

281

“otherwise they would have mentioned to the Great King those persons who had been so faithful to him, when they found that he had entirely ne­ glected them.’’ As for the prisoners they, the Indians, still held, they recommended that the United States send a delegation to gather them up themselves, lest if the Indians did it they be accused of holding some back. Sir John had urged them over a year ago to return all those they held prisoner. That they had not done so would indicate either that they considered these pris­ oners good negotiating material or that they hesitated to give up those they had already adopted— or, perhaps, both. The British had forbidden adop­ tion of prisoners in this war, but the Indians frequently disobeyed that in­ junction. The desire to replace lost kindred was too strong.34 The haughtiness and self-assurance of this Iroquois spokesman under such trying circumstances was a wonder to behold. It was so very typical of the Iroquois warrior, who had never been noted for humility. The American commissioners were appalled, if not incensed, at this display of independence. Griffith Evans, secretary of the Pennsylvania delegation, re­ marked: “He indeed assumed all importance in his speech of a emperor and parr’d himself at least with the American potentates in power and strength.” Evans further recorded what must have been typical of the whites’ reaction to Aaron’s speech: “In some instances his assurance was as much as could be borne with abounding with ridiculous ostentation and arrogance.” 35 The Iroquois were a people who refused to be humbled and who re­ fused to accept insults gracefully. Nor did they care to submit meekly to the yoke of defeat which the Americans wished to place upon them. Aar­ on’s voice was the voice of a proud people, determined to maintain its dig­ nity. The American commissioners composed a reply that was stern, un­ compromising, and harsh in tone. Again it was delivered by Arthur Lee. They rejected the contention that the Iroquois were empowered to speak for the southern and western Indians. The Six Nations only were invited to this treaty. Since they showed no wampum from other tribes verifying their claims, the commissioners would reject them. They reprimanded the hostile tribes for using convenants with England as an excuse for joining the king when they also had covenants of neutrality with the United States. The commissioners further denied that the Iroquois were free and indepen­ dent. “You are a subdued people; you have been overcome in a war which you entered into with us, not only without provocation, but in violation of

282

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

most sacred obligations.” It was the Great Spirit, they averred, who had given the Americans victory over all their enemies. The Six Nations now stood alone, against the whole might of America. It would then behoove the Indians to accept the moderate peace which the United States now of­ fered. Lee thereupon proceeded to read and explain the terms of the treaty, which were the only conditions the government would accept for a termi­ nation of hostilities. They included the giving of hostages for the safe re­ turn of prisoners now held by the Six Nations, a cession of territory— taking in the area around the forts in Indian country and a four-mile strip from Niagara to Buffalo Creek and including abandonment of all Iroquois claims to lands of the Ohio region westward— a guarantee of Oneida and Tuscarora territorial integrity, and a promise of presents from the United States for the “use and comfort” of the Six Nations. In regard to the terri­ torial cession, Lee warned that the king had ceded the whole to the United States and that the government might claim the whole by right of conquest; yet, they had taken only a part to compensate them for the “blood and treasures which they have expended in the war.” 36 The speech, it seems, stunned the Pennsylvania commissioners as much as the Indians. “It alarmed us very much but had a very good effect and deserves great credit,” commented Griffith Evans. The Indians had no choice but to comply.37 At this point in the negotiations, John Burch, suttler for the Rangers, passed by Fort Stanwix cm his way to Niagara from New York. He was detained by Aaron Hill, who sought an opportunity to talk with him in private. It was not easily accomplished, for the commissioners watched them very closely. Aaron did manage to speak briefly with Burch. He asked him to tell John Dease, deputy superintendent at Niagara, not to think too harshly of anything the Indians might do at Stanwix for “they were obliged to comply with whatever the Commissioners dictated— that in short, they were as Prisoners.” He let Burch know also that he and five others were to be held as hostages for the safe delivery of the prisoners yet held by the Indians. He got no further, for one of the commissioners came and curtly took him away. The six hostages taken into custody were Aaron Hill, Thonayute, Ohaendarighton, Thathnontale, Thayagonentalgetita, and Suscuhaloani.38 No sooner was the treaty signed on October 22 than the Pennsylvania commissioners— Samuel Atlee, William McClay, and Francis Johnston— came in for their turn at the Iroquois. In formal council, they pressured

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

283

the Indians to grant a large tract of land comprising most of the northwest­ ern sector of the present state of Pennsylvania. Cornplanter, on behalf of the Six Nations, refused, saying that the Indians loved their land and could not bear to part with their hunting grounds. The Pennsylvania commis­ sioners told them the lands had already been ceded to that state by the treaty with Great Britain, but that they did not want to take any advantage of the Indians. They offered an assortment of goods amounting to four thousand dollars in payment for the whole area, impressing on the Indians that they had no other alternative but to accept, and to do so promptly, for the next day was Sunday on which they could transact no business. Also, the Pennsylvania commissioners said, they were in a hurry to return home. The Indians went aside for consultation and then reassembled to give their approval, with the proviso that a thousand dollars more in goods be added the next year. To this the commissioners readily agreed. At five thousand dollars in Continental money, it was a great real estate bargain. The deed was drawn up and signed on October 23, and the Six Nations parted with another huge tract of territory.39 At a conference with President Washington in 1790, Cornplanter and several other Seneca chiefs complained bitterly about this Pennsylvania cession and others subsequently forced upon the Six Nations by the State of New York. Washington replied sympathetically, “I must inform you that these Evils arose before the present Government of the United States was established, and when the separate States and Individuals under their Authority undertook to treat with the Indian Tribes respecting the Sale of their Lands.” He gave his assurance that the situation was now entirely al­ tered for, under the newly adopted Constitution, the federal government only had the power to treat with the various Indian nations. “The General Government will never consent to your being defrauded, but it will protect you in all your just Rights.” Washington told the Indians that they might sell or not sell lands which were guaranteed them by treaty, but would not in the future be compelled to part with any lands against their wishes. De­ spite the sincerity of Washington’s promise, the United States government throughout the generations to follow was seldom noted for its enlightened treatment of Indians.40 When the Indians returned home after the negotiations at Fort Stanwix, they met a hostile reception from those who had not been at the trea­ ties. “You can’t imagine with what resentment the Indians received the particulars of the Treaty at Fort Stanwix,” John Dease wrote to Captain Frazer in Canada. “The few Indians there have signed Articles Ceding al-

284

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

most the whole Seneca Country . . . in short they have made a fine piece of business of it.” The majority of the tribes felt that their interests had been betrayed by their delegates. The Shawnees and other confederate tribes were “much displeased” over the doings at Fort Stanwix. For years afterwards, those chiefs who had been involved in the peace negotiations with the Americans would be subjected to constant and bitter criticism within their own tribes.41 The Six Nations in council at Buffalo Creek refused to ratify the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, denied that the delegates were authorized to give away such large tracts of land, and resolved to ask the Americans for a re­ turn of the deeds given them at that time. They proposed further to make a grant of land to the Americans to indemnify them for the presents which some of their foolish people took. Needless to say, such protests were un­ acceptable to the Americans.42 Though the Mohawk allies of the British had originally planned to set­ tle by the Bay of Quinté, a large portion of them changed their plans under pressure from the Senecas, who considered Quinté too far removed from the rest of the Six Nations. In time of danger, it would be necessary for the tribes to live closer together. Brant was impressed by this reasoning and entered into further negotiations with General Haldimand for another tract of land farther south. This location would also be closer to the western allies of the Six Nations. Haldimand then secured by purchase from the Missisauga Indians on May 22, 1784, a tract in southern Ontario from which the Iroquois were granted on the Grand River “Six Miles deep from each Side of the River beginning at Lake Erie, and extending in that Pro­ portion to the Head of the said River, which them & their Posterity are to enjoy for ever.” 43 John Deserontyon, with most of the Fort Hunter Mohawks who had been living at Lachine, near Montreal, settled at the Bay of Quinté and re­ fused to move to the Grand River despite the urgings of Haldimand, who wanted to keep them all united. For one thing, the Quinté location was farther from the Americans and the Mohawks felt safer. For another, these Indians had had a falling out with Brant and those attached to him. Dese­ rontyon very bluntly wrote Sir John: “I indeed foretold you that we could not depend on our Friends (I meant Capt Brants party) and you see how they have acted so shamefull a part in giving up or sacrificing their Coun­ try.” These Mohawks therefore held themselves aloof from what was to be the major settlement along the Grand River.44 Not only the Mohawks under Brant, but representatives from all the

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

285

other nations of the League, in addition to some Delawares, Nanticokes, Tuteloes, and even some Creeks and Cherokees, moved to the new lands along the Grand River. By 1785, a total of eighteen hundred forty-three Indians were settled there.45 The Grand River and Bay of Quinté reserves both received much as­ sistance from the governor general in establishing schools and churches and in securing farming equipment and other necessaries. The British gov­ ernment also recompensed those Indians who had sustained losses during the war. Mary Brant and the Indian chiefs who had held commissions, or their widows, were pensioned. Mary Brant, who is listed as Mary Gonwatsijayenni, received a pension of £100 annually. It was the highest sum given to any Indian. A compensation for losses in the amount of £1449/14/9 was recorded on March 31, 1786, for Joseph and Mary Brant.46 On the Grand River, with members of all the Six Nations represented, the League of the Iroquois was reestablished according to the old pattern. For many years after the emigration to Canada, there were close connections between the émigrés and those who remained in the old Iro­ quois country. Sachems and chiefs traveled back and forth across the Niag­ ara River to hold councils and discuss mutual problems. Officials of the American government were frequently in communication with Joseph Brant on Indian affairs. The famous captain, now recognized as leading spokesman by the Grand River Iroquois, made several trips to the United States on various diplomacies in later years to consult with the officials of the American government. Gradually, however, the Iroquois on either side of the Niagara River grew further apart. Eventually, a dual Confederacy was established, with fifty sachems each on the American and Canadian sides. The old hereditary titles were reproduced in double. Instead of one Six Nations Confederacy, there were now two. From a free-roving, inde­ pendent, powerful people, the Iroquois became a divided Confederacy, liv­ ing upon restricted land holdings, subjected to the management and mis­ management of the white man’s government. The Iroquois now entered upon the reservation period and a new era in their history. In subsequent years, those Iroquois who stayed behind in their old country fared less well than their brethren who moved to Canada. For the American allies— the Oneidas and Tuscaroras— the situation was particu­ larly tragic. The war had seriously affected them, fragmented their society, and hindered the reestablishment of their community on a sturdy basis. A serious social and moral decline was evident for many years after the war.

286

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

When Joseph Brant visited the Oneida village of Kanowalohale in August of 1784, he commented, “they are continually Drunk with Stinking Rum.” Samuel Kirkland, who had resumed his missionary duties among the Oneidas after the war, noted their precarious economic state, their uncleanli­ ness, and their general malaise. He confided to his wife in a letter written in September of 1785 that they had become “filthy, dirty, nasty creatures — a few families excepted.” Their diet consisted essentially of potatoes, squash, and corn. Meat was exceedingly scarce that time of the year and would not be more plentiful until the hunting season was well under way. Unaccustomed to such sparse fare, Kirkland feared he would have long since starved to death had he “not now and then visited the Stockbridge Indians” living close by.47 It was going to become less and less possible for the Oneidas and Tuscaroras to establish and support themselves once more on their old lands. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix concluded with the United States on October 22, 1784, stipulated by Article II: “The Oneida and Tuscarora nations shall be secured in the possession of the lands on which they are now set­ tled.” The United States was never to enforce this article. Unfortunately for these tribes, they resided farthest east and closest to the white settle­ ments. They therefore were the first to suffer from white encroachment. Beginning in 1785, the State of New York began a steady process of extin­ guishing the title to all Oneida lands within the state. In the 1820s, most of the Oneidas emigrated to Wisconsin under the leadership of their Caughnawaga minister, Eleazar Williams, who had converted a large por­ tion of the tribe to the Episcopalian faith. Williams had visions of building an Indian empire in the West. During this period also, the Stockbridge and Brothertown, or Brotherton, Indians, who were dependents of the Oneidas, moved to Wisconsin to escape land encroachments but settled apart from the Oneidas. By 1842, all the remaining Oneida lands had been ceded to the State of New York. A small tract south of Sherrill, New York, is all that is left of the Oneida Reservation. It is owned by a few families who reside thereon.48 In the month of June 1785, the State of New York called the Tusca­ rora and Oneida Indians to a treaty at Fort Herkimer for the purpose of purchasing lands. The state had appropriated for this transaction a sum partially for cash payment and partially for provisions and other goods. A sum of £1500 of the total was to be expended on Indian goods for the treaty.49 They assembled on June 23 and continued in council until June 28.

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

287

Present were representatives of the Oneida, Tuscarora, Stockbridge, and Brotherton Indians. Only three of the seven Tuscarora clans were repre­ sented at this treaty. There may even have been eight clans at that time, for in the nineteenth century the Wolf Clan was divided into Gray Wolf and Yellow Wolf.50 Peter Ryckman had pointed out the month previously that because the Indians were then very hard pressed for provisions and other necessaries, the treaty was being held at a very opportune time for the state. The Indians’ poverty would be a big inducement for them to sell their lands in order to gain much-needed supplies. Governor Clinton opened the proceedings by presenting the request of the state, indicating that a tract along the Pennsylvania border would be desirable, and inform­ ing the Indians that dispatch was necessary since he had to be in New York City on the first of July.51 The area desired for purchase by the state began “at the Mouth of the Unadilla, following up that Stream 20 Miles; then across to the Chenango River, following that Stream to the Junction of the Susquehannah River, and thence to the Place of Beginning.” The state wanted to secure “all the Lands lying to the East” of this line. This section took in about one half of both present-day Chenango and Broome Counties and would have pushed the Fort Stanwix Treaty line of 1768 westward from the Unadilla and Del­ aware Rivers to the Chenango River. It took in the whole southeast por­ tion of the Oneida territory and included some of their best deer hunting lands. Good Peter, as spokesman for the Indians, refused the request of the state, for the lands were too valuable to part with. These lands “are very dear to Us; as from thence We derive the Rags which cover our Bodies,” he explained. He pointed to the sad state of the Stockbridge and Brotherton Indians who had been reduced to such straitened circumstances as a result of the loss of their land that they had to come live with the Oneidas.* “This would be our Case should We sell our Lands as they have done,” he warned. “While the Indians had all their Lands they were im­ portant . . . but since they have parted with their Lands, the case is al­ tered.” He offered instead a mountainous tract on the Pennsylvania border between the Susquehanna and Delaware Rivers, which the commissioners thought “not worth purchasing.” Also, if the state wished, the Oneidas * The Stockbridge were remnants of the Moheconnuck Indians of western Massa­ chusetts and eastern New York. The Brothertons were remnants of several New England and Long Island tribes: Mohegan, Narraganset, Pequot, Stonington, Far­ mington, and Montauk.

288

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

were willing to lease a tier of farmland. Clinton expressed annoyance with this latter offer: “We fear You have lost your good opinion of Us, by mak­ ing a proposal which, if accepted, would make the Government of the State tributary to You.” 52 On a subsequent day, after more pressuring by Clinton, Good Peter on behalf of his people again refused, but added philosophically: “We sup­ pose however it will be sold by the next Generation, and We wish that we may be suffered to breathe a little upon it.” By June 27, however, jealous­ ies and factionalism had developed among the Oneidas, and the majority decided to sell a portion of that land which the governor requested. The ready assortment of goods and provisions which Clinton had put on dis­ play after the first refusal, coupled with the poverty of most of the people and the avarice of others, had worked a change in the minds of the Indi­ ans. Cutting remarks were made by some of them who falsely told Good Peter that the governor had said he was astonished that one who had been with the enemy (Peter had been held captive by the British and their Indi­ ans for nearly five years) should speak so often. Hurt and insulted, Peter gave up his role as speaker and was succeeded by one more amenable to a sale of the lands. After some haggling in council, a compromise was reached. The Oneidas agreed to part with a tract beginning ten miles up the Unadilla rather than twenty, as originally requested. It was an excel­ lent bargain for the state, comprising about half a million acres.53 It was only the beginning of many succeeding sales that eventually, over the years, would make the Oneida, Stockbridge, Brotherton, and Tuscarora In­ dians homeless. The irony was that these were the four Indian groups that had given assistance to the Americans during the war just past. Despite the loss of their land, the Oneidas did receive a significant boost in their prestige that same summer. The other tribes of the Six Na­ tions had traditionally recognized the Mohawks as the heads of the Con­ federacy. With the Mohawks now gone to the Grand River, there was a gap in the structure of the League at the Eastern Door. During the first week of July, therefore, the Onondagas in formal council recognized the Oneida nation as the head of the Confederacy and promised to submit themselves to their direction. The Oneidas were so elated that they re­ quested James Dean to report the news to Congress. Their elation was not to be of lasting duration. In one generation, their lands would be entirely gone and they themselves would be struggling to build a new community in Wisconsin Territory, far removed from their ancestral home and kindred tribes.54

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

Monuments to Samuel K irkland and John S kenandon Skenandon had his wish to be buried beside his beloved pastor.

(r ig h t re a r).

289

Grave of the Oneida war chief, John S kenandon (Schenando), who lived from 1706 to 1816. He is buried in the cemetery on the campus of Hamil­ ton College, Clinton, New York.

290

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Though the three American allies— Oneida, Stockbridge, and Brotherton Indians— dwindled to near nothingness in the State of New York, the Tuscaroras managed to preserve their community after their homeland had been sold by the Oneidas by moving to .the region of Niagara. Some of their tribe had settled near Johnson’s Landing during the war, and later moved to the escarpment near the present village of Lewiston. There they secured a grant of land from the Senecas and later augmented it in 1804 by purchasing a contiguous tract from the Holland Land Company with money derived from the leasing of their North Carolina lands.55 The Iroquois Indians who had held officers’ commissions from Con­ gress did receive bounty lands from the State of New York. In 1794, the Oneida, Tuscarora, and Stockbridge Indians who had lost their homes and possessions as a result of the war were awarded a total of five thousand dollars compensation by the United States government and were also promised a church, a sawmill, and a gristmill.* Samuel Kirkland had been vainly trying for years to persuade the Oneidas to reconstruct their church. They very shrewdly declined, saying that if they did so, the government would not compensate them for their loss.56 Philip Schuyler in his observations on Indian affairs had been correct. Wait patiently, he had cautioned, until the white settlements grow closer and closer to the Indian country. Then the game will disappear, the Indi­ ans will find difficulty in supporting themselves, and will be glad to sell their lands for a pittance in order to obtain food and other necessaries of life. Or, they might retire altogether and just leave their lands to the whites. Here were two economies in conflict. The Iroquois were excellent farmers but also depended heavily on hunting to supplement their diet, supply their winter food, and— even at this late date when many had turned to the use of woven cloth— also supply their clothing. Leather for moccasins, even if not for shirts, was still essential. A hunting economy needed a far larger expanse of territory to survive than did a purely agricul­ tural economy. The Indians depended primarily on wild game for their meat, whereas the whites raised livestock for this purpose. When the white settlements came nearer and grew more populous and the farmers cleared more land, the game quickly grew more scarce, and the Indians conse­ quently grew poorer. The less able he was to support himself, the more the Indian was prone to sell his land to gain the immediate necessities of life. * The treaty between the United States and the Oneida, Tuscarora, and Stockbridge Indians was concluded December 2, 1794, and ratified by Congress on Janu­ ary 21, 1795.

PEACE COMES TO THE LONGHOUSE

291

The more land he sold, the less he was able to sustain himself indepen­ dently and the poorer he became. It was a pathetic cycle. A complete tran­ sition to white man’s ways at this time would have been an impossibility for the Indian without assistance from the government or the churches. The latter did attempt to help the Iroquois with a transition to the white man’s style of farming, provided implements, and encouraged the men, though generally unsuccessfully, to become farmers. Government assis­ tance was only at a minimum, however. Many Indians did keep livestock. These animals were, however, an in­ vestment that most Indians could not afford. Even to have tilled the ground in the white man’s way would have required much capital expendi­ ture to purchase plows and oxen and to build bams. Increased use of metal implements would have necessitated the employment of several black­ smiths to mend and sharpen their tools. Among the Iroquois, also, tilling the ground was solely a woman’s occupation. Although there was a strict division of labor, there was a very high regard for the women. Good Peter once summarized the Iroquois concept of womanhood: “Our Ancestors considered it a great Transgression to reject the Council of their Women, particularly the female Governesses. Our Ancestors considered them Mis­ tresses of the Soil. Our Ancestors said who bring us forth, who cultivate our Lands, who kindles our Fires and boil our Pots, but the Women . . . they are the Life of the Nation.’’ 57 The men were warriors and hunters. With the decline of warfare and hunting, the men were frequently at a loss, without any meaningful role in society. Until on into the nineteenth cen­ tury, no Iroquois man would farm, any more than any white man would put on skirts and become a nursemaid. Skenandon was an exception. He labored in the fields the same as the women, and thought it no disgrace to be a farmer. In addition to the expense involved in adopting the white man’s farming tools, there was a sheer practical problem. Use of this heavy farming equipment was frequently beyond the physical capacity of the Indian women. Not only was the Indian becoming trapped by his shrinking land hold­ ings and growing poverty, but also by his cultural attitudes. There was lit­ tle purpose left in life for the males, save governing and counseling. With the political independence of the Indian nations being more and more re­ stricted by the whites, even this activity often had little significance. The Iroquois had been conquered by peace more effectively than by war.

Epilogue

T he q u e stio n a r ises whether it was of greater advantage for the Iroquois

to have supported the British or the Americans. An assessment can best be made by a comparison of the treatment and conditions of both groups on each side of the border after the war. In New York, those who suffered the earliest encroachments were the tribes which had been allied to the Americans. The Tuscaroras did man­ age to maintain a sense of identity and a viable community within the old Iroquois homeland, but only by moving out of the way of the whites. Also, Tuscarora men began adjusting to working in the fields sooner than the men of other Iroquois tribes. Even in their new location they were not completely free, for white communities very shortly grew up in the Niag­ ara frontier region. The Tuscaroras began to suffer accordingly. The sym­ pathetic American commander at Fort Niagara reported how they were “imposed upon in the most shameful manner” and offered to act as an as­ sistant agent for them “without pay or emolument” as long as he was sta­ tioned at that post.1 The Cayugas succumbed to pressure and eventually sold their entire reservation and went to live with the Senecas. Both the Senecas and Onondagas subsequently lost huge amounts of territory in various transactions with New York State and with land companies that had the right of preemption. The Senecas, in 1838, in the fraudulent Treaty of Buffalo Creek, lost one entire reservation. As the Iroquois entered the nineteenth century and finally made the adjustment to isolated individual farms in the white man’s style rather than the agricultural village of their ancestors, they were handicapped both by their continuing loss of land and by the difficulty in adopting newer meth­ ods of husbandry. Their diminishing land holdings also militated against their being able to expand their agricultural economy in the future, when their population increased. The story of the reservation period, however, would be a book in it292

EPILOGUE

293

self. It is sketched only in bare outline in order to give some insight into the postwar problems encountered by these Indians. The United States government did make some slight efforts to aid the Iroquois in developing their reservations. Various religious organizations also took an interest in their welfare. The fact remained, however, that whether the Iroquois who remained in New York had once supported the British or the Americans, it made no difference in their eventual treatment by their white neighbors. Friend sometimes fared worse than former foe. Although it became necessary for the Iroquois to attempt the long, dif­ ficult, and often painful transition to the white man’s type of civilization, there was still enough conservatism in their nature and enough reverence for tradition that the transition would never become complete. Restricted to small land holdings in a region where they had once reigned supreme, they clung to the Confederacy form of government by hereditary sach­ ems.* The old Longhouse religion refused to disappear in the face of steady growth of Christianity, and even experienced a revival and renova­ tion beginning in 1799 under the preaching of the sachem Ganiodaio, or Handsome Lake. The ancient power of the Confederacy was gone, but the forms still remained. Save for some scattered Oneida and Mohawk bands, the bulk of the pro-British Iroquois emigrants settled along the Grand River in what is now southern Ontario. Joseph Brant was recognized as their leading spokesman or principal chief, though he was never a sachem. In regard to the land holdings of these Grand River Iroquois, a very peculiar situation developed. The extent of the Haldimand Grant has been estimated as com­ prising 570,000 acres at the least, and 675,000 acres at the most. Approx­ imately two thousand Indians were living on this vast, undeveloped tract. They needed assistance in clearing and developing even a small portion of it for their own immediate needs. Brant realized that hunting was on the decline and would be even more so as whites moved in on land nearby. Hunting, therefore, could no longer be depended on as a continuing source of income and support. He accordingly invited white Loyalists, many of whom had fought beside him and his fellow Indians in the war, to take up leases on Indian lands. He hoped they would be an example to his people. Their industry and vigor and their methods of husbandry would be a val* The treaty of Buffalo Creek, and all the corruption and fraud connected with it, caused such a trauma in the Seneca community that the greater portion of that tribe, residing on the Cattaraugus and Allegany Reservations, deposed their sachems and set up a republic with elected councillors. The Tonawanda Senecas retained the ancient form of government by hereditary sachems.

294

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

ued pattern for the Indians to follow. He hoped their example would in­ spire the Indian men to take up farming rather than leaving it to the women while they went hunting. Also, the money derived from the leases would provide much-needed funds in helping the Indians to launch their new settlement. The whites would, in addition, build saw and gristmills which would be of great assistance to the Indians. The government of Canada, unlike that of the United States and New York and Pennsylvania, was vigorously opposed to permitting the Iroquois to alienate their lands. The government was fearful lest the Indians be vic­ timized by “land jobbers” and eventually come out the losers. The argu­ ment was also used that the king’s allies could not have the king’s subjects as tenants. Brant and his faction fought the government for years on this issue, contending that the Haldimand Grant conveyed the land to them to admin­ ister as they pleased, to sell or lease, according to their own wisdom and desires. Brant further advanced the argument that the Indians settled along the Grand River had more land than they or their posterity would ever need. The controversy dragged on for years, with a traditionalist faction accusing Brant of pecuniary motives and denying that land should be con­ sidered a commodity. The struggle became bitter and even resulted in a move to depose Brant as chief. Brant’s concepts at last won out, however, and the deeds to the whites were eventually confirmed by the government of Canada. Not only did the Iroquois not secure the income they desired from these leases, but eventually the largest part of the reserve was aliena­ ted and passed into white hands forever.2 Land questions, adjustments to a changing society, and attempts to adopt the white man’s brand of civilization were problems for the Iroquois on both sides of the border. If we were to evaluate which fared better in their respective situations, we should probably have to name the Grand River Iroquois. The government was not constantly bludgeoning them to release their lands, but, on the contrary, tried to prevent them from doing so. Despite the factionalism which developed, the unity and continuity of the community were more evident where the Six Nations were gathered to­ gether on one reserve than in New York, where the Iroquois were con­ stantly harried by land jobbers and where they were forced to live in a constant state of anxiety, frustration, and distrust of government. The com­ parison is perhaps relative, for in later years the Grand River Iroquois ex­ perienced continuing controversy with the Canadian government over var­ ious issues, especially concepts of Indian administration.

EPILOGUE

295

Had the members of the Confederacy preserved a neutrality— which was nearly impossible considering the pressures placed upon them— or had they unitedly joined the Americans, the latter would never have per­ mitted them after the war to maintain their community and their lands in­ tact. The subsequent fate of the Oneidas and their dependents shows this truth only too clearly. Either a neutrality or a unified pro-American stand would, however, have permitted them to present a stronger front to the Americans at the end of the war. This strong hand might have forestalled American encroachments for a short while, but not for long. Once the British had been removed, there was no more imperial superintendent to stand between the Indians and their white neighbors, carry their problems and disputes with these neighbors to a higher authority, and attend to many of their needs. The pressures on them by the Americans to part with their lands would therefore be intense. Also, had they unanimously sup­ ported the Americans in the past war, they would have laid themselves open to attacks by the British. The Iroquois were thus doomed no matter which side they chose. Only if the British had won could they have expected to hold off the advance of whites into their lands and preserve their communities. It must be remem­ bered, however, that the Whigs and Tories were both Americans. The Johnsons, Butlers, Croghans, and other landed families had enriched them­ selves with huge tracts of Indian territories. Johnson brought in large num­ bers of white settlers, particularly Scottish Highlanders, to take up lands in the Mohawk Valley region so recently alienated from the Indians. The frontier was thus being gradually filled up with people who eventually would exert more and more pressure upon the Indians for additional lands, or, in clearing what they had, drive away the game and thus seriously dis­ rupt the Indian economy. A British victory, therefore, would only have postponed the decline of the Iroquois community; it would not have pre­ vented it. The white man had become a necessity for the Indian, and the Indian did not wish to do without him. The whites provided a much-needed tech­ nology and trade goods. Many Indians preferred the Christian religion and longed for schools to educate themselves and their children. Wherever whites and Indians came into contact, the latter both gained and suffered. In reaching out for the white man and his civilization, the Indian was, in a large measure, bringing despair upon himself. This has always been the irony of Indian history. The People of the Extended Lodge still endure. The war and the peace

296

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

that followed disrupted them but did not destroy them. Three centuries of contact have had their impact upon the Iroquois. The blood of the white man now flows in the veins of most, if not all, of them. They are nonethe­ less Indians for all that. The traditional story of the founding of the Con­ federacy is still repeated and the old ways and rituals still followed. The power and the glory are gone, but the legacy of Deganawida and Hiawatha continues. It is this legacy which has sustained the people and given them their strength and their determination throughout continued generations of adversity.

Appendix A

TREATY OF FORT STANWIX Articles concluded at Fort Stanwix, on the twenty-second day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, between Oliver Richard Butler, and Arthur Lee, Commissioners Plenipotentiary United States, in Congress assembled, on the one Part, and the and Warriors of the Six Nations, on the other.

October, Wolcott, from the Sachems

The United States of America give peace to the Senecas, Mohawks, Onondagas and Cayugas, and receive them into their protection upon the following conditions: Article I Six hostages shall be immediately delivered to the commissioners by the said nations, to remain in possession of the United States, till all the prisoners, white and black, which were taken by the said Senecas, Mo­ hawks, Onondagas and Cayugas, or by any of them, in the late war, from among the people of the United States, shall be delivered up. Article II The Oneida and Tuscarora nations shall be secured in the possession of the lands on which they are settled. Article III A line shall be drawn, beginning at the mouth of a creek about four miles east of Niagara, called Oyonwayea, or Johnson’s Landing-Place, upon the lake named by the Indians Oswego, and by us Ontario; from thence southerly in a direction always four miles east of the carrying-path, between Lake Erie and Ontario, to the mouth of Tehoseroron or Buffaloe Creek on Lake Erie; thence south to the north boundary of the state of Pennsylvania; thence west to the end of the said boundary; thence south along the west boundary of the said state, to the river Ohio, the said line from the mouth of the Oyonwayea to the Ohio, shall be the western boundary of the lands of the Six Nations, so that the Six Nations shall and do yield to the United States, all claims to the country west of the said 297

298

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

boundary, and then they shall be secured in the peaceful possession of the lands they inhabit east and north of the same, reserving only six miles square round the fort of Oswego, to the United States, for the support of the same. Article IV The Commissioners of the United States, in consideration of the pre­ sent circumstances of the Six Nations, and in execution of the humane and liberal views of the United States upon the signing of the above articles, will order goods to be delivered to the said Six Nations for their use and comfort. Oliver Wolcott Richard Butler Arthur Lee Mohawks Onogwendahonji, his X mark Touighnatogon, his X mark Onondagas Oheadarighton, his X mark Kendarindgon, his X mark Senekas Tayagonendagighti, his X mark Tehonwaeaghrigagi, his X mark Oneidas Otyadonenghti, his X mark Dagaheari, his X mark Cayuga Oraghgoanendagen, his X mark Tuscaroras Ononghsawenghti, his X mark Tharondawagon, his X mark Seneka Abeal Kayenthoghke, his X mark

Witnesses Sam. Jo. Atlee Pa. Wm. Maclay Com’rs Fras. Johnston Aaron Hill Alexander Campbell Sami. Kirkland, Missionary James Dean Sami. Montgomery Derick Lane, Capt. John Mercer, Lieut. William Pennington, Lieut. Mahlon Hord, Ensign Hugh Peebles

Appendix B

HALDIMAND GRANT * Frederick Haldimand, Captain General and Governor in Chief of the Province of Quebec and Territories depending thereon, &c &c &c General and Commander in Chief of His Majesty’s Forces in said Province and the Frontiers thereof &c &c &c— Whereas His Majesty having been pleased to direct that in considera­ tion of the early attachment to his cause manifested by the Mohawk Indi­ ans, and of the loss of their settlement which they thereby sustained— that a convenient tract of land under his protection should be chosen as a safe and comfortable retreat for them and others of the Six Nations, who have either lost their settlements within the Territory of the American States, or wish to retire from them to the British— I have at the earnest desire of many of these His Majesty’s faithful Allies purchased a tract of land from the Indians situated between the Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron and I do hereby in His Majesty’s name authorize and permit the said Mohawk Na­ tion and such others of the Six Nation Indians as wish to settle in that quarter to take possession of and settle upon the Banks of the River com­ monly called Ouse or Grand River, running into Lake Erie, allotting to them for that purpose six miles deep from each side of the river beginning at Lake Erie and extending in that proportion to the head of said river, which them and their posterity are to enjoy for ever. Given under my hand and seal at arms, at the Castle of St. Lewis at Quebec, this twenty-fifth day of October one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four and in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lord George The Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ire­ land, King, Defender of the Faith and so forth. FredK Haldimand By His Excellency’s Command R. Mathews * Indian Records, R. G. 10, Ser. 2, XV, 132-33, PAC; B 222,106, PAC. 299

Notes

ABBREVIATIONS A PS— BAE— CC— G M P— H SP— HSW —

A m erican Philosophical Society Bureau o f A m erican Ethnology Papers o f the Continental Congress G ansevoort M ilitary Papers, Gansevoort-Lansing Collection H istorical Society o f Pennsylvania H istorical Society o f Wisconsin

JCC— Journals o f the Continental Congress K P — K irkland Papers, H am ilton College M HS— M assachusetts Historical Society

NYC D — Documents Relative to the Colonial History o f the State o f New York NY H S— N Y PL — NY SL— PA C — PH M C— W LC—

New-York Historical Society New Y ork Public Library New Y ork State Library Public Archives o f Canada Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission W illiam L. Clements Library, University o f M ichigan C h a p t e r I — The People o f the Longhouse

1. Arthur C. Parker, ‘T he Origin of the Iroquois as Suggested by their Archeol­ ogy,” American Anthropologist, n.s., XVIII (1916), 505. 2. Marian E. White, Iroquois Culture History in the Niagara Frontier Area o f New York State, University of Michigan Anthropological Papers No. 16 (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 1961), pp. 21-31; William N. Fenton, “Prob­ lems Arising from the Historic Northeast Position of the Iroquois," Essays in Histor­ ical Anthropology o f North America, Smithsonian Mise. Coll. 100 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1940), pp. 194-98. 3. Floyd G. Lounsbury, “Iroquois-Cherokee Linguistic Relations,” in Symposium on Cherokee and Iroquois Culture, ed. by William N. Fenton and John Gulick, BAE Bulletin 180 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 11. 4. Bruce G. Trigger, “Cartier’s Hochelaga and the Dawson Site,” in Iroquois Cul­ ture, History and Prehistory, ed. by Elisabeth Tooker (Albany, N.Y.: New York State Museum, 1967), pp. 63-66; Harold A. Innis, The Fur Trade in Canada (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930), Chap. 2. 301

302

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

5. Nicolas Perrot, “Memoir on the Manners, Customs, and Religion of the Sav­ ages of North America,” in The Indian Tribes o f the Upper Mississippi Valley and Region o f the Great Lakes, ed. by Emma Helen Blair (Cleveland, Ohio: Arthur H. Clark, 1911), I, 42-47. The account was written sometime between 1680 and 1718. Lewis Henry Morgan, League o f the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1851, 1901; reprinted by Human Relations Area Files, 1954), I, 5-6; Herbert M. Lloyd's “Notes” in Morgan, League, II, 188-89; Arthur C. Parker, ‘The Origin of the Iroquois as Suggested by Their Archeology," American Anthropologist, n.s., XVIII, 4 (October-December 1916), 479-507. 6. James B. Griffin, “The Iroquois in American Prehistory,” Papers o f the Michi­ gan Academy o f Science, Arts, and Letters, XXIX (1943, 1944), 372; Bertram Kraus, “Acculturation, a New Approach to the Iroquois Problem,” American Antiquity, IX, 3 (January 1944), 309-11; William A. Ritchie, “A Current Synthesis of New York» Prehistory,” American Antiquity, XVII, 2 (October 1951), 130-36; Richard S. MacNeish, Iroquois Pottery Types: A Technique for the Study o f Iroquois Prehistory, Bulletin 124, Anthropological Series 31 (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1952); J. V. Wright, The Ontario Iroquois Tradition, Bulletin 210, Anthropological Series 75 (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1966); William A. Ritchie, The Ar­ cheology o f New York State (Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1965). 7. Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed., Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents (New • York: Pageant, 1959), XLII, 252. 8. Elisabeth Tooker, An Ethnography o f the Huron Indians, 1615—1649, BAE Bulletin 190 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), 13. 9. The Oneida data are adapted from Floyd G. Lounsbury, Oneida Verb Mor­ phology, Yale University Publications in Anthropology 48 (New Haven: Yale Uni­ versity Press, 1953), 95-96. 10. James A. Tuck, “The Howlett Hill Site: An Early Iroquois Village in Central New York,” in Iroquois Culture, History, and Prehistory, ed. by Tooker, p. 78. 11. Tooker, Ethnography, pp. 305-309; Morgan, League, I, 39-42; Lewis Henry* Morgan, Houses and House Life o f the American Aborigines (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1881), pp. 64-65. 12. J. N. B. Hewitt, Iroquoian Cosmology, Part /. Twenty-First Annual Report of the Bureau o f American Ethnology (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing! Office, 1903); William N. Fenton, ‘“ This Island, the World on the Turtle’s Back,’ ” Journal o f American Folklore, LXXV, 298 (October-December 1962), 283-300. 13. William N. Fenton, “The Seneca Green Corn Ceremony,” The New York 1 State Conservationist, XVIII, 4 (October-November 1963). 14. Wallace L. Chafe, Seneca Thanksgiving Rituals, Smithsonian Institution, BAE Bulletin 183 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961); Morgan, League, I, 141-216. 15. Morgan, League, I, 199-214; Harold Blau, “The Iroquois White Dog Sacri­ fice: Its Evolution and Symbolism,” Ethnohistory, XI, 2 (Spring 1964), 97-119; Elis­ abeth Tooker, “The Iroquois White Dog Sacrifice in the Latter Part of the Eigh­ teenth Century,” Ethnohistory, XII, 2 (Spring 1965), 129-40; Elisabeth Tooker, The'. Iroquois Ceremonial o f Midwinter (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1970). 16. Frank G. Speck, The Iroquois (Bloomfield Hills, Mich.: Cranbrook Institutes of Science, 1955), p. 29; Morgan, League, I, 74-80; Alexander A. Goldenweiser, “The Clan and Maternal Family of the Iroquois League,” American Anthropologist, n.s., XV, 4 (October-December 1913), 696-97; Marius Barbeau, “Iroquois Clans* and Phratries,” ibid., XIX, 3 (July-September 1917), 392-405; Tooker, Ethnogra­ phy, pp. 44, 55.

NOTES

303

17. J. N. B. Hewitt, “The Requickening Address of the Iroquois Condolence Council,” ed. by William N. Fenton, Journal o f the Washington Academy o f Sci­ ences, XXXIV, 3 (March 15, 1944), 81-85. 18. J. N. B. Hewitt, “Review of Parker’s Constitution o f the Five Nations,” Amer­ ican Anthropologist, n.s., XIX, 3 (July-September 1917), 432-33; Morgan, League, I, 55-73; Martha Champion Randle, “Iroquois Women, Then and Now,” Sympos­ ium on Local Diversity in Iroquois Culture, ed. by William N. Fenton, Smithsonian Institution, BAE Bulletin 149 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1951), pp. 171-72. 19. For variations in the dates, see the following: Paul A. W. Wallace, ‘The Re­ turn of Hiawatha,” New York History, XXIX (1948), 397-400 (a.d. 1451); Morgan, League, I, 7 (a.d. 1459); J. N. B. Hewitt, “Era of the Formation of the Historic League of the Iroquois,” American Anthropologist, VII, 1 (January 1894), 61-67 (between a.d. 1559 and 1570); George T. Hunt, Wars o f the Iroquois (Madison, Wise.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1960), pp. 67-68 (a.d. 1660). 20. J. N. B. Hewitt, “Hiawatha,” Handbook o f American Indians North o f Mex­ ico, ed. by F. W. Hodge, BAE Bulletin 30 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institu­ tion, 1907), I, 546; Hewitt, “Deganawida," ibid., pp. 383-84. 21. William N. Fenton, The Roll Call o f the Iroquois Chiefs, Smithsonian Mise. Coll., CXI, 15 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1950); Annemarie A. Shimony, Conservatism among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve (New Haven: Department of Anthropology of Yale University, 1961), pp. 104-16. 22. Frank G. Speck, Midwinter Rites o f the Cayuga Longhouse (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949), pp. 159-63. 23. Hewitt, ‘T he Requickening Address,” p. 66; William N. Fenton, “An Iroquois Condolence Council for Installing Cayuga Chiefs in 1945,” Journal o f the Washing­ ton Academy o f Sciences, XXXVI, 4 (April 15, 1946), 110-27; Fenton, Roll Call o f the Iroquois Chiefs; Horatio Hale, Iroquois Book o f Rites, ed. by William N. Fen­ ton (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963). 24. William N. Fenton, “Locality As a Basic Factor in the Development of Iro­ quois Social Structure,” in Symposium on Local Diversity, ed. by Fenton, pp. 39-54; William N. Fenton, “The Iroquois Confederacy in the Twentieth Century: A Case Study of the Theory of Lewis H. Morgan in ‘Ancient Society,’ ” Ethnology, IV, 3 (July 1965), 263; B. H. Quain, ‘T he Iroquois,” in Cooperation and Competition among Primitive Peoples, ed. by Margaret Mead (Boston: Beacon, 1960; published originally by McGraw-Hill, 1937), p. 263. 25. Randle, “Iroquois Women,” in Symposium on Local Diversity, ed. by Fenton, p. 172; Morgan, League, I, 331-35; Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, LXIV, 90, 100; James E. Seaver, A Narrative o f the Life o f Mrs. Mary Jemison (New York: Cor­ inth Books, 1961; published originally in 1824). 26. Tooker, Ethnography, pp. 28n, 31-39. 27. Nathaniel Knowles, “The Torture of Captives by the Indians of Eastern North America,” Proceedings o f the American Philosophical Society, LXXXII, 2 (1940), 215,219. 28. Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, XXIII, 172; Tooker, “Iroquois White Dog Sacri­ fice,” Ethnohistory, XII, 2 (Spring 1965), 135-36. 29. Hunt, Wars o f the Iroquois, pp. 165-72; William Christie MacLeod, The American Indian Frontier (New York: Knopf, 1928), p. 281; Keith F. Otterbein, “Why the Iroquois Won: An Analysis of Iroquois Military Tactics,” Ethnohistory, XI, 1 (Winter 1964), 56-63. 30. Morgan, League, 1,69-70.

304

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

31. Ibid., 68-69; Morgan, Ancient Society, pp. 119-20; William N. Fenton, The Iroquois Eagle Dance an Offshoot o f the Calumet Dance, BAE Bulletin 156 (Wash­ ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953), pp. 102-104, 106. 32. Randle, “Iroquois Women,” in Symposium on Local Diversity, ed. by Fenton, p. 172. 33. For an interesting parallel, see Walter B. Miller, ‘Two Concepts of Author­ ity,” American Anthropologist, n.s., LVII (1955), 271-89. 34. Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 148; Morgan, League, I, 94-97. 35. Hunt, Wars o f the Iroquois; William N. Fenton, “Review of Hunt’s Wars o f the Iroquois," American Anthropologist, n.s., XLII, 4 (October-December 1940), 662-64.

C h a p te r II— Forging an Alliance 1. Accounts of French attempts to win the Iroquois through religion are con­ tained throughout the volumes of the Jesuit Relations. For British attitudes toward missionary endeavor among the Iroquois, see John Wolfe Lydekker, The Faithful Mohawks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938), especially pp. 8-9. 2. Peter Wraxall, An Abridgement o f the Indian Affairs Contained in Four Folio Volumes, Transacted in the Colony o f New York, from the Year 1678 to the Year 1751, ed. by Charles H. Mcllwain (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1915), pp. 9, 11, 39, 116, 121; Paul A. W. Wallace, “The Iroquois,” in The Living­ ston Indian Records 1666-1723, ed. by Lawrence H. Leder (Gettysburg, Pa.: Pennsyl­ vania Historical Association, 1956), p. 25n; Lydekker, Faithful Mohawks, p. 8; An­ thony F. C. Wallace, “Origins of Iroquois Neutrality: The Grand Settlement of 1701,” Pennsylvania History, XXIV, 3 (July 1957), 223-35; E. B. O’Callaghan, Doc­ uments Relative to the Colonial History o f the State o f New York (Albany, N.Y.: Weed, Parsons, 1854), IV, 889-905, 908-911 (hereafter, NYCD). 3. For a history of the Anglican mission among the Mohawks, see Lydekker, Faithful Mohawks. 4. Richmond P. Bond, Queen Anne’s American Kings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952); Lydekker, Faithful Mohawks, pp. 30-31,40. 5. William Johnson, The Papers o f Sir William Johnson, ed. by James Sullivan et al. 14 vols. (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York, 1921-65), XII, 1062-75. 6. Haldimand to Germain, September 13, 1779, B54, p. 155, PAC; Draper MSS. 1F32-33, 14F63, HSW. 7. Johnson Papers, IX, 785; Lawrence Henry Gipson, The Victorious Years, 1758-1760, Vol. 7 of The Great War for Empire (New York: Knopf, 1949), pp. 64-66, 73. 8. Gipson, Victorious Years, pp. 241-42, 342-43, 349-56. 9. Johnson Papers, III, 670-717. 10. Ibid., XI, 141. 11. Kirkland to John Thornton, July 27,1772, KP. 12. From Wheelock’s Memoirs, quoted in Samuel Kirkland Lothrop, Life o f Sam­ uel Kirkland (Boston: Little and Brown, 1847), pp. 205-207. 13. Kirkland to Wheelock, February 15, 1770, KP; Lothrop, Life o f Kirkland, pp. 214-15. 14. Kirkland’s Journal 1770-71, pp. 7, 8, 11-12, 14, 33, KP; Journal, June 10, 1774-January 1775, p. 30, KP. 15. Kirkland to Wheelock, February 15, 1770, KP.

NOTES

305

16. Kirkland to Levi Hart, January 17, 1771, KP; Kirkland to John Thornton, February 6, 1771, KP. 17. Journal, June 10, 1774-January 1775, p. 41, KP. 18. See, for instance, Kirkland's Journal for 1770-71, pp. 11, 19, 26; and January 1775-March 20, 1775, pp. 7, 30, 31, KP. 19. Lothrop, Life o f Kirkland, pp. 300-301. 20. Journal 1770-71, pp. 6, 8, 22, KP; Resolutions of the Commissioners, October 4, 1770, KP. “A particular Account of the House, furniture, farming utensils, cattle kind &c., belonging to and purchased by Sami. Kirkland Missry. from Revd. Dr. Wheelock to the Oneida and other adjacent Tribes of Indians,” October 31, 1770, KP. 21. Journal, 1770-71, p. 27, KP; Journal, January 1775-March 20, 1775, p. 5, KP. 22. Morgan, Houses and House Life, p. 45. 23. “An account of some Extraordinary Charges attending the Mission of Sami. Kirkland, Missionary to the Oneida and Tuscarora Tribes of Indians, from the Honble London Board of Correspondents In Boston— from October 6th 1770 to October 1771 which he begs to lay before said Board for their Consideration,” pp. 3-4, KP. 24. Ibid., pp. 5-6. 25. Kirkland to Wheelock, February 15, 1770; Kirkland to Andrew Oliver, Octo­ ber 4, 1770; Kirkland to Wheelock, October 9, 1770; John Thornton to Kirkland, February 19, 1772; Jasper Manduit to Samuel Locke, April 29, 1771, KP; “At a Meeting of the President and Fellows of Harvard College, November 13, 1770,” KP (original in Massachusetts Historical Society, 71K96). 26. E. B. O'Callaghan, ed., Documentary History o f New York (Albany, N.Y.: Weed, Parsons, 1850), IV, 197. 27. Johnson Papers, IV, 841-44, 856, 860-61; XI, 930-31. 28. Ibid., VI, 468. 29. These sentiments, as related by the Oneidas to Kirkland, are reported in Kirk­ land’s Journal 1770-71, pp. 31-32, KP. 30. Johnson Papers, VII, 481, 514, 528-29. 31. Ibid., VIII, 1059-61, 1114-15, 1160-61. 32. Ibid., XII, 748-49; Lydekker, Faithful Mohawks, pp. 118-20. 33. William Warren Sweet, Religion in Colonial America (New York: Scribner’s, 1947), pp. 71-72; Johnson Papers, VI, 131-33. 34. Kirkland to Ebenezer Pemberton, May 1, 1771, KP; Kirkland to Andrew Oliver and the commissioners, November 12, 1770, KP. 35. Journal 1770-71, pp. 31-32, KP. 36. Johnson Papers, III, 697-98. 37. Journal 1770-71, pp. 32-33, KP. 38. Ibid., pp. 34-37. 39. Ibid., p. 37. 40. Journal 1773, pp. 12-15; Journal, June 10, 1774-January, 1775, pp. 3-8, KP.

C h a p te r III— Hold Fast to the Covenant Chain 1. NYCD, VIII, 459-61; Johnson Papers, XII, 113-16. 2. NYCD, VIII, 474-80. 3. Gage to Dartmouth, July 18, 1774, No. 5, Gage Papers, English Series, Vol. 25, WLC.

306

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

4. XYCD, VIII. 500-501. 5. Ibid., p. 500. 6. Kirkland's Journal. June 10, 1774-January 1775, p. 19, KP. 7. Lieutenant Colonel John Caldwell to General Thomas Gage, September 29, 1774. Gage Papers. American Series, Vol. 123, WLC; also, NYCD, VIII, 507-509. 8. “Annecdotes of the Mohawk Chief Captn Joseph Brant alias Tayendanegea," Claus Papers. II. 46, PAC (hereafter. Anecdotes of Brant); Josiah Priest, The Captiv­ ity and Suffering o f Gen. Freegift Patchin o f Blenheim, Schoharie County, among the Indians, under Brant (Albany, N.Y.: Packard, Hoffman, and White, 1833), p. 6; William L. Stone. Life o f Joseph Brant (Albany. N.Y.; Munsell, 1865; originally published in 1838). I, 27; “Notes of a Conversation with Elijah Skenando,” Draper MSS. 11U237. HSW; Kirkland to Schuyler, January 25. 1777. CC. Item 153, III, 21; Kirkland to Schuyler, January 25, 1777, KP. 9. Journal. June 10. 1774-January 1775, pp. 19-20, 26-27. KP; NYCD, VIII, 524-27. 10. XYCD, VIII. 517. 11. Daniel Claus t o ------ , December 2, 1774, Claus Papers. I. 177-78, PAC. 12. Journal, January 1775-March 20, 1775, p. 20n, KP. 13. Ibid., p. 17; Kirkland to Andrew Oliver, March 28, 1775, KP. 14. X YCD, VIII, 535-36. 15. Ibid., 538-39. 16. The whole controversy is recorded in Kirkland's Journal. January 1775-March 20, 1775, KP, and NYCD, VIII, 534-42. 17. Journal, January 1775-March 20, 1775, pp. 29-33, KP; Johnson to Gage, March 13, 1775, Gage Papers, American Series, Vol. 126, WLC. 18. Speech of Oneidas to Gov. Trumbull. March, 1775 (misfiled in 1777 folder), KP. 19. Gage to Carleton, September 4, 1774, Germain Papers, Supplementary, Box 1, WLC; Eleazar Wheelock to Governor Trumbull, March 16, 1775, in American Ar­ chives, ed. by Peter Force, fourth series (Washington, D.C.: Clarke and Force, 1840), II, 152; Sidney Norton Deane, "A New England Pioneer among the Oneida Indians: The Life of James Dean of Westmoreland, New York” (paper read before the North­ ampton Historical Society on January 28, 1926), Film 1101, APS: Andrew Oliver to Wheelock, November 11, 1767, Emmet Collection, No. 5006, NYPL. 20. “A Short Account of a Tour Undertaken 9th March 1775 from Dartmouth College to Canada,” Schuyler Papers, Box 13, NYPL. 21. Kirkland to Andrew Eliot, March 28. 1775. KP; Eliot to Kirkland, April 7, 1775, KP. 22. Stone, Life o f Brant, I, 55-56. 23. Gage to G. Johnson, February 5, 1775, Gage Papers, American Series, Vol. 125, WLC. 24. Kirkland's Journal 1773, pp. 11-12, KP. For an extended discussion of Iro­ quois land grievances, see Georgiana C. Nammack, Fraud, Politics, and the Dispos­ session o f the Indians: The Iroquois Land Frontier in the Colonial Period (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969). 25. G. Johnson to Gage, April 7, 1775, Gage Papers, American Series, Vol. 127, WLC. 26. Gage to G. Johnson, April 13, 1775, ibid. 27. Percy to Gage, April 20, 1775, Bancroft Transcripts, England and America, January 1775-August 1775, pp. 147—48, NYPL; Lieutenant Colonel F. Smith to Gage, April 22, 1775, ibid., pp. 149-56; Gage to Lieutenant Colonel Caldwell, May

NOTES

307

10, 1775, Gage Papers, American Series, Vol. 128, WLC; G. Le Grys Norgale, “Percy, Hugh,” Dictionary o f National Biography, ed. by Sidney Lee (New York: Macmillan, 1895), XLIV, 420-22. 28. Dated May 1775, in commentary on Guy Johnson's letter of February 14, 1775, KP (original in John Adams Papers, MHS). 29. Ibid. 30. Loyalty Oath, n.d., Tryon County MSS., Box 1, NYHS. 31. Resolution of the committee, n.d., ibid. 32. G. Johnson to Gage, May 12, 1775, Gage Papers, American Series, Vol. 128, WLC; Stone, Brant, 1,63-64, 67-69. 33. “Memorial of Guy Johnson to Lord's Commissioners of His Majesty's Treas­ ury, March 28, 1776,” No. 147, British Headquarters Papers, NYPL; “Claim of Guy Johnson,” American Loyalists, XLIV, 58-59, NYPL; “Claim of Daniel Claus,” ibid., XLIII, 397-98; “Deposition of Benjamin Davis, August 8, 1775,” Schuyler Papers, Box 13, NYPL; “A General Detail of Col. Claus's Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, PL I, 23-24, PAC; “Examination of Gunt Roseboom, July 5, 1775,” CC, Item 153, I, 31-33; G. Johnson to Schuyler, July 8, 1775, ibid., p. 29; Kirkland's commentary on Guy Johnson’s letter of February 14, 1775, dated May 1775, pp. 27-31, KP; “Jour­ nal of the Treaties at German Flats and Albany, 15, August-1 September, 1775,” MS. No. 13431, NYSL; NYCD, VIII, 596, 630-31, 635-37; Stone, Brant, I, 102-103. 34. “A Speech from the People of the German Flatts to the Oneidas and Tuscaroras, June 28, 1775,” Tryon County MSS., Box 1, NYHS. 35. Chris. P. Yates to Committees of Albany and Schenectady, July 13, 1775, CC, Item 153, I, 23; Tryon County MSS., Box 1, July 14, 1775, NYHS; Schuyler to Hancock, July 15, 1775, CC, Item 153, I, 37; Speech of Oneynyoaget and Thuegweyndaek, July 25, 1775, ibid., p. 81. 36. United States Continental Congress, Journals o f the Continental Congress 1774-1789 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office), II, 93, 174-83, 187; Eliphalet Dyer and Roger Sherman to Gov. Trumbull, July 28, 1775, KP; War­ ren-Adams Letters (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1917), I, 79. 37. Carleton to Dartmouth, October 25, 1775, Colonial Office Transcripts, Q ll, p. 270, PAC; Record of Indian Transactions, 1775, Bancroft Transcripts, England and America, January-August 1775, pp. 336-38, NYPL; NYCD, VIII, 636, 659-60. 38. “A General Detail of Col. Claus's Services,” Claus Papers, XIV Pt. I, 24, PAC; Memorandum on the Rebel Invasion of Canada in 1775, Q13, pp. 49-52, PAC. 39. Benedict Arnold to Thomas Walker at Montreal, May 20, 1775, Q ll, p. 192, PAC; Gustave Lanctôt, ed.. Les canadiens français et leur voisins du sud (Montréal,: Editions Bernard Valiquette, 1941), pp. 91-124. 40. Ethan Allen to Indians of Canada, May 24,1775, Ql 1, pp. 193-94, PAC. 41. “A General Detail of Col. Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. I, 24, PAC; Memorandum on the Rebel Invasion of Canada in 1775, Q13, pp. 49-52, PAC; CC, Item 153,1, 362. 42. Bancroft Transcripts, England and America, January-August, 1775, pp. 338-39, 510-12, NYPL; NYCD, VIII, 660. 43. NYCD, VIII, 342-43, 596. 44. N. Herckheimer [Nicholas Herkimer], Chairman Canojoharie, July 3, 1775, Tryon County MSS., Box 1, NYHS; Schuyler to Congress, June 29, 1775, CC, Item 153,1,5. 45. Kirkland’s commentary on Guy Johnson’s letter of February 14, 1775, KP.

308

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

46. Journal of Treaties at German Flats and Albany, 15 August-1 September, 1775, MSS. No. 13431, pp. 1-3, NYSL; also, NYCD, VIII, 605-31, esp. 605-606. 47. NYCD, VIII, 606-608. 48. Ibid., pp. 608-10; Adonijah Strong to Andrew Adams, August 26, 1775, MS. No. 11067, NYSL. 49. NYCD, VIII, 617-20; JCC, II, 177-83. 50. Abraham's speech is in NYCD, VIII, 621-24. 51. Ibid., pp. 627-31. 52. Volkert Douw to John Hancock, November 6, 1775, Force, American Ar­ chives, fourth series. III, 1372-73; CC, Item 67,1,70. 53. Ernest A. Cruikshank, A History o f the Organization . . . o f the Military and Naval Forces o f Canada (Ottawa: Department of Militia and Defense, 1919-20), II, 3; Gustave Lanctôt, Canada and the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Har­ vard University Press, 1967), esp. pp. 43-91. 54. Record of Indian Transactions, 1775, Bancroft Transcripts, England and America, January-August 1775, pp. 328-30, NYPL; NYCD, VIII, 660. 55. NYCD, VIII, 660-61; Schuyler to Hancock, September 19, 1775, CC, Item 153, I, 142; Memorandum of the Rebel Invasion of Canada in 1775, Q13, pp. 52-55, PAC; “Detail of Col. Claus's Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. I, 24-25, PAC; “Claim of Daniel Claus,” American Loyalists, XLIII 418-19, NYPL; “Claim of Guy Johnson,” ibid., XLIV, 60; Schuyler to Hancock, September 8, 1775, Force, American Archives, fourth series. III, 669-70; Schuyler to Washington, September 20, 1775, ibid., pp. 751-54. 56. Schuyler to Washington, September 20, 1775, American Archives, fourth se­ ries, III, 752; Schuyler to Hancock, September 8, 1775, ibid., p. 670. 57. “General Detail of Col. Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. I, 24-25, PAC; Memorandum on the Rebel Invasion of Canada, Q13, pp. 48-56, PAC. 58. Q13,p.25, PAC. 59. NYCD, VIII, 661. 60. J. Howard Hanson and Samuel Ludlow Frey, eds.. The Minute Book o f the Committee o f Safety o f Tryon County (New York: Dodd Mead and Co., 1905), pp. 95-96. 61. Cruikshank, Military and Naval Forces o f Canada, II, 7; “Schedule of the Real Estate of the Children of Mrs. Mary Brant,” American Loyalists, XLIV, 107, NYPL. 62. Stone, Brant, I, 112-13; Schuyler to Hancock, December 14, 1775, CC, Item 153,1,362. 63. Gage to Dartmouth, January 12, 1775, Bancroft Transcripts, England and America, January-August 1775, p. 296, NYPL; Gage to Carleton, September 5, 1775, Gage Papers, American Series, Vol. 135, WLC. 64. George Morgan Letterbook 1776: “Council at Niagara,” typescript in Pennsyl­ vania Historical and Museum Commission, pp. 44-46. 65. Germain to Suffolk, June 16 or 17, 1775, Germain Papers, III, WLC; Howe to Germain, September 25, 1775, ibid.; John Richard Alden, General Gage in Amer­ ica (Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1948), Chaps. 14 and 17; “Claim of Daniel Claus,” American Loyalists, XLIII, 43, 407, 419-20, NYPL; An­ ecdotes of Brant, Claus Papers, II, 47-48, PAC; Johnson to Haldimand, January 11, 1783, B108, p. 102, PAC; NYCD, VIII, 671. 66. Tryon County Committee of Safety to Schuyler, January 11, 1776, CC, Item 67, I, 155-56; Schuyler to Hancock, January 23, 1776, CC, Item 153, I, 414-46, 470-73; Stone, Brant, I, Chap. 6.

NOTES

309

67. J. Johnson to Governor Tryon, n.d.; Governor Tryon to Dartmouth, January 5, 1776, N Y C D , VIII, 651. 68. For references, see note 66 above.

C h a p t e r IV— A n Uneasy Neutrality 1. Sir Guy Carleton to Maurice Morgan, April 28, 1786, in “Claim of John But­ ler,” American Loyalists, XLIII, 645, NYPL. 2. Dean to Schuyler, March 10, 1776, CC, Item 153, III, 79-82; Kirkland to Schuyler, March 12, 1776, ibid., pp. 97-100. 3. Kirkland to Schuyler, March 12, 1776, CC, Item 153, III, 99. 4. Washington to Schuyler, January 27, 1776, The Writings o f George Washing­ ton, ed. by Fitzpatrick, IV, 280; Schuyler to Hancock, February 10, 1776, CC, Item 153,1, 514; idem, February 13, 1776, ibid., II, 11-12. 5. Schuyler to Congress, September 24, 1775, CC, Item 153, I, 176-77; Dean to Schuyler, March 18, 1776, ibid., II, 83-84. 6. “Minutes of the Proceedings of the Commissioners for the Northern Depart­ ment Commencing 29 April 1776,” Schuyler Papers, Box 13, NYPL. 7. Testimony of Asa Chadwick, March 6, 1776, CC, Item 153, II, 51; Dean to Schuyler, March 10, 1776, ibid., pp. 80-81; Schuyler to J. Johnson, March 12, 1776, ibid., p. 55; Schuyler to Hancock, March 20, 1776, ibid., p. 59. 8. Speech to the Six Nations, n.d., CC, Item 153, II, 93-95. 9. “Minutes of the Proceedings of the Commissioners for the Northern Depart­ ment Commencing 29 April, 1776,” Schuyler Papers, Box 13, NYPL. 10. “Captain John Deserontyon's Services,” Draper MSS. 14F49, HSW. 11. “Minutes of the Proceedings of the Commissioners for the Northern Depart­ ment Commencing 29 April, 1776,” Schuyler Papers, Box 13, NYPL. 12. J. Johnson to Claus, January 20, 1777, Claus Papers, I, 232-33, PAC. 13. Justin H. Smith, Our Struggle for the Fourteenth Colony (New York: Put­ nam's, 1907), II, 369-74; Carleton to Germain, May 25, 1776, Q12, p. 49, PAC; Cramahé to Germain, May 25, 1776, ibid., p. 52. 14. Compare, for instance, Howard Swiggett, War Out o f Niagara: Walter Butler and the Tory Rangers (New York: Columbia University Press, 1933), pp. 69, 71, 72, 150, with Force, American Archives, fourth series, V, 770, 773, 818. Stone, Brant, I, 151, 153-55; ibid., II, 463-66; Lydekker, Faithful Mohawks, p. 147; Hazel C. Ma­ thews, Mark o f Honour (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965), p. 37; Draper MSS. 2F73, 4F61, 5F115, 7F89-90, HSW; “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 46-49, PAC; Walter Butler to Mason Bolton, November 17, 1778, B100, pp. 82-88, PAC; Bolton to Haldimand, February 12, 1779, B100, p. 104, PAC; NYCD, VIII, 678, 681,687; Force, American Archives, fifth series, III, 839. 15. Schuyler to Hancock, February 15, 1776, CC, Item 153, 1, 541. 16. NYCD, VIII, 688-90. 17. For a more comprehensive discussion, see F. A. Iderwick, The King’s Peace (London: Swan Sonneneschein, 1895); George E. Howard, “On the Development of the King’s Peace and the English Local Peace Magistracy," University Studies, I, 3 (July 1890) (Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska, 1888-92), 235-99; Carleton Kemp Allen, The Queen’s Peace (London: Stevens, 1953); also entries under “Contra Pacem,” “Peace,” and “Peace, Breach of the,” in, William Allen Jowitt, The Diction­ ary o f English Law, 2 vols. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1959). 18. George Morgan Letterbook 1776, p. 49, PHMC.

310

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

19. I b id ., pp. 43-49; Schuyler to Hancock, July 17, 1776, CC, Item 153, II, 238-42; Schuyler to Gates, July 17, 1776, Gates Papers, Box 3, NYHS. 20. J C C , IV, 394-96. 21. Kirkland to Schuyler, June 8, 1776, CC, Item 153, II, 202-204; Schuyler to Congress, June 8, 1776, ib id ., pp. 192-96. 22. Schuyler to Congress, June 8, 1776, ib id ., pp. 192-96. 23. Arnold to Schuyler, June 10, 1776, ib id ., p. 206. 24. Dreer Collection (D.S.), May 1, 1776, HSP; Draper MSS. 2S29-30, 103-104, HSW. 25. George Morgan Letterbook 1776, p. 53, PHMC. 26. I b id ., pp. 52-58; Emmet Collection, No. 6292, NYPL. 27. Speech of White Mingo, August 21, 1776, Yeates Papers, HSP.

C h a p t e r V— Take Up the Hatchet 1. “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 46-48, PAC; NYCD, VIII, 654, 670, 678; Germain to General Howe, March 28, 1776, Germain Papers, Vol. 4, WLC. 2. Johnson Papers, XI, 817-19. 3. “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 46-48, PAC; Johnson to Germain, Au­ gust 9, 1776, NYCD, VIII, 681. 4. “Intelligence From an Indian To Be Kept Private, September 3, 1776,” Yeates Papers, Correspondence 1762-80, HSP; Schuyler t o ------, August 1, 1776, CC, Item 153,11, 249. 5. Schuyler to Hancock, July 17, 1776, CC, Item 153, II, 240-41. 6. Indian Records, R.G. 10, ser. 2, XII, 130, PAC; Schuyler to Hancock, August 7, 1776, CC, Item 153, II, 267-68. 7. Schuyler to Hancock, August 18, 1776, CC, Item 153, II, 285; Council at Ger­ man Flats, August 1776, Schuyler Papers, Box 13, NYPL. 8. Speech to Mohawks, 1776, Schuyler Papers, Box 13, NYPL; Speech of a Ca­ yuga Sachem, 1776, ibid.; Address to Six Nations, August 12, 1776, Schuyler Papers, Acc. 67, Box 1, No. 68, NYSL; Seaver, Mary Jemison, p. 73. 9. Lord Howe to Germain, September 25, 1775, Germain Papers, Vol. 3, WLC. 10. “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 48, PAC; “Observations of Joseph Brant’s Distinguished Genius and Character from Other Indians,” ibid., p. 208 (here­ after, “Observations of Brant”). 11. NYCD, VIII, 687-88; “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 48; “Observa­ tions of Brant,” ibid., p. 209. 12. “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 48. 13. Ibid. 14. “Observations of Brant,” ibid., p. 209. 15. “Anecdotes of Brant,” ibid., pp. 38-49; Carleton to Lernoult, February 9, 1777, B18, p. 175, PAC; Butler to Carleton, April 8, 1777, Q13, pp. 132-33, PAC; Butler to Carleton, July 28, 1777, Q14, pp. 145-48, PAC. 16. “Observations of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 209-11; Kirkland to Schuyler, Jan­ uary 17, 1777, CC, Item 153, III, 65-67. 17. Dayton to Schuyler, September 4, 1776, CC, Item 153, II, 353; Spencer to Dayton, September 4, 1776, ibid., pp. 355-56; Onondaga Chiefs to Colonel Dayton, September 4, 1776, ibid., p. 357; Dayton to Schuyler, September 11, 1776, ibid., p. 376; Dayton to Schuyler, September 22, 1776, ibid., pp. 378-80; Eisenlord to Glen, September 6, 1776, Henry Glen Papers, NYPL.

NOTES

311

18. Kirkland to Schuyler, January 14, 1777, CC, Item 153, III, 63-68; Speech of Oneida Chiefs, January 16, 1777, ibid., pp. 55-57. 19. Speech of the Oneida Chiefs, January 19, 1777, ibid., pp. 59-60. 20. Kirkland to Schuyler, January 19, 1777, ibid., pp. 71-72. 21. Elmore to Schuyler, April 22, 1777, ibid., p. 124. 22. Stone, Brant, I, 27; “Notes of Conversation with Elijah Skenando,” Draper MSS. 11U237, HSW; Draper MSS. 11U220-221, 242, HSW; Kirkland to Schuyler, January 25, 1777, CC, Item 153, III, 21; Kirkland to Schuyler, January 25, 1777, KP; Katharine Elizabeth Crane, “Skenandoa,” Dictionary o f American Biography, ed. by Dumas Malone (New York: Scribner’s, 1935), XVII, 194. 23. Gates to Congress, April 29, 1777, Bancroft Transcripts, America 1777, I, 236b-d, NYPL. 24. Schuyler to Hancock, June 8, 1777, CC, Item 153, III, 149-50. 25. Elmore to Gansevoort, n.d., GMP, III, NYPL; Leonard Gansevoort to Peter Gansevoort, May 17, 1777, ibid., II, NYPL. 26. John Harper to Schoharie Committee, June 10, 1777, Draper MSS. 3F169, HSW; idem, June 12, 1777, CC, Item 153, III, 162-64. 27. Schuyler to Hancock, June 14, 1777, CC, Item 153, III, 152; “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 49; “Observations of Brant,” ibid., p. 211; “General Detail of Col. Claus's Services,” ibid., XIV, Pt. I, 28-29; Butler to Carleton, June 15, 1777, Q13, p. 317, PAC; idem, July 28, 1777, Q14, p. 145. 28. “General Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. I, 29; “Anecdotes of Brant,” ibid., II, 49; Deposition of John Harper, July 1777, Tryon Co. MSS., Box 1, NYHS; Draper MSS. 3F83, 17F97, HSW; William W. Campbell, Annals o f Tryon County (New York: Harper, 1831), pp. 63-66; Stone, Brant, I, 181-86; Jeptha R. Simms, The Frontiersmen o f New York (Albany, N.Y.: Riggs, 1883), II, 15-20. 29. Stone, Brant, I, 209; Journal of William Colbrath, p. 4, NYPL; Minutes of July 17, 1777, Tryon Co. MSS., Box 1, NYHS. 30. Gansevoort to Van Schaick, July 5, 1777, GMP, III, NYPL; Claus to Knox, October 16, 1777, NYCD, VIII, 718-19. 31. NYCD, VIII, 719. 32. Draper MSS. 16F123, HSW. 33. For a full account of British transactions with the Iroquois Confederacy be­ tween July 13 and August 5, 1777, it is necessary to consult the following sources: Claus to Knox, October 16, 1777, NYCD, VIII, 719-20; “General Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. I, 30-32, PAC; Anecdotes of Brant, ibid., II, 49-51, PAC; Butler to Carleton, June 15, 1777, Q13, p. 317, PAC; Butler to Carleton, July 28, 1777, Q14, pp. 145-48, PAC; Seaver, Mary Jemison, pp. 73-75; “Life of Governor Blacksnake," Draper MSS. 16F121-134, HSW; “Conversations with Governor Blacksnake,” Draper MSS. 4S17-23, HSW; “A Copy of Cornplanter’s Talk,” Draper MSS. 16F227 3; Thomas Spencer to Colonel Gansevoort, July 28, 1777, GMP, III, NYPL; Copy of a letter from Thomas Spencer, July 29, 1777, ibid. 34. Draper MSS. 4F190, 16F121-134, 4S17-23, HSW. 35. Ibid. 36. Morgan, League, I, 70; “Conversations with Governor Blacksnake,” Draper MSS. 4S48, 65-66, 80-81, HSW; “Copy of Cornplanter’s Talk,” Draper MSS. 16F2272, HSW; George Clinton, Public Papers o f George Clinton, ed. by Hugh Hastings and others, 10 vols. (Albany: State of New York, 1900-14), III, 521. 37. NYCD, VIII, 719; “General Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. 1,30.

312

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

38. NYCD, VIII, 720. 39. Ibid. 40. “General Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. I, 30. 41. Butler to Carleton, July 28, 1777, Q14, pp. 145-46, PAC; “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 50, PAC. 42. “General Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. I, 30. 43. Butler to Carleton, July 28, 1777, Q14, p. 148, PAC. 44. “Conversations with Governor Blacksnake,” Draper MSS. 4SI9, HSW. The account of taking up the hatchet in “Blacksnake’s Life" (Draper MSS. 16F121-134, HSW) as recorded by Benjamin Williams is longer but follows the same pattern. 45. Seaver, Mary Jemison, p. 76.

C h a p t e r V I— The Tree Uprooted 1. St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, pp. 132-33, PAC; NYCD, VIII, 721; John Albert Scott, Fort Stanwix and Oriskany (Rome, N.Y.: Rome Sentinel Co., 1927), p. 268. 2. St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, pp. 132-33, PAC. 3. Journal of William Colbrath, p. 9, NYPL; Draper MSS. 16F135, HSW. 4. St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, pp. 135-36, PAC; “Claim of Joost Harkemer,” American Loyalists, XX, 175-76, NYPL. 5. St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, pp. 135-36, PAC; “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 50; “Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” ibid., XIV, Pt. I, 31; Colbrath Journal, p. 10, NYPL; NYCD, VIII, 721. 6. “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 31; “Detail of Colonel Claus’s Ser­ vices,” ibid., XIV, Pt. I, 51; “Claim of John Johnson,” American Loyalists, XLÏI, 461, NYPL; “Claim of Joost Harkemer,” American Loyalists, XX, 175-76, 182, NYPL. 7. German Flats Committee to Albany Committee, August 9, 1777, CC, Item 67, II, 67-68; Adam Hellmer’s Testimony, August 12, 1777, ibid., p. 69; Colbrath Jour­ nal, pp. 10-11, NYPL. 8. Butler to Carleton, August 15, 1777, Q14, p. 153, PAC; St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, pp. 136-37, PAC; Adam Hellmer’s Testimony, August 12, 1777, CC, Item 67, II, 69; German Flats Committee to Albany Committee, August 9, 1777, ibid., pp. 67-68; Colbrath Journal, pp. 10-11, NYPL; Scott, Fort Stanwix and Oriskany, pp. 187-90; Draper MSS. 4S25, HSW. 9. Draper MSS. 11U196-197, 200, 215-17, HSW; Campbell, Annals o f Tryon County, pp. 68, 70, 72, 74, 83. 10. Scott, Fort Stanwix and Oriskany, pp. 199-208; Butler to Carleton, August 15, 1777, Q14, pp. 153-55, PAC; Draper MSS. 3F60, 16F136, HSW; “Deposition of John Garrison, June 13, 1778,” Tryon County MSS., Box 1, NYHS; “Deposition of John Lewis, June 13, 1777,” ibid.; Adam Fonda to Schenectady Committee, August 8, 1777, Emmet Collection, No. 4611, NYPL. 11. Draper MSS. 11U196-197, 200, 215-17, HSW; Draper MSS. 16F136, HSW; “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 51; Adam Fonda to Schenectady Committee, August 8, 1777, Emmet Collection, No. 4611, NYPL; Campbell, Annals o f Tryon County, pp. 74, 83. 12. Marinus Willett to New York Journal and Advertiser, August 18, 1777, quoted in Scott, Fort Stanwix and Oriskany, pp. 188-89.

NOTES

313

13. Ibid.; St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, pp. 137-38, PAC; Report of Adam Hellmer, CC, Item 67, II, August 12, 1777, 69; Colbrath Journal, pp. 11-13, NYPL. 14. “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 51; German Fiats Committee to Al­ bany Committee, August 9, 1777, CC, Item 67, II, 68; NYCD, VIII, 721. 15. “Extract of a Letter from an Officer of Distinction, dated Albany, August 13, 1777,” Independent Chronicle and Universal Advertiser (Boston), August 29, 1777, p. 3, in GMP, III, August 29, 1777, NYPL; German Flats Committee to Albany Committee, August 9, 1777, CC, Item 67, II, 67 -68; NYCD, VIII, 721; Butler to Carleton, August 15, 1777, Q14, pp. 153-55, PAC. 16. Butler to Carleton, August 15, 1777, Q14, p. 154, PAC; NYCD, VIII, 721; Seaver, Mary Jemison, p. 77; Draper MSS. 14F49, 16F136, 4S24. 17. NYCD, VIII, 721-22; Draper MSS. 4S25-26, 16F136-137, HSW. 18. Draper MSS. 4S25-26, 16F136-137, HSW. 19. Stone, Brant, I, 240; German Flats Committee to Albany Committee, August 9,1777, CC, Item 67, II, 66-67. 20. Draper MSS. 4S25; Butler to Carleton, August 15, 1777, Q14, pp. 153-55, PAC; St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, p. 137, PAC; NYCD, VIII, 721. 21. Seaver, Mary Jemison, pp. 16-11. 22. “A General Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. I, 32; “Deposition of John Lewis, June 13, 1778,” Tryon County MSS., Box 1, NYHS; “Deposition of John Garrison, June 13, 1778,” ibid.; “Deposition of Garred Van Brocklen, June 13, 1778,” ibid. 23. Draper MSS. 11U204; NYCD, VIII, 725. 24. Answer to St. Leger, August 9, 1777, GMP, III, NYPL. 25. St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, pp. 138-40, PAC. 26. Stone, Brant, I, 253-56; NYCD, VIII, 721; “Claim of Sarah McGinn,” Ameri­ can Loyalists, XXI, 399-401, NYPL. The name is always spelled elsewhere as “McGinnis.” 27. Stone, Brant, I, 257-62; Draper MSS. 2F85; St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, p. 140, PAC. 28. St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, pp. 140-43, PAC; NYCD, VIII, 721-22; Colbrath Journal, pp. 28-33, NYPL; Gansevoort to Gates, August 22, 1777, CC, Item 67,11,81. 29. Montreal, September 4, 1777, Germain Papers, VI, WLC. 30. “Return of Enemy Stores taken at Fort Schuyler August 24, 1777: Ammuni­ tion and Artillery,” GMP, IX, NYPL; “A Return of Engineers Stores taken in the Enemies Camp at Fort Schuyler on 24th August 1777,” ibid.; “A Return of Clothing and Baggage taken at Fort Schuyler from the Enemy 24 August, 1777,” ibid. 31. Draper MSS. 11U202, 3F6, HSW; Gansevoort to Laurens, January 6, 1778, GMP, III, NYPL; Gansevoort to Conway, April 19, 1778, ibid. 32. NYCD, VIII, 722; Draper MSS. 4S26, HSW. 33. “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 51. 34. Claus to Haldimand, August 30, 1779, Claus Papers, II, 131-33, PAC; Schuy­ ler to Committee of Tryon County, March 11, 1778, Schuyler Mansion Document No. 12, NYSL; NYCD, VIII, 725; Jelles Fonda to Schuyler, April 21, 1778, Schuy­ ler Papers, Box 14, NYPL; Depositions of Henry Apple, Johannes House, Jacobus Pickett, Hanyost Harkimar, George Herkimer, Hendrick S. Moyer, Elizabeth Haberman, Martin Tillebach, dated April 20, 1778, Schuyler Papers, Box 14, NYPL; Claus to Mathews, August 12, 1782, B114, pp. 259-60, PAC. 35. John Harper to Peter T. Curtenous, March 30, 1791, Emmet Collection, No.

314

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

4597, NYPL; Jeptha R. Simms, History o f Schoharie County (Albany, N.Y.: Mun­ sell, 1845), pp. 237-49. 36. NYCD, VIII, 723-25; “Capt. John Deserontyon's Services,” Draper MSS. 14F49, HSW; Thomas Anbury, With Burgoyne from Quebec, ed. by Sidney Jackman (Toronto: Macmillan, 1963), p. 167. 37. James J. Talman, ed., Loyalist Narratives'from Upper Canada. Champlain So­ ciety Publication No. X X V ll (Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1946), pp. 337-45. 38. Document dated September 18, 1777, GMP, III, NYPL. 39. Schuyler to Hancock, September 27, 1777, CC, Item 153, III, 252-54; Draper MSS. 11U264, HSW. 40. Carleton to Germain, June 26, 1777, Q18, pp. 188-90, PAC. 41. John Burgoyne, A State o f the Expedition from Canada (London: Almon, 1780), pp. 99-101, Appendix, xx-xxi. 42. Anbury, With Burgoyne, pp. 156-57; “Lieutenant Digby's Journal,” in J. P. Baxter, The British Invasion from the North (Albany, N.Y.: Munsell, 1887), pp. 235-37, 264-65; F. J. Hudleston, Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1927), pp. 164-65; W. L. Stone, The Campaign o f Lieut. Gen. John Burgoyne and the Expedition o f Lieut. Col. Barry St. Leger (Albany, N.Y.: Munsell, 1877), pp. 302-13. 43. Anbury, With Burgoyne, pp. 154-55; The Parliamentary History o f England (London: Hansard, 1814), XIX, 1179-81. 44. Burgoyne, State o f the Expedition, pp. 49, 56, 100. 45. James M. Hadden, Hadden’s Journal and Orderly Books, ed. by Horatio Rog­ ers (Albany, N.Y.: Munsell, 1884), pp. Ill, 121-30, 134-35, 153, 531; “Account of Defeat at Bennington, September 4, 1777,” Germain Papers, VI, WLC; Burgoyne, State o f the Expedition, Appendix, p. xxii; Baxter, Invasion from the North, pp. 253-54. 46. Stone, Campaign o f Burgoyne, p. 233. 47. Parliamentary History o f England, XIX, 1181; Hadden, Journal and Orderly Books, pp. lx, 153, 529-32; Burgoyne, State o f the Expedition, pp. 99-100; Baxter, Invasion from the North, pp. 253-55; NYCD, VIII, 726. 48. Anbury, With Burgoyne, p. 178. 49. Draper MSS. 11U264; Gates to Hancock, October 12, 1777, Emmet, No. 4347, NYPL. 50. Horatio Hale, The Iroquois Book o f Rites, ed. by William N. Fenton (To­ ronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963), pp. 129, 153; Paul A. W. Wallace, The White Roots o f Peace (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1946), pp. 53-54.

C h a p t e r V II — A Scourge Unleashed 1. Claus to Knox, October 16, M il, NYCD, VIII, 722-23; idem, November 6, 1777, ibid., p. 725; “A General Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. I, 28, PAC; Beating Orders, September 15, 1777, Q14, pp. 159-61, PAC. 2. Claus to Haldimand, August 30, 1779, Claus Papers, II, 131-33, PAC; NYCD, VIII, 725; “Claim of Sarah McGinn,” American Loyalists, XXI, 399-401, 405-406, NYPL; Claus to Guy Johnson, November 12, 1777, Clinton Papers, WLC. 3. Claus to Haldimand, November 5, 1778, B114, pp. 15-16, PAC; “Claim of Sarah McGinn,” American Loyalists, XXI, 400-401,406, NYPL. 4. Haldimand to Germain, September 13, 1779, B54, pp. 153-56, PAC; H. Pear-

NOTES

315

son Gundy, “Molly Brant—Loyalist,” Ontario History, XLV, 3 (Summer 1953), 97-108; Claus to Haldimand, August 30, 1779, Claus Papers, II, 131-33, PAC; Claus to Haldimand, September 7,1779, ibid., XXV, 119, and B114, p. 68, PAC. 5. Pollard to Butler, enclosed in Carleton's No. 43 of October 24, 1777, Q14, pp. 286-87, PAC. 6. Claus to Haldimand, August 30, 1779, Claus Papers, II, 131-33, PAC; “Anec­ dotes of Brant,” ibid., p. 51. 7. William M. Darlington, Christopher Gist’s Journals (Pittsburgh: J. R. Weldin and Co., 1893), pp. 214-16; “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 52; Guy John­ son to Germain, March 12, 1778, NYCD, VIII, 740; Laurens to Wharton, Novem­ ber 21, 1777, CC, Item 13, p. 35; Laurens to Henry, November 24, 1777, ibid., pp. 38-39; Hand to Yeates, December 24, 1777, Hand Papers, NYPL; Butler to Carleton, February 2, 1778, Q15, p. 128, PAC; Dean to Commissioners, February 5, 1778, CC, Item 153, III, 282. 8. Taylor and Duffin to Claus, October 26, 1778, B114, p. 10, PAC; Claus to Hal­ dimand, August 30, 1779, Claus Papers, II, 132-33, PAC; “Claim of Mary Brant's Children,” American Loyalists, XLIV, 118, NYPL. 9. Bolton to Carleton, December 14, 1777, B100, p. 4, PAC; Butler to Carleton, December 14, 1777, B105, pp. 4-7, PAC; Butler to Carleton, February 2, 1778, en­ closing minutes of Indian council, Q15, pp. 123-45, PAC. 10. Hudleston, Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne, p. 123; W. L. Stone, ed.. Orderly Book o f Sir John Johnson during the Oriskany Campaign, 1776-1777 (Albany, N.Y.: Munsell, 1882), pp. xcviii-xcix; B. F. Stevens, Facsimilies o f Manuscripts in European Archives Relating to America, 1773-1783, 25 vols. (London, 1898), XIX, 1703; Guy Johnson to Germain, March 12, 1778, NYCD, VIII, 741; Parliamentary History o f England, XIX, 694-707. 11. Stone, Brant, I, 305; Butler to Carleton, February 2, 1778, Q15, pp. 124-25. 12. Butler to Carleton, February 2, 1778, Q15, pp. 126, 127-28; Brant to Claus, January 23, 1778, Claus Papers, II, 1-2, PAC. 13. Tice to G. Johnson, November 13, 1777, Clinton Papers, WLC; Taylor and Dufifin to Claus, November 15, 1778, Claus Papers, II, 67-68, PAC; “General Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, XIV, Pt. I, 27, 28, 32; “Anecdotes of Brant, ibid., II, NYCD, VIII, 723-24. 14. Indian Council, March 1778, Schuyler Papers, Box 14, NYPL. 15. Ibid.; Stone, Brant, I, 304-307; Schuyler to Laurens, March 15, 1778, CC, Item 158, III, 286-90. 16. Schuyler to Laurens, March 15, 1778, CC, Item 153, III, 286-90. 17. Schuyler to Chairman of General Committee of Tryon County, March 11, 1778, Schuyler Mansion Doc. 12, NYSL. 18. Butler to Carleton, February 2, 1778, Q15, pp. 125-26, PAC. 19. Clinton Papers, III, 203-204; “Claim of Richard Cartwright,” American Loyal­ ists, XXII, 169, NYPL; Bolton to Carleton, April 8, 1778, B100, pp. 17-18, PAC; idem. May 21, 1778, ibid., p. 31; W. Butler to Carleton, June 4, 1778, B96-1, pp. 133-36, PAC; W. Butler to J. Butler, August 27, 1779, B105, pp. 171-72, PAC. 20. “Minutes of the Indian Commissioners, April 15, 1778,” CC, Item 153, III, 298-300; Dean to Schuyler, May 19, 1778, ibid., pp. 334-35; idem. May 25, 1778, ibid., pp. 340-42; C. E. Cartwright, ed.. Life and Letters o f the Late Hon. Richard Cartwright (Toronto: Belford Bros., 1876), p. 30; Louis Gottschalk, LaFayette Joins the American Army (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937), pp. 185-93; Christopher Ward, The War o f the Revolution (New York: Macmillan, 1952), II, 564, 566-67.

316

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

21. Clinton Papers, III, 377, 378, 408, 413, 506; Stone, Brant, I, 312, 353-54; Richard Varick to Gansevoort, June 3, 1778, GMP, III, NYPL; Harper to Curtenous, March 30, 1791, Emmet, No. 4597, NYPL; “Annecdotes of Brant,” Claus Pa­ pers, II, 53. 22. Simms, History o f Schoharie County, pp. 272-80. 23. Clinton Papers, III, 403, 506; Simms, Frontiersmen, I, 98-99 n; Emmet No. 4597, NYPL; Campbell, Annals o f Tryon County, pp. 102-103; Henry Glen to Gan­ sevoort, June 6, 1778, GMP, III, NYPL. 24. Clinton Papers, III, 409, 418, 459-60, 476, 542-43. 25. “Report of Board of War, June 10, 1778,” CC, Item 147, II, 81-85; Laurens to Gates, June 13, 1778, CC, Item 13,1, 366. 26. For a biographical sketch of Hiadagoo, or Hiakato, see Seaver, Mary Jemison. Chap. 11; Cartwright, Life and Letters, p. 31; “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S27-28, HSW. 27. Butler to Bolton, July 8, 1778, B100, p. 38, PAC; Articles of Capitulation, Q15, p. 225, PAC; Cartwright, Life and Letters, p. 30. 28. “Blacksnake Coversations,” Draper MSS. 4S29, HSW. 29. Ibid.; Dr. Harry Hakes, “Wyoming,” Draper MSS. 4F189, HSW; Butler to Bolton, July 8, 1778, B100, pp. 38-41, PAC. 30. “Claim of John Butler,” American Loyalists, XLIII, 636, NYPL; “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S29, HSW. 31. Articles of Capitulation, Q15, pp. 225-27, PAC. 32. Clinton Papers, III, 520-21. 33. Butler to Bolton, July 8, 1778, Q15, p. 40, PAC; Hakes, “Wyoming,” Draper MSS. 4F189, HSW. 34. Cartwright, Life and Letters, p. 31. 35. “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S28-29, HSW; James Thacher, A Military Journal during the American Revolutionary War, from 1775 to 1783 (Bos­ ton: Cottons and Barnard, 1827), pp. 141-43; Stone, Brant, I, 336-40; Cartwright, Life and Letters, p. 31 ; “Anecdotes of Brant,” Claus Papers, II, 54. 36. Gansevoort to Schuyler, July 10, 1778, GMP, IV, NYPL. 37. Bellinger to Gansevoort, July 19, 1778, GMP, IV, NYPL; Glen to Ganse­ voort, July 24, 1777, ibid.; Clinton Papers, III, 475-76, 559, 581-82; Stone, Brant, 1,312,362-63. 38. Clinton Papers, III, 565. 39. Schuyler to Laurens, July 19, 1778, CC, Item 153, III, 350. 40. “Claim of Daniel Claus,” American Loyalists, XLIII, 423-24, NYPL. 41. Gansevoort to Clinton, August 12, 1778, GMP, IV, NYPL; Gansevoort to Washington, August 18, 1778, ibid.; Sickness at Fort Schuyler, ibid., IX. 42. Clinton Papers, III, 600, 703, 737; ibid., IV, 20, 81-82. 43. Cochran to Gansevoort, September 28, 1778, GMP, III, NYPL; Henry Glen to Cornelius Van Dyck, September 27, 1778, MS. No. 13817, NYSL; Caldwell to Butler, September 21, 1778, B105, p. 56, PAC; Taylor and Duffin to Claus, October 28, 1778, B114, p. 10, PAC; Clinton Papers, IV, 39, 47, 53-55, 82, 340-44; Stone, Brant, I, 363-66; “The Journal of Adam Crysler,” in Talman, Loyalist Narratives, p. 58. 44. Caldwell to Butler, September 21, 1778, B105, p. 56, PAC; Clinton Papers, IV, 130-32; Cochran to Gansevoort, September 28, 1778, GMP, IV, NYPL; Stone, Brant, I, 366-67. 45. Taylor and Duffin to Claus, October 28, 1778, B114, p. 10, PAC. 46. Dean to Schuyler, October 10, 1778, CC, Item 153, III, 360-61. 47. Colonel Thomas Hartley to Senecas, October 1, 1778, Q15, pp. 317-18, PAC;

NOTES

317

John Johnston to J. Butler, October 6, 1778, B100, pp. 60-61, PAC; Bolton to Haldimand, October 12, 1778, ibid., p. 57; Pennsylvania Archives, VI (1853), 688-89, 730, 773-74; ibid., VII (1853), 3-9. 48. Taylor and Duffin to Claus, November 15, 1778, Claus Papers, II, 67-68, PAC; Clinton Papers, IV, 185, 222-31; Cartwright, Life and Letters, p. 32. 49. G. Johnson to Henry Clinton, October 22, 1778, British Headquarters Papers, No. 1468, NYPL. 50. Bolton to Haldimand, November 11, 1778, B100, pp. 70-71, PAC; “Journal of Adam Crysler,” in Talman, Loyalist Narratives, p. 58. 51. Taylor and Duffin to Claus, November 15, 1778, Claus Papers, II, 67-68, PAC; Claus to Haldimand, March 17, 1779, B114, pp. 36-37, PAC. 52. Captain William Johnson, et al., to Colonel John Cantine, December 13, 1778, Clinton Papers, IV, 364. 53. Clinton Papers, IV, 292; Edward Hand to Jasper Yeates, November 19, 1778, Hand Papers, I, NYPL; W. Butler to Bolton, November 17, 1778, B100, pp. 85-86, PAC; M. Richey, November 24, 1778, Draper MSS. 5F30, HSW. 54. “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S30-31, HSW; Hand to Yeates, November 19, 1778, Hand Papers, I, NYPL. 55. Draper MSS. 4S74-75; William L. Stone, The Life and Times o f Sa-Go-YeWat-Ha, or Red Jacket (Albany, N.Y.: Munsell, 1866), pp. 103-105, 124, 347. 56. Samuel Clyde to George Clinton, January 8, 1779, clipping from The Gazette, Cherry Valley, November 22, 1877, Draper MSS. 5F70, HSW; Clinton Papers, IV, 286. 57. “Letter of Intelligence to Colonel Alden, November 6, 1778,” GMP, IV, NYPL. 58. Alden to Gansevoort, November 8, 1778, ibid. 59. Draper MSS. 5F70, HSW. 60. Unless otherwise indicated, the account of the sack of Cherry Valley is taken from the following sources: “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S30-33, HSW; W. Butler to Bolton, November 17, 1778, B100, pp. 82-88, PAC; Edward Pollard to George Forsyth, January 9, 1779, Draper MSS. 5F35, HSW. 61. Campbell, Annals o f Tryon County, pp. 112-13. 62. “Claim of William McClellan,” American Loyalists, XXII, 163-64, NYPL. 63. “Claim of James Ramsay,” ibid., p. 157, NPY. 64. “Blacksnake Life,” Draper MSS. 16F146, HSW. 65. Campbell, Annals o f Tryon County, pp. 115-16; Draper MSS. 5F112, 5F117, HSW; ibid, 7S89, 90, HSW. 66. One list gives thirty-eight prisoners returned, another, forty, and still another, forty-nine. “Persons sent Back the 12th November taken Prisoner at Cherry Valley for whom an Equal Number of Familes Royalists is Expected,” n.d., CC, Item 166, p. 492; M. Richey, November 24, 1778, Draper MSS. 5F30, HSW; Clinton Papers, IV, 338-40; Campbell, Annals o f Tyron County, pp. 118-19; W. Butler to Bolton, November 17, 1778, B100, p. 86, PAC. 67. A letter written on November 24, 1778, gave the number of one hundred eighty-two survivors, while a memorial of November 26 gave a total of one hundred seventy-two homeless. Draper MSS. 5F30, HSW; Clinton Papers, IV, 339-40. 68. “Return of Indians,” B107, p. 227, PAC; William Ketchum, History o f Buf­ falo (Buffalo, N.Y.: Rockwell, Baker and Hill, 1864), II, 122-27; Cartwright, Life and Letters, p. 33; Pollard to Forsyth, January 9, 1779, Draper MSS. 5F35, HSW. 69. W. Butler to Bolton, November 17, 1778, B100, p. 86, PAC; William John­ son, et al., to Colonel John Cantine, Clinton Papers, IV, 364. 70. Bolton to Haldimand, February 12, 1779, B100, p. 104, PAC.

318

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

71. John Henry Livingston to his brother, November 23, 1778, MS. No. 40, NYSL.

C h a p t e r VIII— Our Children Trembled 1. Dean to Schuyler, January 18, 1779, CC, Item 153, III, 420-23; B119, pp. 28-37, PAC. 2. B119, pp. 32-33, PAC; John Copp t o ----- , February 24, 1779, CC, Item 153, III, 424; Schuyler to Jay, March 8, 1779, ibid., p. 428; Dean to Schuyler, April 10, 1779, ibid., p. 441. 3. Gates received the letter on March 15. Washington to Gates, March 6, 1779, Fitzpatrick, Writings o f George Washington, XIV, 198-201; Washington to Sullivan, March 6, 1779, ibid., p. 201; Gates to Sullivan, March 16, 1779, John Sullivan, The Letters and Papers o f Major General John Sullivan, ed. by Otis G. Hammond, New Hampshire Historical Society Collections, 3 vols. (Concord, N.H.; New Hampshire Historical Society, 1930-39), II, 534. 4. Charles P. Whittemore, A General o f the Revolution: John Sullivan o f New Hampshire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), pp. 115-16. 5. “The Committee appointed by the Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania to confer with a Committee of Congress,” CC, Item 69, II, 55. 6. Whittemore, Sullivan, pp. 119-20. 7. Nathanael Greene to Robert Hooper, July 10, 1779, Greene Papers, X, 15, APS. 8. Stone, Brant, I, 404; Council at Niagara, December 11, 1782, B119, p. 172, PAC; Clinton Papers, IV, 702-703; John Johnston to J. Butler, April 22, 1779, B100, p. 139, PAC; J. Butler to Bolton, May 28, 1779, ibid., p. 180; Brant to Claus, May 8, 1779, B114, p. 54, PAC; “Journal of Lieut. Erkuries Beatty,” in Frederick Cook, Journals o f the Military Expedition o f Major General John Sullivan against the Six Nations (Auburn, N.Y.: Knapp, Peck and Thomson, 1887), pp. 16-18. Beatty says there were fifteen killed and thirty-four prisoner. 9. Bolton to Haldimand, May 8, 1779, B100, p. 132, PAC; J. Butler to Bolton, May 28, 1779, ibid., pp. 181-82; Haldimand to J. Butler, August 1779, B96-1, pp. 165-67; Indian Records, R. G. 10, ser. 2, XII, 14, PAC. 10. Jay to Washington, April 7, 1779, CC, Item 14, p. 83; Jay to Schuyler, April 8, 1779, ibid., p. 84, Schuyler to Jay, May 30, 1779, CC, Item 153, III, 446-47; “List of Indians to have Commissions,” n.d.. Box 14, Schuyler Papers, NYPL; Pick­ ering to President of Congress, June 5, 1779, CC, Item 147, p. 391. 11. Greene to Sullivan, June 6, 1779, Greene Papers, VI, 28, APS; idem, June 21, 1779, ibid., p. 83. 12. Indian Records, R. G. 10, ser. 2, XII, 14-15, PAC; Bolton to Haldimand, May 8, 1779, B100, p. 132, PAC; J. Butler to Bolton, May 13, 1779, ibid., p. 140; idem. May 28, 1779, ibid., pp. 181-82; idem, July 3, 1779, ibid., pp. 200-201. 13. Draper MSS. 8F21, 28, HSW; Washington to Sullivan, August 1, 1779, Fitz­ patrick, Writings o f George Washington, XVI, 29-31. 14. Draper MSS. 8F17, 29, HSW. 15. Ibid., 8F28, 9F50, 20F36; Brant to Bolton, July 29, 1779, B100, pp. 212-15, PAC. 16. Draper MSS. 8F5, 8F69, 9F8, 9F50, 9F61, 9F89, 20F35, 20F57, HSW; Brant to Bolton, July 29, 1779, B100, pp. 213-15, PAC.

NOTES

319

17. Stone, Brant, I, 419-20 n; Draper MSS. 9F61, HSW. 18. Pennsylvania Archives, VII (1853), 597-98; McDonell to J. Butler, August 5, 1779, B100, pp. 223-25, PAC; “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S34-35, HSW; Stone, Brant, I, 422; Cartwright, Life and Letters, pp. 36-37. 19. Q15, p. 144, PAC; J. Butler to Bolton, May 19, 1779, B100, pp. 155-56, PAC; J. Butler to Haldimand, July 21, 1779, B105, pp. 143-50, PAC. 20. Hammond, Letters and Papers o f Major General John Sullivan, III, 96-97; “Journal of Major James Norris,” in Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, p. 229; Brant to Bolton, August 19, 1779, B100, pp. 229-31, PAC; J. Butler to Bolton, August 26, 1779, ibid., pp. 232-33. 21. J. Butler to Bolton, August 26,1779, B100, pp. 232-33, PAC. 22. Bolton to Haldimand, August 16, 1779, Q16-1 pp. 360-63, PAC. 23. “Journal of Lieut. Erkuries Beatty,” in Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, pp. 22-23; “Journal of Lieut. John Jenkins,” ibid., p. 171; “Journal of Lieut. William McKendry,” ibid., p. 202; Whittemore, General o f the Revolution, p. 267. 24. “Journal of Major John Burrowes,” in Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, p. 43. 25. “Journal of William Rogers,” ibid., p. 264; Draper MSS. 11U201, HSW. 26. “Journal of Lt. Col. Henry Dearborn,” in Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, p. 77; “Journal of Major Jeremiah Fogg,” ibid., p. 94. 27. Butler to Bolton, August 31, 1779, B100, p. 224, PAC; “Blacksnake Conversa­ tions,” Draper MSS. 4S35-36, HSW. 28. J. Butler to Bolton, August 26,1779, B100, pp. 232-33, PAC. 29. Clinton Papers, V, 227; J. Butler to Bolton, August 31, 1779, B100, pp. 244-50, PAC; William Beauchamp, A History o f the New York Iroquois, New York State Museum Bulletin 78 (Albany, N.Y.: New York State Education Depart­ ment, 1905), p. 364. 30. Journal of Richard Cartwright, Draper MSS. 6F48(35), HSW; J. Butler to Bolton, August 31, 1779, B100, pp. 244-50, PAC. 31. J. Butler to Bolton, August 31,1779, B100, pp. 244-50, PAC. 32. Clinton Papers, V, 225. 33. “Journal of Lieut. William Barton,” in Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, p. 7. 34. J. Butler to Bolton, August 31, 1779, B100, pp. 244-50, PAC. 35. Sullivan to Washington, August 30, 1779, Hammond, Letters o f Sullivan, III, 108-10. 36. J. Butler to Bolton, August 31,1779, B100, pp. 244-50, PAC. 37. Ibid.; “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S36, HSW; Cartwright, Life and Letters, pp. 39-40. 38. J. Butler to Bolton, August 31, 1779, B100, pp. 244-50, PAC; Sullivan to Washington, August 30, 1779, Hammond, Letters o f Sullivan, III, 110. 39. Cartwright, Life and Letters, p. 40. 40. Ibid.; Sullivan to Washington, August 30, 1779, Hammond, Letters o f Sulli­ van, III, 110-11. 41. J. Butler to Bolton, August 31,1779, B100, pp. 244-50, PAC. 42. “Journal of Lieut. William Barton,” Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, p. 8. 43. J. Butler to Bolton, August 31, 1779, B100, PAC. 44. Haldimand to J. Butler, September 3, 1779, B105, pp. 176-77, PAC; idem, September 13, 1779, ibid., p. 178. 45. “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S41-42, HSW; Brodhead to Washington, September 16, 1779, Pennsylvania Archives, first ser., XII (1856), 156; Docksteder to Bolton, September 1,1779, B100, p. 251, PAC. 46. “Journal of Lieut. Erkuries Beatty,” Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, p. 28.

320

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

47. J. Butler to Bolton, September 8, 1779, B100, p. 252, PAC; Bolton to Haldimand, September 7, 1779, ibid., p. 257; idem, October 2, 1779, ibid., pp. 284-85. 48. “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S36, HSW; Stone, Brant, II, 417; Stone, Life o f Red Jacket, pp. 124-25. 49. “Major General Sullivan’s Official Report,” Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, p. 300; Cartwright, Life and Letters, p. 42. 50. “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S37-38, HSW; “Blacksnake Life,” Draper MSS. 16F195, HSW; Seaver, Mary Jemison, pp. 79-80; “Journal of Sergeant Moses Fellows,” Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, p. 91; “Journal of Lieutenant John Jen­ kins,” ibid., p. 175; “Journal of Lieutenant William McKendry,” ibid., p. 207; “Jour­ nal of Msyor James Norris,” ibid., p. 236. 51. “Journal of Lieut. Erkuries Beatty,” Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, p. 32; Seaver, Mary Jemison, p. 81; Cartwright, Life and Letters, p. 42; J. Butler to Bolton, Sep­ tember 14, 1779, Q16-2, pp. 607-608, PAC; Arthur C. Parker, ‘The Indian Interpretation Of the Sullivan-Clinton Campaign,” Rochester Historical Society Pub­ lication Fund Series, VIII (1929), 49, 55-56. 52. Draper MSS., 4S42, HSW; Brodhead to Washington, September 16, 1779, Pennsylvania Archives, first ser., XII (1856), 156-57. 53. Gansevoort to Sullivan, October 8, 1779, GMP, V, NYPL. 54. Schuyler to Gansevoort, October 7, 1779, ibid. 55. Washington to Gansevoort, October 25, 1779, ibid. 56. “Journal of Major Jeremiah Fogg,” Cook, Journals o f Sullivan, p. 101. 57. Bolton to Haldimand, October 2, 1779, B100, pp. 284-87, PAC; Council at Niagara, October 31-November 3, 1779, B119, pp. 90-95, PAC; Robert Pickin to Claus, November 19, 1779, B114, pp. 88-89, PAC; G. Johnson to Claus, November 21, 1779, ibid., pp. 86-87; Claus to Haldimand, December 9, 1779, ibid., pp. 92-93; Seaver, Mary Jemison, pp. 82-84.

C h a p t e r IX — The Path o f Vengeance 1. Bolton to Haldimand, October 2, 1779, B100 p. 284, PAC. 2. Ibid.; Bolton to John Johnson, October 3, 1779, B100, pp. 295-96, PAC; Cart­ wright, Life and Letters, pp. 43-44. 3. Seaver, Mary Jemison, p. 84; George Clinton to President of Congress, Febru­ ary 5, 1781, CC, Item 67, II, 348. 4. Indian Records, R. G. 10, ser. 2, XII, 126-27, 135-38, 145, 147, 149, PAC; Draper MSS. 1F91, 142, 146, HSW; ibid., 14F63. 5. Draper MSS. 11U220-21, 11U242, HSW; CC, Item 151, pp. 137-38, 141-43, 145-46. 6. Indian Records, R. G. 10, ser. 2, XII, 150-51, PAC. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid., pp. 157-61. 9. Ibid., p. 161. 10. Ibid., p. 162. 11. “Copy of Proceedings with four Rebel Indians,” B119, pp. 104-108, PAC. 12. Volkert Douw to John Hancock, November 6, 1775, Force, American Ar­ chives, 4th ser.. Ill, 1372-73; “Minutes of the Proceedings of the Commissioners for the Northern Department Commencing 29 April 1776,” Schuyler Papers, Box 13, NYPL.

NOTES

321

13. Bl 19, pp. 109-12, PAC; Franklin B. Hough, Proceedings o f the Commission­ ers o f Indian Affairs Appointed by Law for the Extinguishment o f Indian Titles in the State o f New York (Albany, N.Y.: Munsell, 1861), p. 88. 14. PAC; 15. 16. 17.

Return of Indian Parties of Colonel Guy Johnson’s Department, B100, p. 80, Indian Records, XII, 162-63, 177-78, PAC. Indian Records, XII, 196-99,219-20, 223, PAC. Clinton Papers, V, 551. Ibid., 578-80, 632-33; Josiah Priest, The Captivity and Suffering o f Gen. Freegift Patchin o f Blenheim (Albany, N.Y.: Packard, Hoffman and White, 1833), pp. 5-6. 18. Brant’s letter, KP; CC, Item 67, p. 258. 19. Bolton to Haldimand, February 8, 1779, B100, p. 92, PAC; Journal of Rich­ ard Cartwright, Draper MSS. 6F48(16), HSW; Seaver, Mary Jemison, pp. 112-17; B119, p. 114, PAC; Priest, Captivity o f Patchin, pp. 11-14. 20. Draper MSS. 8F69, HSW. 21. Haldimand to Claus, April 17, 1780, B114, p. 115, PAC; Council at Niagara, June 17, 1780, B119, p. 150, PAC; Clinton Papers, V, 737-38, 740-47. 22. A speech of the Oneida Chiefs to Colonel Van Dyck, June 18, 1780, MS. 13429, NYSL; Samuel Kirkland to Jerusha Kirkland, June 20, 1780, KP; Indian Re­ cords, XII, 271, PAC. 23. Council at Niagara, June 17, 1780, B119, p. 151, PAC. 24. McDonell to Bolton, July 1, 1780, B100, pp. 418-20, PAC. 25. B100, p. 422, PAC; Councils at Niagara, July 3 and 6, 1780, B119, pp. 152-57, PAC. 26. Return of a Party of Indians, B100, p. 438, PAC. 27. Schuyler Papers, January 14, 1784, Box 14, NYPL; Draper MSS. 11U204-209, 237-44; Clinton Papers, V, 912-15; ibid., VI, 288, 292, 480-83; Bol­ ton to Haldimand, August 8, 1780, B100, p. 446, PAC; G. Johnson to Haldimand, August 24, 1780, B106, p. 37, PAC; Schuyler to Samuel Huntington, October 10, 1780, CC, Item 153, III, 541. 28. Schuyler to Knox, January 13, 1786, CC, Item 151, pp. 141-43; Report of Henry Knox, January 16, 1786, ibid., pp. 137-38; Petition of Johannes Schrine, ibid., pp. 145-46. 29. “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S43-45, HSW; Seaver, Mary Jemison, pp. 85-87; Clinton Papers, VI, 80-82, 88-90; Stone, Brant, II, 126—28. 30. “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S45, HSW. 31. Clinton Papers, VI, 93-94, 135-36; Draper MSS. 10F41, HSW. 32. Claus to Haldimand, September 11, 1780, B114, p. 134, PAC; Bolton to A. Fraser, September 18, 1780, B100, p. 470, PAC; Mathews to Claus, September 28, 1780, B114, p. 143, PAC; Bolton to Haldimand, September 30, 1780, B100, p. 471, PAC; G. Johnson to Germain, November 20, 1780, Q18, pp. 212-215, PAC; “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S46-56, HSW; Stone, Brant, II, 105-28. 33. G. Clinton to Congress, February 5, 1781, CC, Item 67, II, 349-51; Clinton Papers, VI, 302-303, 306, 319, 346, 483, 702; “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S46-56, HSW; Stone, Brant, II, 105-28. 34. “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS. 4S46-55, HSW. 35. W. Kirby to W. C. Bryant, September 9, 1889, Draper MSS. 13F170, HSW; R. Mathews to Claus, December 4, 1780, Claus Papers, II, p. 267, PAC; Claus to Mathews, November 30,1780, B114, p. 153, PAC. 36. G. Clinton to President of Congress, February 5, 1781, CC, Item 67, II, 351-52; G. Johnson to Germain, November 20, 1780, Q18, pp. 212-15, PAC.

322

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

37. Clinton Papers, V, 578; James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, June 2, 1780, in Letters o f Members o f the Continental Congress, ed. by Edmund C. Burnett, 6 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1923-33), V, 181; Cart­ wright, Life and Letters, p. 46. 38. Powell to Haldimand, November 10, 1780, B100, p. 482, PAC; idem, Novem­ ber 18, 1780, ibid., p. 488. 39. François Jean de Chastellux, Travels in North America in the Years 1780, 1781 and 1782, ed. by Howard C. Rice, Jr. (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1963), II, 208. 40. Schuyler to Glen, November 6, 1780, Glen Papers, NYPL; Draper MSS. 11U200-201, HSW; Pickering Papers, LXII, 166, MHS; Schuyler to Huntington, October 10, 1780, CC, Item 153, III, 541; Report of Board of War, November 10, 1780, CC, Item 147, IV, 651-52; Schuyler to Congress, December 2, 1780, CC, Item 153, III, 551-54; “List of Necessary Cloathing for 406 Indian men women and chil­ dren,” ibid., p. 545; Schuyler to President of Congress, December 26, 1780, ibid., p. 589; Schuyler to Congress, January 18, 1781, ibid., p. 555; Resolution of New York State Legislature, February 24, 1781, ibid., pp. 563-64; Schuyler to Congress, March 29, 1781, ibid., pp. 547-48. 41. Schuyler to Congress, March 29, 1781, CC, Item 153, III, 547-48. 42. Schuyler to Huntington, March 29, 1781, CC, Item 153, III, 548; Stone, Brant, II, 143-45; Claus to Mathews, February 26, 1781, B114, pp. 160-61, PAC. 43. Mathews, Mark o f Honour, Chap. 6; “Return of Indians of Colonel Johnson’s Department gone to Plant at Buffaloe Creek, May 13, 1781,” B107, p. 227, PAC; Distribution of Corn, and Hoes, for the Indians of Colonel Johnson’s Department, planting at Buffaloe Creek, May 13, 1781, B109, p. 148, PAC; General State of the Corps of Indians, October 24, 1781, B109, p. 203A, PAC; General State of the Corps of Indians, September 2, 1782, B110, p. 89, PAC. 44. Return of Indian War Parties of Colonel Guy Johnson’s Department now on Service, April 21, 1781, B109, p. 146, PAC; Return of the Several Indian War Par­ ties of Colonel Guy Johnson’s Department sent on Service from the 1st January 1781 to October 24, 1781, B109, p. 203A, PAC. 45. Cochran to Cortlandt, May 13, 1781, Van Cortlandt-Van Wyck Papers, NYPL; J. Clinton to Cortlandt, May 22, 1781, ibid.; J. Clinton to Washington, May 22, 1781, GMP, VI, NYPL. 46. Schuyler to Henry Glen, Schuyler Papers, Acc. 67, Box 2, No. 11158, NYSL; Clipping from Knickerbocker News, October 27, 1942, filed with this letter. 47. David Servos to Claus, April 12, 1781, B114, p. 170, PAC; Captain Aaron Kanonraron to Captain Isaac, May 10, 1781, B114, p. 180, PAC; Claus to Mathews, July 26, 1781, ibid., pp. 192-93; John Macomb to Claus, September 14, 1781, ibid., p. 199. 48. Clinton Papers, VII, 474. The account of this campaign is taken from letters written by Willett, Ross, Tice, and David Hill. Willett’s account is in the Clinton Pa­ pers, VII, 472-75. Tice’s journal is in the Haldimand Transcripts, B107, p. 301, PAC, and has also been reprinted in Ernest Green, “Gilbert Tice, U. E.,” Ontario Historical Society Papers and Records, XXI (1924), 196—97. Ross's account is in B124, pp. 25-33, PAC. Chief David Hill’s letter is in B107, pp. 309-11, PAC. 49. Clinton Papers, VII, 443,487, 504-505. 50. David Hill to Guy Johnson, November 11, 1781, B107, pp. 309-11, PAC. 51. Stone, Brant, II, 191-93; Draper MSS. 3F66, 4F202, 17F143, HSW. 52. Clinton Papers, VII, 473. 53. Ibid., pp. 473, 482.

NOTES

323

54. B124, p. 25, PAC. 55. Quoted in Green, “Gilbert Tice, U. E.,” p. 196. 56. “Journal of Adam Crysler,” in Talman, Loyalist Narratives, pp. 59-60; Claus to Haldimand, November 6, 1781, Bl 14, p. 204, PAC; Council at Niagara, Novem­ ber 16, 1781, Bl 19, pp. 165-68, PAC. 57. Claus to Haldimand, September 27, 1781, Bl 14, p. 200, PAC; Claus to Wil­ liam Morice, October 10, 1781, Claus Papers, III, 49-50, PAC. 58. J. Johnson to Claus, March 31, 1782, Claus Papers, III, 115, PAC; J. Johnson to Haldimand, March 21, 1782, Bl 15, pp. 1-2, PAC; G. Johnson to A. McKee, July 17,1782, Claus Papers, III, 143, PAC. 59. Simon Girty to DePeyster, April 12, 1782, B102, pp. 14-15, PAC; Draper MSS. 2S28,239-42, HSW; ibid., 4S144; Stone, Brant, II, 215-25. 60. Caldwell to DePeyster, June 13, 1782, B102, p. 87, PAC; Powell to Haldi­ mand, July 1, 1782, ibid., p. 103; Seaver, Mary Jemison, pp. 117-24. 61. Ebenezer Allen to Butler, April 21, 1782, B102, p. 26, PAC; Butler to De­ Peyster, June 12, 1782, Claus Papers, III, 125, PAC; Claus to Mathews, June 13, 1782, B114, p. 243, PAC; idem, July 1, 1782, ibid., p. 245; Claus to Mathews, July 18, 1782, B114, p. 247, PAC. 62. Powell to Haldimand, June 27, 1782, B102, pp. 97-98, PAC; Return of the Six Nations Indians and Confederates near this Post, Niagara, September 28, 1783, Indian Records, XV, 71, PAC. 63. Brant to Ross, June 18, 1782, B125, p. 29, PAC; Ross to Haldimand, June 27, 1782, B124,pp. 6-7, PAC. 64. Ross to Haldimand, July 7, 1782, B124, pp. 10-11, PAC; Halimand to Ross, July 7, 1782, B125, pp. 41-42, PAC; Ross to Haldimand, August 3, 1782, B124, pp. 12-13, PAC. 65. Mathews to Ross, September 9, 1782, B124, pp. 178-80, PAC; Haldimand to J. Johnson, September 9, 1782, B115, p. 8, PAC; J. Johnson to Haldimand, October 14, 1782, ibid., p. 13. 66. General William Irvine to Secretary at War, CC, October 28, 1782, Item 149, II, 71; Council at Niagara, December 11, 1782, B119, pp. 170-79, PAC; Maclean to Haldimand, December 16, 1782, B102, pp. 252-54, PAC; Haldimand to Johnson, February 6, 1783, B115, pp. 72-73, PAC; Haldimand to Carleton, February 17, 1783, B103,p. 33, PAC. 67. Brant to J. Johnson, December 25, 1782, B115, pp. 47-48, PAC. 68. Washington to Willett, December 18, 1782, Fitzpatrick, Writings o f George Washington, XXV, 449-51. 69. Willett to Glen, February 19, 1783, Glen Papers, NYPL; Washington to Wil­ lett, March 5, 1783, Fitzpatrick, Writings o f George Washington, XXVI, 190.

C h a p t e r X — Peace Comes to the Longhouse 1. Brigadier General Allan Maclean to Captain R. Mathews, May 13, 1783, B103, p. 157, PAC; Ross to Haldimand, May 14, 1783, B124, pp. 21-22, PAC; Haldimand to Lord North, June 2, 1783, B56, pp. 66-68, PAC. 2. Maclean to Haldimand, May 18, 1783, B103,pp. 175-82, PAC. 3. Johnson Papers, IV, 817-19; A. Pearce Higgins, “International Law and the Outer World, 1450-1648,” in Cambridge History o f the British Empire, ed. by J.

324

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Holland Rose, et at. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929), I, 193; Native Rights in Canada (Toronto: Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada, 1970), pp. 34-55. 4. Parliamentary History o f England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (London: Hansard, 1814), XXIII, 381-87; Wraxall, Abridgement, pp. 39, 165, 169. 5. Parliamentary History o f England, XXIII,* 410. 6. Claus to Blackburn, June 14, 1783, Claus Papers, III, 225-26, PAC. 7. J. Johnson to Haldimand, May 18, 1783, B115, p. 105, PAC; Hadimand to J. Johnson, May 26, 1783, ibid., pp. 113-15; Haldimand to Claus, December 17, 1783, Claus Papers, III, 277, PAC; Holland to Haldimand, June 26, 1783, B124, pp.i 34-37, PAC. 8. Haldimand to North, June 2, 1783, B56, pp. 66-68, PAC; North to Haldi­ mand, August 8, 1783, B50, p. 143, PAC; Parliamentary History o f England, XXIII, 436-93,498-571. 9. Maclean to Haldimand, June 22, 1783, B103, pp. 216-17, PAC; Claus to Hal­ dimand, December 15, 1783, B114, p. 300, PAC. 10. “Thoughts respecting peace in the Indian Country, July 29, 1783,” Schuyler Papers, Box 14, NYPL. 11. Council at Tosioha, June 30, 1783, B119, pp. 180-83, PAC; idem, July 2, 1783, ibid., pp. 184-87; Maclean to Haldimand, July 10, 1783, B103, pp. 257-60, PAC; Speech to the Indians, July 29, 1783, Schuyler Papers, Box 14, NYPL. 12. Douglass to Lincoln, June 5, 1783, CC, Item 149, III, 61-63; idem, August 18, 1783, ibid., pp. 135-70. 13. Schuyler’s speech, a summary of the Indian speech to him, and a letter dated January 15, 1784, to Thomas Mifflin on the subject are in Schuyler Papers, Box 14, NYPL. The Indians' response to Schuyler's speech is in Indian Records, XV, 106-12, PAC. 14. JCC, XXV, 680-95; ibid., XXVI, 152-55; Mifflin to Commissioners, March 22, 1784, CC, Item 16, pp. 295-96; Mifflin to Schuyler, April 8, 1784, ibid., pp. 299-300. 15. Haldimand to North, November 27, 1783, B56, pp. 199-202, and B57, 602-606, PAC; idem, April 26, 1784, B56, pp. 208-10, PAC; idem. May 12, 1784, B56, pp. 214-16, PAC; A. L. Burt, “A New Approach to the Problem of the West­ ern Posts,” Canadian Historical Association, Annual Report (1931), 61-75; A. L. Burt, The Old Province o f Quebec (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1933), pp. 336-37; Clinton Papers, VIII, 323 n; Wolcott, et al., to President of Con­ gress, October 1784, CC, Item 56, pp. 137-40; Report of Commission on Indian Peace, September 19, 1783, CC, Item 30, pp. 40-43; Report of Indian Com., April 16, 1784, ibid., p. 217; Indian Commissioners to Mifflin, April 29, 1784, CC, Item 56, pp. 105-10. 16. Indian Records, XV, 125-27, 140-42, PAC. For proceedings of the New York commissioners with the Indians, see Clinton Papers, VIII, 323-81, and Hough, Proceedings, pp. 9-66. 17. Arthur Lee to Chairman of Committee of States, August 4, 1784, CC, Item 56, pp. 129-31. 18. Monroe to Madison, November 15, 1784, Madison Papers, Library of Con­ gress (Columbia University Microfilm); Madison to Monroe, November 27, 1784, ibid.

19. Clinton Papers, VIII, 379. 20. Brant to commissioners, September 28, 1784, B119, pp. 295-96, PAC. 21. Neville B. Craig, ed.. The Olden Time (Pittsburgh: Wright & Charlton, 1848), II, 404-30; Griffith Evans, “Journal of Griffith Evans,” ed. by Hallock F. Raup,

NOTES

325

Pennsylvania Magazine o f History and Biography, LXV, 2 (April 1941), 204-33;

Q26, Pt. II, 316-39, PAC. 22. Wolcott, et al., to President of Congress, October 5, 1784, CC, Item 56, p. 133. 23. The English translation of Lafayette's speech is in Olden Time, II, 428-29; a transcript of the original French version is in Q24, Pt. I, 224-26, PAC. 24. David Hill to a friend, November 2, 1784, Claus Papers, IV, 45-48, PAC. 25. A. Levasseur, Lafayette in America, in 1824 and 1825; or. Journal o f Travels, in the United States (New York: White, Gallagher & White, 1829), II, 209; Draper MSS. 4S75-76, HSW; J. N. B. Hewitt, “Red Jacket,” in Hodge, Handbook o f Amer­ ican Indians, II, 361. 26. Louis Gottschalk, ed.. The Letters o f Lafayette to Washington 1779-1799 (New York: Helen Fahnestock Hubbard, 1944), pp. 285-86; Louis Gottschalk, La­ fayette between the American and the French Revolution 1783-1789 (Chicago: Uni­ versity of Chicago Press, 1950), pp. 96-107; Hallock P. Raup, ed., “Journal of Grif­ fith Evans,” 206; Madison to Jefferson, October 11, 1784, James Madison, Letters and Other Writings o f James Madison (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1867), I, 102-104; idem, October 17, 1784, ibid., pp. 104-107; Irving Brant, James Madison, The Na­ tionalist 1780-1787 (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948), pp. 331-34. 27. Council at Niagara, July 23, 24, 1783, Claus Papers, III, 245-52, PAC, also, B119, pp. 195-207; Mathews to Brant, April 12, 1784, B65, pp. 8-15, PAC. 28. Captain Brant’s account of what passed at Fort Stanwix in October 1784, In­ dian Records, XV, 170-74, PAC. 29. Gottschalk, Letters o f Lafayette to Washington, p. 286. 30. Olden Time, 11,409-11. 31. Ibid., p. 415. 32. Hough, Proceedings, p. 88; Olden Time, II, 413-15. 33. Olden Time, II, 424. 34. Ibid., 418-20. 35. Raup, “Journal of Griffith Evans,” 212. 36. Olden Time, II, 423-27; Samuel Hardy to Benjamin Harrison, November 21, 1784, Burnett, Letters, p. 614. See Appendix A for a copy of the treaty. 37. Raup, “Journal of Griffith Evans,” p. 214. 38. Dease to Fraser, November 26, 1784, Indian Records, XV, 158-61, PAC; CC, Item 30, p. 241. 39. Q26, Pt. II, 316-39, PAC. 40. Hough, Proceedings, pp. 161-71. 41. Indian Records, XV, 158-61, PAC. 42. Council at Fort Schlosser, March 23,1786, Q24, Pt. II, 364-77, PAC. 43. For the text of the Haldimand Grant, see Appendix B. Council at Niagara, May 22, 1784, Q23, pp. 349-52, PAC; Charles M. Johnston, ed.. The Valley o f the Six Nations (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964), pp. xxxviii-xli, 48; Draper MSS. 21F66, HSW; Indian Records, XV, 135-38, PAC. 44. Deserontyon to J. Johnson, February 15, 1785, Claus Papers, IV, 69, PAC. 45. Census of the Six Nations, B103, p. 457, PAC. 46. For schedule of losses, see Q24, Pt. II, 299-325, PAC. Haldimand to Johnson, May 27, 1783, B115, p. 116, PAC; Q26, Pt. I, 1-12, 66-81, PAC; Draper MSS. 21F19, HSW; Compensation for Joseph and Mary Brant, March 31, 1786, Sydney Papers, Secret Service Payments 1782-91 (Nepean Papers), WLC. 47. Brant to Fraser, August 30, 1784, Indian Records, XV, 151-53, PAC; Samuel Kirkland to Jerusha Kirkland, September 10, 1785, KP.

326

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

48. See Hough, Proceedings, pp. 198-99 n for transactions between 1795 and 1842. The Eleazar Williams Papers are in the HSW. 49. Hough, Proceedings, p. 83. 50. Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 93; Hough, Proceedings, p. 93. 51. Hough, Proceedings, pp. 77-78; the negotiations are on pp. 67-108. 52. Ibid., p. 97. 53. Kirkland to Samuel Phillips, Jr., August 15, 1785, KP. 54. CC, Item 30, p. 479; Johnson Papers, III, 704. 55. J. N. B. Hewitt, “Tuscarora,” in Hodge, Handbook o f American Indians, II, 848-49. 56. Treaties between the United States o f America and the Several Indian Tribes from 1778 to 1837 (Washington, D.C.: Langtree and O’Sullivan, 1837), pp. 52-54; Hough, Proceedings, pp. 37-38; Concurrent Resolution of Senate and Assembly of N.Y., February 5, February 7, 1785, Received in Congress February 11, 1785, CC, Item 67, II, 481; Draper MSS. 11U224-25, HSW; Pickering Papers, LXII, 151-67, MHS. 57. Hough, Proceedings, pp. 279-80.

Epilogue 1. G. Armstead to Callender Irvin, May 30, 1803, MS. No. 13487, NYSL. 2. This land controversy is documented and discussed in Draper MSS- 20F and 2IF; Stone, Brant, II, Chap. XIII; Johnston, Valley o f the Six Nations, pp. xlii-lxix, 70-192.

Bibliographical Essay

most valuable materials relating to Iroquois participation in the Ameri­ can Revolution are the primary sources, both published and unpublished, con­ tained in several notable collections. Some of the best information on Iroquois culture as well as Indian-white contacts, diplomacy, and politics is in William Johnson, The Papers o f Sir William Johnson, edited by James Sullivan and others, 14 vols. (Albany: State University of New York, 1921-65). Sir William was for many years the British Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the north­ ern department and had enormous influence among the Six Nations. Although he died in 1774, before the outbreak of the Revolution, his Papers are impor­ tant for an understanding of the reaction of the Indians to the tensions between Great Britain and the colonies in the years leading up to the final break. In­ dispensable are two standard series edited by Edmund B. O’Callaghan: The Documentary History o f the State o f New York, 4 vols. (Albany: Weed, Par­ sons & Co., 1850) and Documents Relative to the Colonial History o f the State o f New York, vols. 4 and 8 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co., 1854, 1857). Also useful for information on Indian diplomacy are United States Continental Con­ gress, Journals o f the Continental Congress, 1774—1789, 34 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904—37), and Peter Force, American Archives, fourth, fifth, and sixth series (Washington, D.C.: Clarke & Force, 1839-48). Much detail relating to the numerous Indian and Tory raids on the New York settlements and the impact of this guerrilla warfare on the state is contained in the papers of the Revolutionary governor, George Clinton, Public Papers o f George Clinton, edited by Hugh Hastings and others, 10 vols. (Al­ bany: State of New York, 1900—14). Neville Craig, ed.. The Olden Time, 2 vols. (Pittsburgh: Wright & Charlton, 1846, 1847) provides useful material re­ lating to Indian affairs, particularly the minutes of the Fort Stanwix Treaty of 1784. Franklin B. Hough, Proceedings o f the Commissioners o f Indian Affairs Appointed by Law for the Extinguishment o f Indian Titles in the State o f New York (Albany: Munsell, 1861), shows the extreme pressures placed upon the Ir­ oquois to part with their lands after the Revolution. The speeches of Indian leaders recounting their traditions and grievances are especially noteworthy. The manuscript sources for the Iroquois during the Revolutionary period are extensive. The Public Archives of Canada has several essential collections. The Haldimand Transcripts (Series B) contain correspondence and other docu­ ments covering the entire career of Sir Frederick Haldimand. He served as

T he

327

328

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

General of His Majesty’s forces and Governor of Quebec during the later years of the American Revolution. Letters from the commanders of frontier forts, from Colonel Guy Johnson, Colonel John Butler, Joseph and Mary Brant, Chief David Hill, and others concerned with Indian affairs, as well as reports of Indian councils, are represented in this collection. The letters of Governor Guy Carleton, whom Haldimand replaced, are found in the Colonial Office Re­ cords (Series Q). This series also covers the Haldimand governorship in the Province of Quebec. The Claus Papers in the Public Archives of Canada have generally been less used by scholars than the Haldimand Transcripts and Colo­ nial Office Records, but are of enormous value. There are many letters dealing with Indian affairs, two brief biographies of Brant written by Claus, and the autobiographical “Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services.’’ Materials on the Iroquois located in American archives are also numerous. The Papers of the Continental Congress in the Library of Congress (also micro­ filmed and available in many major libraries) are of particular importance. Be­ cause they lack an index, the Papers are extremely difficult to use. A researcher must read through each volume (or microfilm reel) in the pertinent series to discover the desired material. Most significant for this study are: Items 12A, 13, 14, 16, Letterbooks of the Presidents; Item 18, Letterbook of Charles Thomson, Secretary of Congress; Item 30, Reports of Committees on Indian Affairs and Land in the Northwest; Item 56, Papers Relative to Indian Affairs; Item 67, New York State Papers; Item 134, Proceedings of the Committee Ap­ pointed to Treat with the Six Nations Indians, 1775; Item 147, Reports of the Board of War; Item 149, Letters and Reports of Benjamin Lincoln, Secretary at War; Item 150, Letters of General Henry Knox, Secretary at War; Item 151, Reports of General Henry Knox, Secretary at War; Item 153, Letters of Major General Philip Schuyler; Item 166, Letters and Papers Relative to Cana­ dian Affairs, General Sullivan’s Expedition in 1779, and the Northern Indians; Item 174, Record of Indian Treaties, 1784—86. Item 153 is of prime impor­ tance because of General Schuyler’s leading role as Indian Commissioner in the northern department. There is a wealth of material on the Iroquois in the New York Public Li­ brary. The Schuyler Papers are particularly rewarding. Schuyler’s Indian papers are conveniently collected in three boxes. The Military Papers of General Peter Gansevoort, in the Gansevoort-Lansing Collection, are important for Indian administration emanating from Fort Stanwix and for military affairs in that re­ gion in general. A photostat of the Journal of William Colbrath gives an inter­ esting narrative of the siege of Fort Stanwix. The transcripts, American Loy­ alists, in sixty volumes, recount the services and sufferings of the Loyalists during the Revolution. After the war, these transplanted American Tories filed claims with the British government for losses incurred during the conflict. Their narratives are often detailed, reviewing in many instances their activity on the king’s behalf. Here can be found the claim of Mary Brant and a list of all her children. The volumes relating to New York are 11, 17—24, and 41-46. Most valuable are those covering Tryon, Ulster, and Albany Counties. Other Iroquois material in the New York Public Library is located in the Bancroft

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

329

Transcripts, the British Headquarters Papers, the Emmet Collection, the Henry Glen Papers, the Edward Hand Papers, and the Van Cortlandt—Van Wyck Pa­ pers. The most useful collection for this period at the New-York Historical So­ ciety is the Tryon County MSS., particularly Box 1. Although some of this ma­ terial was published in J. Howard Hanson and Samuel Ludlow Frey, The Minute Book o f the Committee o f Safety o f Tryon County (New York: Dodd Mead and Co., 1905), much remains unpublished. The reports of the various local committees of safety, the Tryon County Committee of Safety, letters and depositions from militiamen relating to their war services, and reports of coun­ cils with friendly Indians all give valuable insights into the critical conditions in the county during the war. The Horatio Gates Papers provided a few items of interest, all dating from the period of Gates’s service in New York. Although there are a few very important items in the New York State Li­ brary, the over-all contributions for this study are disappointing. The paucity of materials in the State Library is undoubtedly a result of the disastrous fire of 1911. In addition to a few scattered documents cataloged under “Indians,” “Ir­ oquois,” or specific tribes, the most useful references are in the Schuyler Papers and the Schuyler Mansion Documents. In the American Philosophical Society, the Nathanael Greene Papers pro­ vide a few letters from the summer of 1779, when Greene was trying to prod Sullivan to begin his long-delayed expedition against the Six Nations. The Kirkland Papers are located in the Hamilton College Library. All known Kirkland material is there either in manuscript originals or in photo­ static copies from other libraries. Kirkland was a missionary first to the Senecas and then for many years to the Oneidas and Tuscaroras. His papers contain much ethnological data as well as descriptions of his attempts to keep the Onei­ das loyal to the American cause. The papers are invaluable for the years imme­ diately preceding the Declaration of Independence and for insights into the conditions of the Indians in the postwar period. Since Kirkland had left his mission post to serve as a chaplain in the American army, his papers for the war years are skimpy, though still significant. His journals are at times exceed­ ingly difficult to read because of his use of many shorthand symbols and his hurried writing. These are only his rough journals. The finished journals were sent at regular intervals as reports to the missionary organization in Scotland that supported him, and after many years of repose in its archives were finally destroyed. The Dreer Collection and the Yeates Papers at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania present many details of Indian activities in the vicinity of Fort Pitt, particularly matters relating to the Senecas. A typescript of the George Morgan Letterbook for the year 1776 is in the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. It describes two important trips made to the Six Nations country on behalf of the American cause— one by an anonymous spy and the other by Simon Girty. The collections of major significance for this study at the William L. Clements Library at the University of Michigan are the Gage Papers and the

330

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Germain Papers. There are also scattered references to Indians in the Clinton, Knox, and Sydney Papers. The Draper Manuscripts at the State Historical Society of Wisconsin are seldom used to any major extent by historians but are extremely valuable for Indian history. Lyman Draper spent many years collecting data on the Ameri­ can frontier and the Revolution. He interviewed Revolutionary veterans, in­ cluding Indians, or their descendants. Series F, Brant MSS., is the collection most frequently used by researchers. Draper had originally planned to write a biography of Brant and gathered every scrap of information available— both written and oral— about the famous warrior, though he admitted that William L. Stone, Brant’s biographer, had secured all the best of Brant’s personal let­ ters. Draper never wrote his intended biography. The twenty-two volumes of the Brant MSS. stand as a monument to Draper’s diligence but as a warning to all future scholars who do not know when to stop researching and start writing. This F Series also contains two accounts of the Seneca warrior, Blacksnake, transcribed by the part-Indian Benjamin Williams. They are often very difficult to follow because of the broken English and the confused narrative technique, which sometimes leaves the reader unsure of the exact chronology or the iden­ tity of the battles being described. Another interesting document in the F Se­ ries is “A Copy of Cornplanter’s Talk,” a short interview with the old war chief. Series U, Frontier Wars, and Series S, Draper’s Notes, also contain many interviews conducted by Draper with Revolutionary participants or their descendants, or people who knew them. These two latter collections are partic­ ularly important for the information they give about various Six Nations Indi­ ans who were prominent in the war. By the 1790s, many of the claims for losses incurred by the pro-American Indians in the Revolution still had not been settled. The negotiations relating to these claims are in the Pickering Papers in the Massachusetts Historical So­ ciety. Pickering not only listed the material losses of the Indians but also the clan affiliation of many of the claimants. We thus have an abbreviated census of the Patriot Six Nations Indians. The Pickering Papers in general are an im­ portant source of ethnological information. C hapter I— The People o f the Longhouse

Lewis Henry Morgan, League o f the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1851, 1901; reprinted by Human Relations Area Files, 1954), is the classic study of the Iroquois. Ely S. Parker, a Tonawanda Seneca and later a general in the United States army, was Morgan’s informant. Iroquois history is given only slight attention. The major emphasis is on Iro­ quois culture, which is described from a Seneca point of view. Although this work must be supplemented by more modern studies in Iroquoian ethnology, it still stands as a major contribution to American anthropology. Morgan’s Houses and House Life o f the American Aborigines (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1881) and his great theoretical study, Ancient So­ ciety (Cleveland: World, 1963; first published in 1877), are also important for

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

331

understanding Iroquois society. Even though Morgan’s concept of kinship in Ancient Society has been proven wrong by subsequent studies, no one can deny the importance of the kinship material he gathered through long, thor­ ough, painstaking research. The Jesuits were perhaps the most perceptive early recorders of Iroquoian culture. The letters and reports of their missionary endeavors are found in Reu­ ben Gold Thwaites, ed., Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents (New York: Pageant, 1959). Elisabeth Tooker, An Ethnography o f the Huron Indians, 1615—1649, BAE Bulletin 190 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) is a thorough study of the largest Northern Iroquoian tribal group. Frank G. Speck, The Iroquois (Bloomfield Hills, Mich.: Cranbrook Insti­ tute of Science, 1955), is a brief but excellent summary of Iroquois culture. Other valuable modern studies dealing with specific aspects of Iroquoian cul­ ture are: George S. Snyderman, ‘The Function of Wampum,” Pennsylvania Archeologist, XVIII, 3—4 (1948); F. W. Waugh, Iroquois Foods and Food Preparation, Canada Geological Survey, Anthropology Series 12 Mem. 86 (Ot­ tawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1916); Floyd G. Lounsbury, Oneida Verb Morphology, Yale University Publications in Anthropology 48 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953); B. H. Quain, “The Iroquois,” in Cooperation and Competition among Primitive Peoples, ed. by Margaret Mead (Boston: Beacon, 1960; first published by McGraw Hill, 1937); William N. Fenton and John Gulick, eds., Symposium on Cherokee and Iroquois Culture, BAE Bulletin 180 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961); Elisabeth Tooker, ed., Iroquois Culture, History and Prehistory (Albany: New York State Mu­ seum, 1967); and William N. Fenton, ed., Symposium on Local Diversity in Ir­ oquois Culture, BAE Bulletin 149 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print­ ing Office, 1951). Fenton’s own article, “Locality as a Basic Factor in the Development of Iroquois Social Structure,” in the latter volume is especially important for its insights into the way in which local autonomy affected the political structure of the Confederacy. It is a theme which I have developed further in this book. The Iroquoian clan structure is discussed in Alexander A. Goldenweiser, “The Clan and Maternal Family of the Iroquois League,” Amer­ ican Anthropologist, n.s., XV, 4 (October—December 1913), and Marius Bar­ beau, “Iroquois Clans and Phratries,” American Anthropologist, n.s., XIX, 3 (July—September 1917). For the significance of the chiefs and the ceremony of raising new chiefs to office, see Horatio Hale, The Iroquois Book o f Rites, ed. by William N. Fenton, second edition (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963); William N. Fenton, The Roll Call o f the Iroquois Chiefs, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, III, 15 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1950); J. N. B. Hewitt, “The Requickening Address of the Iroquois Condol­ ence Council,” ed. by William N. Fenton, Journal o f the Washington Academy o f Sciences, XXXIV, 3 (March 15, 1944); William N. Fenton, “An Iroquois Condolence Council for Installing Cayuga Chiefs in 1945,” ibid., XXIV, 4 (April 15, 1946). Annemarie A. Shimony, Conservatism among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve (New Haven: Department of Anthropology of Yale

332

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

University, 1961) shows the importance of religious and political continuity to the Iroquois of today, as does William N. Fenton, “The Iroquois Confederacy in the Twentieth Century: A Case Study of the Theory of Lewis H. Morgan in ‘Ancient Society,’ ” Ethnology, IV, 3 (July 1965). Frank G. Speck, Midwinter Rites o f the Cayuga Longhouse (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949), gives details of both the condolence ritual and the very important Midwinter ceremony. Elisabeth Tooker, The Iroquois Ceremonial o f Midwinter (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1970), makes a comparative study of the Midwinter on Iroquois reservations today from which she derives the pattern for this ritual. Her chapter on “The Midwinter Ceremonial in Historical Perspective” is especially useful for tracing the changes and continuities in the ceremony over the years. Further aspects of Iroquois religion are described in J. N. B. Hewitt’s two monumental studies, Iroquoian Cosmology, Part I, Twen­ ty-First Annual Report o f the Bureau o f American Ethnology (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1903), and Iroquoian Cosmology, Part II, Forty-Third Annual Report o f the Bureau o f American Ethnology (Wash­ ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1928). William N. Fenton, “ ‘This Island, the World on the Turtle’s Back,’ ” Journal o f American Folk­ lore, LXXV, 298 (October—December 1962), summarizes and analyzes the Iro­ quois creation legends. Wallace L. Chafe, Seneca Thanksgiving Rituals, Smith­ sonian Institution, BAE Bulletin 183 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961), records these extensive rituals in both Seneca and Eng­ lish. William N. Fenton in “The Seneca Green Corn Ceremony,” The New York Conservationist, XVIII, 2 (October-November 1963), presents with great feeling the meaning of the old religion to the modern Iroquois. The changing meaning of the White Dog Sacrifice is discussed in Harold Blau, “The Iroquois White Dog Sacrifice: Its Evolution and Symbolism,” Ethnohistory, XI, 2 (Spring 1964), and Elisabeth Tooker, “The Iroquois White Dog Sacrifice in the Latter Part of the Eighteenth Century,” Ethnohistory, XII, 2 (Spring 1965). The methods and function of war in Iroquois society are described in Wil­ liam N. Fenton, The Iroquois Eagle Dance an Offshoot o f the Calumet Dance, BAE Bulletin 156 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953); and George S. Snyderman, “Behind the Tree of Peace, A Sociological Analysis of Iroquois Warfare,” Pennsylvania Archeologist, XCVIII, 6 (December 1954). William Christie MacLeod, The American Indian Frontier (New York: Knopf, 1928), explains the changing war tactics developed by the Iroquois to meet new situations, particularly in adaptation to firearms. Keith F. Otterbein expands on this theme in “Why the Iroquois Won: An Analysis of Iroquois Military Tac­ tics,” Ethnohistory, XI, 1 (Winter 1964). Nathaniel Knowles, “The Torture of Captives by the Indians of Eastern North America,” Proceedings o f the Ameri­ can Philosophical Society, LXXXII, 2 (April 1940) sees some interesting paral­ lels between Iroquois and Aztec human sacrifice. George T. Hunt in his pro­ vocative Wars o f the Iroquois (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1960; first published in 1940), explains the furious warfare conducted by the seven­ teenth-century tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy against their non-Confeder-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

333

acy neighbors as having economic motives based upon the fur trade. For a corrective to Hunt’s extreme dependence on economic factors, see William N. Fenton, “Review of Hunt’s Wars o f the Iroquois,” American Athropologist, n.s., XLII, 4 (October—December 1940). William N. Fenton’s early study, “Problems Arising from the Historic Northeastern Position of the Iroquois,” Essays in Historical Anthropology o f North America, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 100 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1940), should be supplemented by reading later publications in the field, but is still of great significance and incorporates wide research. Its maps of Indian villages and tribal areas are particularly helpful. Marian E. White, Iroquois Culture History in the Niagara Frontier Area o f New York State, University of Michigan Anthropological Papers No. 16 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1961), presents the history and archeology of the Western Iroquois tribes. Although Walter B. Miller’s perceptive article, “Two Concepts of Author­ ity,” American Anthropologist, n.s., LVII (1955), concerns the pattern of au­ thority of the Fox Indians, an Algonkian group, it contains some important in­ sights that pertain as well to the Iroquois. James E. Seaver, A Narrative o f the Life o f Mrs. Mary Jemison (New York: Corinth Books, 1961; originally published in 1824), is the story of one of the most famous white captives among the Indians. Seaver interviewed the elderly Mrs. Jemison in 1823. Her reminiscences on Indian life and incidents pertaining to the Revolution are of great historical and ethnological signifi­ cance. Arthur C. Parker’s three famous monographs, Iroquois Uses o f Maize and Other Foods Plants, The Code o f Handsome Lake, the Seneca Prophet, and The Constitution o f the Five Nations, long out of print, have been gathered to­ gether and edited with a fascinating introduction by William N. Fenton under the title Parker on the Iroquois (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1968). In his presentation of The Constitution o f the Five Nations, Parker blundered in not recognizing that Seth Newhouse’s account of the founding of the Confeder­ acy and the giving of the laws was not an ancient version but rather a modern one, representing a very recent development in Iroquois social structure. No constitution ever existed in Iroquois history. A second document included by Parker in his Constitution o f the Five Nations was a description of the found­ ing of the Confederacy drawn up by the Six Nations chiefs, partly to rebut Newhouse’s garbled version, but also to preserve accurately the old tradition. Two very perceptive critiques of Parker’s Constitution are: Alexander Golden­ weiser, “Review of Parker’s Constitution o f the Five Nations,” American An­ thropologist, n.s., XVIII, 3 (July—September 1916), and J. N. B. Hewitt, “Review of Parker’s Constitution o f the Five Nations,” ibid., XIX, 3 (July-September 1917). Once an opinion becomes preserved in print, however, it often takes on the aura of sanctity and eternal truth. Parker’s title seems to have struck a responsive chord among Indians, for many members of the Six Nations today commonly speak of their constitution.

334

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

F. W. Hodge, ed., Handbook o f American Indians North o f Mexico, BAE I Bulletin 30, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1907, 1912), is a standard and essential reference. For the controversy over theories of Iroquois origins, which can be briefly described as either the older northern or southern migration hypotheses versus the modern in situ hypothesis, consult the following: Nicolas Perrot, Memoir on the Manners, Customs, and religion o f the Savages o f North America, in The Indian Tribes o f the Upper Mississippi Valley and Region o f the Great Lakes, ed. by Emma Helen Blair (Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1911), I; Claude Charles Le Roy Bacqueville de la Potherie, Histoire de l’Amérique Septentrionale (Paris: Chez Brocas, 1722), I; Pierre F. X. Charlevoix, Histoire et description generale de la Nouvelle France avec le Journal Historique d’un Voyage fait par ordre du Roi dans VAmérique Septentrionnale (Paris: Chez la Veuve Ganeau, 1744), V; Cadwallader Colden, The History o f the Five Indian Nations o f Canada (New York: Allerton, 1922); Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society (Cleveland: World, 1963; first published in 1877); Lewis Henry Mor­ gan, League o f the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1851, 1901); Henry R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois (New York: Bartlett and Welford, 1846); Henry R. Schoolcraft, Information Respecting the History Conditions and Prospects o f the Indian Tribes o f the United States (Philadel­ phia: Lippincott, 1860), VI; Arthur C. Parker, “The Origin of the Iroquois as Suggested by Their Archeology,” American Anthropologist, n.s., XVIII, 4 (October—December 1916); Franz Boas, “Ethnological Problems in Canada,” Journal o f the Royal Anthropological Institute o f Great Britain, XL (1910); Frank G. Speck, Decorative Art and Basketry o f the Cherokee; Bulletin of the Public Museum, City of Milwaukee, II, 2, (1920); James B. Griffin, “The Iro­ quois in American Prehistory,” Papers o f the Michigan Academy o f Science, Arts, and Letters, XXIX (1943, 1944); William A. Ritchie, “Iroquois Archeol­ ogy and Settlement Patterns,” in Symposium on Cherokee and Iroquois Cul­ ture, ed. by William N. Fenton and John Gulick, Smithsonian Institution, BAE Bulletin 180 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961); Bertram Kraus, “Acculturation, a New Approach to the Iroquois Problem,” American Antiquity, IX, 3 (January 1944); William A. Ritchie, The Pre-Iroquoian Occupation o f New York State, Memoir No. 1 (Rochester, N. Y.: Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, 1944); William A. Ritchie and Rich­ ard S. MacNeish, “The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State,” American Antiquity, XV, 2 (October 1949); William A. Ritchie, “A Current Synthesis of New York Prehistory,” ibid., XVII, 2 (October 1951); William A. Ritchie, The Chance Horizon: An Early State o f Mohawk Cultural Development, Circular 29 (Albany: New York State Museum, 1952); Richard S. MacNeish, Iroquois Pottery Types: A Technique for the Study o f Iroquois Prehistory, Bulletin 124, Anthropological Series 31 (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1952); J. V. Wright, The Ontario Iroquois Tradition, Bulletin 210, Anthropological Series 75 (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1966); Donald Lenig, The Oak Hill Horizon and Its Relation to the Development o f Five Nations Iroquois Culture. Res. and Trans, o f the N. Y. State Archeological Assoc., XV, 1 (1965); Wil-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

335

Ham A. Ritchie, “The Kelso Site: Its Significance for the Problem of Iroquois Origins,” in Tooker, Iroquois Culture, History and Prehistory; William A. Rit­ chie, The Archeology o f New York State (Garden City, N. Y.: Natural History Press, 1965); and James A. Tuck, Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory: A Study in Settlement Archaeology (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1971).

C hapter II— Forging an Alliance

Information on religion as an aspect of diplomacy in Indian relations can be found in Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed., Jesuit Relations and Allied Docu­ ments, 73 vols. (New York: Pageant, 1956), and John Wolfe Lydekker, The Faithful Mohawks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938). The latter work, dealing with Anglican missionary endeavor, is based primarily on the re­ cords of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Background on the growing tensions between Royalist Anglicans and Patriot Free Churchmen in the colonies on the eve of the Revolution can be found in William Warren Sweet, Religion in Colonial America (New York: Scribner’s, 1947). For political dealings of the colonial powers with the Iroquois, see Peter Wraxall, An Abridgement o f the Indian Affairs Contained in Four Folio Volumes, Trans­ acted in the Colony o f New York, from the Year 1678 to the Year 1751, ed. by Charles H. Mcllwain (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1915); Lawrence H. Leder, ed.. The Livingston Indian Records 1666—1723 (Gettysburg, Pa.: Penn­ sylvania Historical Association, 1956); Anthony F. C. Wallace, “Origins of Iro­ quois Neutrality: The Grand Settlement of 1701,” Pennsylvania History, XXXIV, 3 (July 1957); William Johnson, The Papers o f Sir William Johnson. Richmond P. Bond, Queen Anne’s American Kings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), is the story of the famous visit in 1710 of four Indian chiefs to London. Lawrence Henry Gipson, The Victorious Years, 1758—1760 (New York: Knopf, 1949), which is Vol. 7 of The Great War for Empire, recounts the difficulties experienced by the British in breaking down Iroquois neutrality and recruiting Iroquois warriors during the French and Indian War. For the story of Samuel Kirkland’s missionary endeavors and growing in­ fluence among the Oneida and Tuscarora Indians, see the Kirkland Papers, Hamilton College. This collection is also important for the light it sheds on the various rivalries and intrigues of white Loyalists and Patriots alike to gain the support of the Iroquois. Samuel Kirkland Lothrop, The Life o f Samuel Kirk­ land (Boston: Little and Brown, 1847), is a sympathetic treatment of the au­ thor’s ancestor. It is particularly valuable for its use of documentary sources now lost.

C hapter III— Hold Fast to the Covenant Chain

The increasing burden placed upon the Iroquois Confederacy by the American conflict is clearly documented in both the Johnson Papers and the Kirkland Papers. At the NYPL, the Bancroft Transcripts are particularly valu-

336

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

able for this period. Also helpful are the British Headquarters Papers and the Emmet Collection, both at the NYPL. Both the Germain Papers and the Gage Papers at the WLC are essential for an understanding of Indian diplomacy dur­ ing the years 1774—75. John Richard Alden, General Gage in America (Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1948), is a good general survey of Gage’s colonial service but gives little information on Indian matters. The Tryon County MSS. at the NYHS are essential for activities in the county in closest contact with the Iroquois. Some of these manuscripts have been pub­ lished in J. Howard Hanson and Samuel Ludlow Frey, eds., The Minute Book o f the Committee o f Safety o f Tryon County (New York: Dodd Mead and Co., 1905). United States Continental Congress, Journals o f the Continental Con­ gress 1774—1789, 34 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Of­ fice, 1904—37), records the official actions of the Congress, among which are the concerns of this body with Indian affairs. Volume 2 of the JCC is particu­ larly pertinent for the activities covered in this chapter. Some of the best material on Indian affairs is found in the Schuyler Pa­ pers at the NYPL and in Schuyler’s correspondence in the Papers of the Conti­ nental Congress, Item 153. From the British side, indispensable sources are the Haldimand Transcripts (Series B), the Colonial Office Transcripts (Series Q), and the Claus Papers— all at the PAC. The standard biography of Joseph Brant is William L. Stone, Life o f Jo­ seph Brant, 2 vols. (Albany: Munsell, 1838), but it is awkward, rambling, and verbose, and much of it deals with Revolutionary battles in which Brant had no part. Stone was an amateur historian who wrote before the disciplines of his­ tory and anthropology had been fully developed in the United States and thus he fell into numerous errors. Despite these shortcomings, his work cannot be neglected. He was most diligent in his efforts to unearth every scrap of evi­ dence that would serve him in writing his biography. He interviewed Revolu­ tionary veterans and their descendants, copied numerous Revolutionary docu­ ments that were then still in private hands, and did a great service in gathering letters and other material by and about Brant. As some of these primary docu­ ments have since been lost, Stone’s work is all the more valuable. Additional important material on Brant is in the Draper MSS., Series F, and Series U, the HSW. A somewhat shadowy figure because the documents relating to him are so few is James Dean. This paucity of sources is unfortunate because Dean was probably as influential as Kirkland with the Iroquois. Letters from him are scattered throughout the KP and CC. Eleazar Wheelock’s estimate of him is in Peter Force, ed., American Archives, fourth series, II. An interesting sketch is Sidney Norton Deane, “A New England Pioneer among the Oneida Indians: The Life of James Dean of Westmoreland, New York” (paper read before the Northampton Historical Society on January 28, 1926), Film 1101, the APS. For conditions in Canada during the American invasion in 1775 and the attitudes of various Canadian groups toward the Americans, see Ernest A. Cruikshank, A History o f the Organization . . . o f the Military and Naval Forces o f Canada, 2 vols. (Ottawa: Department of Militia and Defense,

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

337

1919—20); and two books by a noted French-Canadian scholar: Gustave Lanc­ tôt, ed., Les canadiens français et leur voisins du sud (Montréal: Editions Ber­ nard Valiquette, 1941), and Gustave Lanctôt, Canada and the American Revo­ lution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967). The volumes of the American Loyalists in the NYPL are important for the accounts they contain of the services of the Loyalists during the Revolu­ tion. The typescript of the George Morgan Letterbook in the PHMC contains material that can be found no where else relating to American attempts to keep the Iroquois neutral. Iroquois-white land disputes are discussed in Georgiana C. Nammack, Fraud, Politics, and the Dispossession o f the Indians: The Iroquois Land Fron­ tier in the Colonial Period (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969). This book is a good beginning on a complicated topic, but a more com­ prehensive study is needed. C hapter IV— An Uneasy Neutrality

The continuing struggle of the Iroquois Confederacy to stay neutral and the Americans to keep them that way and the British to involve them in the hostilities is recorded in the Schuyler Papers in both the NYPL and the CC, Item 153; George Washington, The Writings o f George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745—1779, ed. by John C. Fitzpatrick, 39 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931-44), IV; George Morgan Letterbook, PHMC; Yeates Papers, HSP; Claus Papers, PAC; and Co­ lonial Office Transcripts, Series Q, PAC. A very interesting brief autobiogra­ phical sketch by a prominent war chief of the Fort Hunter Mohawks is “Cap­ tain John Deserontyon’s Services,” Draper MSS., 14F, HSW. The activities of the New York Loyalists during the Revolution are described in Hazel C. Ma­ thews, The Mark o f Honour (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965). Mathews makes good use of many valuable primary sources but lets slip a few minor errors, including some incorrect identities. Justin H. Smith, Our Struggle for the Fourteenth Colony, 2 vols. (New York: Putnam's, 1907), is an old work but still useful. It needs to be supple­ mented by a more thorough use of documentary sources. A work which promises much but offers little because of its extremely slipshod scholarship and deliberate distortion of facts is Howard Swiggett, War Out o f Niagara: Walter Butler and the Tory Rangers (New York: Columbia University Press, 1933). Swiggett wrote with the intent to rehabilitate the repu­ tation of the Butlers by removing the mantle of bestiality in which the Ameri­ cans had wrapped them and placing it instead upon the shoulders of the Indi­ ans. His first aim is justifiable but has been accomplished in a much more scholarly and truthful fashion by Hazel Mathews. In his second aim— to dis­ credit Brant and the Indians— he displayed little or no knowledge of Indian history or ethnology and completely whitewashed John Butler’s role in recruit­ ing the Iroquois for the king’s service. Swiggett’s constant falsifications, contin-

338

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

ual resort to surmise instead of facts, and sketchy use of primary sources place his work in the realm of fiction rather than serious history. A briefer but much sounder study of the Butlers is Ernest A. Cruikshank, The Story o f Butler’s Rangers and the Settlement o f Niagara (Welland, Ont.: Lundy’s Lane Historical Society, 1893).

C hapter V — Take Up the Hatchet

John Butler’s steady efforts to wear down the resistance of the Iroquois to taking up the hatchet are recorded in the Yeates Papers, Correspondence, 1762-80, HSP; letters of Butler to Carleton dated June 15, 1777, Q13, PAC, and July 28, 1777, Q14, PAC; “Life of Governor Blacksnake,” Draper MSS., 16F, HSW; “Conversations with Governor Blacksnake,’’ Draper MSS., 4S, HSW; “A Copy of Cornplanter’s Talk,” Draper MSS., 16F, HSW; and James E. Seaver, A Narrative o f the Life o f Mrs. Mary Jemison (New York: Corinth Books, 1961). Daniel Claus’s reports on his and Brant’s activities are in “Gen­ eral Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, Vol. 14, Pt. 1, PAC; “Annecdotes [s/c] of Brant,” Claus Papers, Vol. 2, PAC; “Observations of Jo­ seph Brant’s Distinguished Genius and Character from Other Indians,” Claus Papers, Vol. 2, PAC; and NYCD, VIII. Schuyler’s counter efforts to keep the Iroquois neutral are in Schuyler Pa­ pers, NYPL and also NYSL, and his letters and reports in CC, Item 153. As one aspect of the campaign of 1777 centered around Fort Stanwix, the Gansevoort Military Papers, Gansevoort-Lansing Collection, NYPL, are im­ portant. Young Peter Gansevoort, commander of the fort, kept an extensive and detailed collection of personal papers and official reports which are most useful. One might make the same criticisms of, and bestow the same praise on, the works of Jeptha Simms as on Stone’s Life o f Brant. Simms, The Frontiers­ men o f New York 2 vols. (Albany: Riggs, 1883), is another amateur local his­ tory which, nonetheless, cannot be ignored. William W. Campbell, Annals o f Try on County (New York: Harper, 1831), is especially significant since it was written by a descendant of one of the captives of the Cherry Valley battle, and was written early enough to take advantage of the memories of those who had survived the war.

C hapter VI— The Tree Uprooted

For the attack on Fort Stanwix, the GMP, NYPL, are indispensable. The Journal of William Colbrath, NYPL, was written by an American officer who experienced the siege and who gave interesting sidelights on the battle. John Albert Scott, Fort Stanwix and Oriskany (Rome, N.Y.: Rome Sentinel Co., 1927), is a useful survey of the events published by the local newspaper of the city that now stands on the site of the old fort. New York State Papers, CC, Item 67, contain letters and testimonies of principals in the Oriskany and Fort

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

339

Stanwix battles. There are three depositions from militiamen who took part in the Battle of Oriskany in the Tryon County MSS., NYHS. The Draper MSS., 11U, HSW, gives accounts of Indian participants in these battles. A letter from Adam Fonda to the Schenectady Committee of Safety regarding Oriskany is in the Emmet Collection, No. 4611, NYPL. Campbell’s Annals o f Tryon County is also helpful. For the activities and viewpoints of the British and their Indian allies in these two battles, see Claus’s report in NYCD, VIII; the claims of Joost Harkemer, Sarah McGinn [McGinnis], and John Johnson in American Loyalists, vols. 20, 21, and 42, respectively, NYPL; Butler to Carleton, August 15, 1777, and St. Leger to Carleton, August 27, 1777, Q14, PAC; “Anecdotes of Brant” and “Detail of Colonel Claus’s Services,” Claus Papers, PAC; Seaver, Mary Jemison; and Blacksnake’s reminiscences in Draper MSS., 16F and 4S, HSW. For the story of the loss of the medicine bundles during Willett’s raid on the Indian camp, I am indebted to William N. Fenton. This was told to him by Arthur C. Parker. The Schuyler Papers, Box 14, NYPL, contain depositions from Mohawk Valley residents who witnessed the plundering of the Mohawk homes by the Oriska Indians and their white companions after the Fort Stanwix and Oris­ kany battles. The fate of the Mohawks’ missionary, John Stuart, is recounted in James J. Talman, ed.. Loyalist Narratives from Upper Canada, Champlain So­ ciety Publication No. X X V II (Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1946). There are a number of important published primary sources dealing with the Burgoyne invasion, beginning with the general’s own account, John Burgoyne, A State o f the Expedition from Canada (London: Almon, 1780). An­ bury’s memoirs have been reissued with a new title and expert editing, Thomas Anbury, With Burgoyne from Quebec, ed. by Sydney Jackman (Toronto: Mac­ millan, 1963). Other journals that are useful are “Lieutenant Digby’s Journal,” in J. P. Baxter, The British Invasion from the North (Albany: Munsell, 1887), and James M. Hadden, Hadden’s Journal and Orderly Books, ed. by Horatio Rogers (Albany: Munsell, 1884). Also valuable are W. L. Stone, The Campaign o f Lieutenant General John Burgoyne and the Expedition o f Lieutenant Colo­ nel Barry St. Leger (Albany: Munsell, 1877), and F. J. Hudleston, Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1927). Burgoyne’s defense of his campaign is found in his book as well as in his speeches in Parliament, The Parliamentary History o f England (London: Hansard, 1814), XIX. Jeptha R. Simms, History o f Schoharie County (Albany: Munsell, 1845), is another amateur nineteenth-century local history which is difficult to use be­ cause of its rambling nature but is essential to the scholar because of the im­ portant information it contains. C hapter VII— A Scourge Unleashed

The full-scale Indian warfare that followed the battles of Fort Stanwix and Oriskany is best described in the manuscript sources, especially the Claus Pa­ pers, PAC; Colonial Office Transcripts, Series Q, PAC; Haldimand Transcripts,

340

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Series B, PAC; American Loyalists, NYPL; Schuyler Papers, CC, Item 153; “Blacksnake Conversations,” Draper MSS., 4S, HSW; and GMP, NYPL. Im­ portant published primary sources are, NYCD, VIII; Pennsylvania Archives, VI and VII (1853); William M. Darlington, Christopher Gist’s Journals (Pitts­ burgh: J. R. Weldin and Co., 1893); “The Journal of Adam Crysler,” in Talman. Loyalist Narratives from Upper Canada; and C. E. Cartwright, ed.. Life and Letters o f the Late Honorable Richard Cartwright (Toronto: Belford Bros., 1876). Richard Cartwright was associated with Butler’s Rangers and was present on many expeditions. His first-hand account and personal observations are thus invaluable. A tremendous amount of detail on the border warfare in New York and the sufferings of the inhabitants can be found in George Clinton, Public Papers o f George Clinton, ed. by Hugh Hastings and others, 10 vols. (Albany: State of New York, 1900—14). Stone’s Life o f Brant is very useful for this period. A brief appreciation of Mary Brant appears in H. Pearson Gundy, “Molly Brant— Loyalist,” Ontario History, XLV, 3 (Summer 1953). Campbell’s Annals o f Try on County is par­ ticularly good for the sack of Cherry Valley. Jeptha Simms’s two works. His­ tory o f Schoharie County and Frontiersmen o f New York, are also valuable for their discussion of the border conflicts. William L. Stone, The Life and Times o f Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha, or Red Jacket (Albany: J. Munsell, 1866), deals frankly with Red Jacket’s war experiences and his later career. A more modern biogra­ phy of the famous Seneca is much needed. William Ketcham, History o f Buf­ falo, 2 vols. (Buffalo: Rockwell, Baker and Hill, 1864), is a good source for early Indian-white contacts in the western New York area. For an all-too-brief treatment of LaFayette’s association with Iroquois warriors fighting for the American cause, see Louis Gottschalk, Lafayette Joins the American Army (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937), and Chris­ topher Ward, The War o f the Revolution, 2 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1952), II. The latter is a useful survey of the whole war but sometimes suffers in accuracy from a complete reliance on secondary sources. C hapter VIII— Our Children Trembled

There are a number of excellent sources for the Sullivan-Clinton Expedi­ tion. One of the most interesting is Frederick Cook, Journals o f the Military Expedition o f Major General John Sullivan against the Six Nations (Auburn, N. Y.: Knapp, Peck and Thomson, 1887). Many of the soldiers on this expedi­ tion had a sense of its great importance and recorded their daily experiences and observations. This collection of journals is valuable not only for the mili­ tary details but for descriptions of Indian culture. There is a good chapter on the expedition in Charles P. Whittemore, A General o f the Revolution: John Sullivan o f New Hampshire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961). Fitzpatrick’s Writings o f George Washington, XIV and XVI, contain Washing­ ton’s thoughts and instructions on this significant undertaking. John Sullivan, The tetters and Papers o f Major General John Sullivan, ed. by Otis G. Ham­ mond, New Hampshire Historical Society Collection, 3 vols. (Concord, N.H.:

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

341

New Hampshire Historical Society, 1930—39), are also important. There are a few letters from General Nathanael Greene to Sullivan for 1779 in the Na­ thanael Greene Papers, APS, commenting on the preparation for the expedi­ tion and urging Sullivan to get under way. There are also a few relevant items in the Schuyler Papers, CC, Item 153, and Schuyler Papers, Box 14, NYPL. For the Indian and British side of the story, see Draper MSS., Series F, and “Blacksnake Conversations,” 4S, HSW; Haldimand Transcripts, particu­ larly B100, B105, B114, and B119, PAC; Colonial Office Transcripts, Q16-1, PAC; Indian Records, R. G. 10, Ser. 2, XII, PAC; Arthur C. Parker, “The In­ dian Interpretation of the Sullivan-Clinton Campaign,” Rochester Historical Society Publication Fund Series, VIII (1929); Seaver, Mary Jemison; Cart­ wright, Life and Letters o f the Late Honorable Richard Cartwright; and Stone, Life o f Brant. The simultaneous Brodhead Expedition against the Senecas and other In­ dians of western Pennsylvania and western New York is described in Pennsyl­ vania Archives, first series, XII (1856). Material relating to Colonel Gansevoort’s hesitation over dispossessing the few neutral Mohawk families is in GMP, V, NYPL. C hapter IX— The Path o f Vengeance

For the retaliatory warfare by the Indians after the Sullivan-Clinton Expe­ dition, the Indian Records, R. G. 10, Ser. 2, PAC, are particularly important. They contain the record of Guy Johnson’s administration of the Indian depart­ ment, speeches, minutes of councils, descriptions of war parties, and much eth­ nological information. The effect on the Iroquois of the devastation of their homeland, their adjustment as refugees around Fort Niagara, and their determi­ nation to strike hard at their adversary can be found in the various volumes of the Haldimand Transcripts, Series B, PAC, covering the years 1779—82. The Draper MSS, 11U, “Blacksnake Conversations” 4S, and Brant MSS. Series F, HSW, are also essential. Informative printed sources for this period include Stone, Life o f Brant, II; Seaver, Mary Jemison; Mathews, Mark o f Honour, Chap. 6; Cartwright, Life and Letters o f the Late Honorarable Richard Carwright; “Gilbert Tice, U. E.,” Ontario Historical Society Papers and Records, XXI (1924); “Journal of Adam Crysler,” in Talman, Loyalist Narratives from Upper Canada. The effect of the Indian war on New York State is described in New York State Papers, CC, Item 67, II; and Clinton Papers, V and VII. Josiah Priest, The Captivity and Suffering o f Gen. Freegift Patchin o f Blenheim (Albany: Packard, Hoffman and White, 1833), is the absorbing narrative of a young lad who was captured by a war party under Brant in 1780 and taken prisoner to Niagara. The consequences of the civil war within the Iroquois Confederacy and the sufferings of the Indians loyal to the American side are related with feeling by General Philip Schuyler in CC, Item 153, III. François Jean de Chastellux, Travels in North America in the Years 1780, 1781 and 1782, ed. by Howard

342

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

C. Rice, Jr. (Chapel Hill, N. C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1963), II, contains an account of the wretched condition of the refugee Oneidas and Tuscaroras around Schenectady. In the Pickering Papers, LXII, MHS, are long lists of the personal and property losses incurred by the Iroquois friendly to the Americans during the war. Marinus Willett’s unfortunate expedition against Oswego toward the end of the war is detailed in Fitzpatrick, Writings o f George Washington, XXV and XXVI, and in Willett to Glen, February 19, 1783, Glen Papers, NYPL. C hapter X— Peace Comes to the Longhouse

Epilogue The Parliamentary debate over the British government’s abandonment of its Indian allies at the end of the war is in Parliamentary History o f England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (Lond: Hansard, 1814), XXIII. The extreme embarrassment of the British military officers in America over their government’s bad faith with their Indian allies and the Indians’ growing anger can be followed in the volumes of the Haldimand Transcripts, PAC, particu­ larly B36, B103, B114, B115, B119, and B124. A favorable change in attitude with the fall of the Shelburne ministry can be seen by a letter from Lord North to Haldimand, August 8, 1783, B50, PAC. British concepts of the sovereignty of the king over his domains, including all Indian lands, are described in Johnson Papers, IV, 817—19; A. Pearce Hig­ gins, “International Law and the Outer World, 1450-1648,” in Cambridge His­ tory o f the British Empire, ed. by J. Holland Rose and others (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929), I, 193; and Native Rights in Canada (To­ ronto: Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada, 1970), esp. pp. 34—55. The latter volume is a superb legal history compiled under the direction of Douglas Sanders of the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, Ontario. Haldimand’s rationale for violating the terms of the peace treaty between Great Britain and the United States by refusing to abandon the frontier forts is in a series of letters to Lord North dated November 27, 1783, April 26, 1784, and May 12, 1784, B56, PAC. The issue is discussed in detail by A. L. Burt, “A New Approach to the Problem of the Western Posts,” Canadian Historical Association, Annual Report (1931). Steps taken by the Continental Congress and the Indian commissioners to initiate peace proceedings with the Iroquois are in JCC, XXV and XXVI; CC, Items 16, 30, and 56; and Schuyler Papers, Box 14, NYPL. The negotiations at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784 and the difficulties experienced with the commissioners representing New York State are described in correspondence between James Madison and James Monroe, November 15, 1784, and November 27, 1784, Madison Papers, Library of Congress (Colum­ bia University microfilm); Neville B. Craig, ed., The Olden Time, 2 vols. (Pitts­ burgh: Wright & Charlton, 1848), II; Wolcott and others to President of Con­ gress, October 5, 1784, Item 56, CC; and “Journal of Griffith Evans,” very awkwardly and sometimes inaccurately edited by Hallock F. Raup, Pennsyl­ vania Magazine o f History and Biography, LXV, 2 (April 1941). and

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

343

For LaFayette’s role at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, see Craig, Olden Time, II; Louis Gottschalk, ed.. The Letters o f Lafayette to Washington 1779—1799 (New York: Helen Fahnestock Hubbard, 1944); Louis Gottschalk, Lafayette between the American and the French Revolution 1783—1789 (Chi­ cago: University of Chicago Press, 1950); Raup, ed., “Journal of Griffith Evans”; James Madison, Letters and Other Writings o f James Madison, 4 vols. (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1867), I; and Irving Brant, James Madison, The Na­ tionalist 1780—1787 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948). Some of LaFayette’s wartime reminiscences are recorded in the account of his famous tour of the United States in 1824—25, A. Levasseur, Lafayette in America, in 1824 and 1825; or. Journal o f Travels, in the United States, 2 vols. (New York: White, Gallagher & White, 1829), esp. Vol. II. The Indians’ dissatisfaction with their treatment at the Fort Stanwix Treaty negotiations and their unhappiness with the terms of the treaty can be found in David Hill to a friend, November 2, 1784, Claus Papers, IV, PAC; Captain Brant’s account of what passed at Fort Stanwix in October 1784, In­ dian records, XV, PAC; Dease to Fraser, November 26, 1784, Indian Records, XV, PAC; and Council at Fort Schlosser, March 23, 1786, Q24, Pt. 2, PAC. The continuing and successful attempt of New York State to dispossess the Indians, even the friendly Oneidas and Tuscaroras, after the war is de­ scribed in an excellent and highly important volume, Franklin B. Hough, Pro­ ceedings o f the Commissioners o f Indian Affairs Appointed by Law for the Ex­ tinguishment o f Indian Titles in the State o f New York (Albany: Munsell, 1861). The split between the Fort Hunter and Canajoharie Mohawks, their deter­ mination to settle in separate localities in Canada, and Brant’s later controver­ sies with the chiefs at Grand River can be followed in Deserontyon to J. John­ son, February 15, 1785, Claus Papers, IV, PAC; and a thoroughly useful compilation of documents relating to Indians in Canada, with an excellent In­ troduction, Charles M. Johnston, ed., The Valley o f the Six Nations (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964). Stone, Life o f Brant, II, Chap. XIII, also gives a good discussion of Brant’s later difficulties among his own people.

Index

Abeel, John, 236 Achswachta, 192 Adams, Samuel, 40 Adirondack Mountains, 5 Adongot, 106 Agorondajats. S ee Good Peter Akwanake, 8 Akwesasne (Oughquissasines). S ee St. Re­ gis Indians Albany Committee of Safety, 65, 69, 71, 74 Albany Corporation, 73, 104 Albany: council with Indians, 149-50; peace treaty, 227 Albany County, 3 Albany, New York: 24, 27; trading cen­ ter, 26-27, 32 Alden, Colonel Ichabod: 165, 177, 179; at Cherry Valley, 179, 185-86; death of, 187 Algonkian Indians, 5-7, 17, 28 Allen, Ethan: 68; capture of, 79 Americans: friendship treaty with Indians, 80, 82, 90, 97; grab Indian lands, 256; s e e a ls o Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784) Amherst, General Jeffrey, 162 Anadagie, 29 Anbury, Thomas, 155 Andaste Indians, 6 Andrew's Town, 174-75, 189 Andrews, William, 28 Anglican missionaries: 28, 33, 43, 45, 47, 56, 61, 117, 148-49; church estab­ lished by Brant, 252 Anthony’s Nose, 233 Aowan, 106 Appalachian Mountains, 2, 49 Arnold, General Benedict: 101; Canadian expedition, 74, 87; Fort Stanwix, 14445

Appletown. S ee Kendaia Articles of Confederation: 267-68; Indian citizenship, 269 Atayataghronghta, Louis, 149, 155, 197 Atkins, Edmund, 32 Atlee, Samuel, 282 Attiwandaronk. S ee Neutral Indians Avery, David, 43 Aztec Indians, 18 Ballston, burning of, 238 Barren Hill, battle of, 165 Barton, Lieutenant William, 213 Beacraft, Benjamin, 237 Beatty, Lieutenant Erkuries, 215 Beech, Zarah, 171 Bellinger, Colonel Peter: 175, 178; Oriskany, 134 Bennington expedition, 152, 154 Berry, Jack. S ee Donnegoesha Bingham, Jerusha, 36 Bird, Lieutenant Henry, 127 Black Minqua Indians, 5 Blackburn, John, 42 Blacksnake: 120, 125; on Brant, 121; Cherry Valley, 184-85, 188; descrip­ tion of Oriskany, 135; illustration, 271; Newtown, 209; Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784), 276; at Wyoming Valley, 168, 172,174 Blatcop, 132 Bolton, Colonel Mason: 196; at Niagara, 199; on Indians, 232; death of, 241 Boone, Captain Hawkins, 202 Boston: 39, 41; evacuated by British, 91; Massacre, 42; Port Bill, 42; Tea Party, 42 Boyd, Lieutenant Thomas: 2 16; death of, 217 Braddock, General James, 30, 162

345

346

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Brant, John, 28 Brant, Joseph (Thayendanegea): 28, 65; accuses England, 259; attacks Minisink, 199-201; Battle of Long Island, 108; bibliographical information, 328, 330; Canajoharie, 236-37; Cayuga, 158; Chemung, 204; Cherry Valley, 16667; Cherry Valley Massacre, 184-91; Cobleskill, 166; conference with Butler, 166; distrust of Butler, 110-11; early life, 52-53; encourages Tories, 11516; Fort Stanwix, 132, 146; Harpersfield raid, 240-41; hero to Mohawks, 109; illustration, 54; interpreter, 58; journey to England, 81, 105, 159; Kanowalohale, 235; lease of Indian lands, 293; legend, 191; Mohawk Val­ ley, 160; Mohawk Valley raid, 17879; negotiations with Haldimand, 284; Newtown, 212; to Ohio, 245-46; at Onoquaga, 165, 172; Oriskany, 135; to Oswego, 124, 254; Palmerstown raid, 244; requests schoolmaster, 251; return to New York from England, 104; Schoharie, 230; Shanklands, 188-89; Springfield raid, 174-75; treatment of prisoners, 231-33; tricked by John Wood, 201-202; Ulster County raids, 180; war dance, 224-25 Brant, Mary (Gonwatsijayenni): grand­ daughter of Chief Hendrick, 157-58; influence on Indians, 158-61; influence on Mary Hill, 239; pension, 285; pil­ lage of home, 146; prestige in Mohawk nation, 47; wife of Sir William John­ son, 13,29-30, 52,79, 158 Bread, Peter, 149, 155 Brodhead, Colonel Daniel: 194, 204; against Senecas, bibliographical infor­ mation, 341; Conawago, 214-15; with Sullivan, 218-19 Brooklyn, New York, Washington’s re­ treat from, 108 Brotherton Indians, member tribes, 287 Brown, Captain Christian, 165 Buchloons, 218 Buffalo Creek, Treaty of, 292 Bunt, Chief, 229 Burgoyne, General John: Albany, 143; Battle of Saratoga, 158; bibliographical information, 339; capture of Ticon-

deroga, 150-51; expedition, 117, 146, 150-56; Freeman’s Farm, 149, 154; Indians flee to, 147; restricts use of In­ dians, 152; rumor of surrender, 144 Burke, Edmund, 161 Bute, John Stuart, Earl of, 161-62 Butler, Major John: 64, 86; aid to St. Leger, 124; bibliographical information, 328; Chemung, 204; cultivates Indians for English, 94-95, 97-99, 100, 106, distrust of Brant, 110-11; Fort Stanwix, 128, 131, 143; Newtown, 214; Niagara Council, 161; Oriskany, 136, 140-41; on plight of Indians, 203; praise of Brant, 162-63; raises Rangers, 157; Sullivan-Clinton Expedition, 208-209, 216; supplies to Indians, 196; Wyoming Valley, 168-69, 171-72, 174 Butler’s Rangers: 130, 165, 167; biblio­ graphical information, 338-40; Cherry Valley, 179, 183, 187; dislike of Brant, 183; Kanadesaga, 215; Newtown, 209; Pennsylvania, 180-81 ; Susquehanna, 181; Tryon County raid, 237-38; Wy­ oming Valley, 168, 171-72 Butler, Richard, Indian commissioner, 266, 273 Butler, Captain Walter: 79, 112; back­ ground, 183; Cherry Valley, 184-91; death of, 248-49; dislike of Brant, 183; to England with Brant, 81 ; escape from Albany, 164-65; Newtown, 209; St. Leger, 143 Butler, Colonel William, with Sullivan, 218 Butler, Colonel Zebulon, 169 Cakadorie, 229-30 Caldwell, Lieutenant Colonel, 96, 100 Caldwell, Captain William: 171-72; Cherry Valley, 184; Tioga, 183 Campbell, Major John, 80-81, 147-48, 150, 154-55, 175 Campbell, William, 187 Canada; 75; pro-American, 74; se e a ls o England, Montreal, Fort Niagara, Fort Oswego Canajoharie: 29, 79, 116-17, 175; Dis­ trict, 3; burning of, 236; pillage of Mary Brant's home, 146 Cannibalism, 19, 21, 68

INDEX

Carleton, General Guy: 60, 66-67, 68, 75, 78, 80, 86, 118, 162; bibliographical information, 328; and John Butler, 157; dislike of Claus, 148; illustration, 117; Fort Stanwix, 129; replaced by Haldimand, 175 Cartier, Jacques, 6 Cartwright, Richard: 165, 172, 174, 190; with Sullivan-Clinton, 240-41 Cassasseny, 117 Cat Nation. S ee Erie Indians Catherine’s Town (Shechquago), 215 Caughnawaga Indians: 59-60, 67, 71, 90, 149; with Burgoyne, 150, 152; neutral­ ity of, 95; offer to aid Americans, 87, 101; side with English, 68, 72 Cayuga Indians: 7-8, 14; after war, 292; attacked by William Butler, 218; Brants' residence, 158; Canadian ex­ pedition, 75-76; clans, 13; Fort Stan­ wix, 131; missionaries to, 27; neutrality of, 70; pressures on Oneidas and Tuscaroras, 192; pro-English, 74, 107 The Cedars, American surrender at, 94 Chambly, 78 de Champlain, Samuel, 6 de Chastellux, Marquis, description of Indians' plight, 242 Chatham, Lord. S ee William Pitt Chemung, 180 Chenussio (Genesee Castle): 110, 216, 217; destruction of, 218 Cherokee Indians: 6; language, 7 Cherry Valley: 160, 166-67, 177; bib­ liographical information, 338; Mas­ sacre, 165, 183-91; plan for expedi­ tion against, 178 Chew, Joseph, 81 Chew Tobacco: 229; Fort Hunter, 245 Chittenango, New York, 111 Christian Island, 19 Chughquaga, 244 Chuknut. S ee Newtown Clark, George Rogers, Indian commis­ sioner, 266 Claus, Daniel: 53, 68, 78, 117-18; ap­ peal for Indians, 147; appointed Indian agent, 175; on Brant, 109-10; dislike of Carlton, 148; in England, 106; hu­ mors Indians, 251; illustration, 119; Indian agent, 67; Mohawk-English

347

primer, 252; Oriskany, 139; Oswego, 124-26, 146, 157; on peace, negotia­ tions, 262-63; replaced by Campbell, 81; reports Canadian expedition, 75 Clement, Lieutenant Joseph, with Joseph Brant, 235 Clinton, Governor George: 167; biblio­ graphical information, 327; on New York’s frontiers, 194, 238-39; on har­ vest, 224; Indian conference, 267, 270, 272 Clinton, General Henry, 109 Clinton, General James: expedition, 194, 204; illustration, 205; at Newtown, 211; orders Fort Stanwix abandoned, 24546; with Sullivan's army, 206-207 Cobleskill, battle at, 165-66 Colden, Cadwallader, 40-41 Colebreath, William, 278 Conasadaga Indians, 101 Conawago: burned, 218; skirmish at, 21415 Condolence ceremony, 86, 107, 113, 280 Condolence council, 14, 16 Concord, Massachusetts, 62 Conestoga Indians, 6, 111 Congregationalists: Connecticut “Presby­ terians,” 34; se e a ls o Missionaries Congregationalists, New England, 43 Connecticut: dispute over Wyoming Val­ ley, 167; Indian school, 33; Sons of Liberty, 40; Valley, troop movements in, 197 Conneuesut, 184 Conoghquieson, 55, 57, 70-71 Continental Congress: 55-59; authorizes formation of Indian departments, 6566; bibliographical information, 328; Board of War, 167; Indian administra­ tion, 88-89; Indian affairs, 69, 81, 87; Indian conference, 172-73; Indian recruitment, 165; letter from Gates, 114; military alliance with Indians, 100; offer of peace, 226; plans Indian expedition, 239; problem of Indian af­ fairs, 266-67 Cornelius, Henry, 132 Cornplanter (Gayentwahga, Cadaraqua): 120, 168; battle of Wyoming Valley, 168; bibliographical information, 330; Canajoharie, 236-37; conference with

348

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Cornplanter (c o n tin u e d ) Washington, 283; Cherry Valley, 184, 186-91; council, 272; Fort Freeland, 201; illustration, 170; letter to Wash­ ington, 192; neutrality of, 121-22; Newtown, 208-209; Tryon County, 237; war chief, 123 Cornwallis, General Charles, surrender to Washington, 251 Cox, Colonel Ebenezer: 116; death of, 135; Oriskany, 134 Crawford, William, scalping of, 253 Crine, John. S ee Johannes Schrine Crisman, Hans, 248 Croghan, George, 53 Crosby, Aaron, 55 Crown Point, 53 Crysler, Lieutenant Adam, attacks Scho­ harie, 251 Cusick, Nicholas (Kaghnatsho), 197 Cuyler, Abraham, 270, 272 Dahgaiownd, 138 Dahgonwasha (Twenty Canoes): 168; Cherry Valley, 184 Dagagahsud, 2 15 Dahgahswagaheh, 215 Dahohjoedoh, 138 Dahwahdeho, 138 Dartmouth, Earl of, 50, 55, 80 Dartmouth College, 59 Dayton, Colonel Elias: 92-93; com­ mander of Fort Stanwix, 112 Dean, James: 59-60, 67-68, 71, 74, 86-87, 91; bibliographical informa­ tion, 336; on Onondagas, 192 Dearborn, Colonel Henry, with Sullivan, 218 Dease, John, superintendent at Niagara, 282-83 Decker, Major Johannes, 200 Declaration of Independence, 103 Deganawida, 14,47, 128,296 Delaware Indians: 80, 110; defense of towns, 209-10, 214; northern cam­ paign, 204; s e e a ls o Moravian massacre Delaware region, 172 Demuth, John, 132 Denbigh, Lord, 162 Dennison, Colonel Nathan, 169, 171, 184, 190

Denonville, Marquis de (Jacques René de Brisay), Governor, 27 Deserontyon, John: 92, 118, 129, 284; Canajoharie, 245; Little Falls, 254; Fort Stanwix, 146 Detroit, 120 Deygart, Peter: on Oriskany, 139; plunder of Mohawks, 147 Dieskau, Baron Ludwig August, 30 Dockstader, Lieutenant John; 158; death of, 250 Donnegoesha (Jack Berry): 168; Cherry Valley, 184; Newtown, 209 Douglass Ephraim, to Indians, 265 Douw, Volkert P.: 66, 70-71; consents to Indian conference, 91-92; Schenec­ tady conference, 266 Doxtator, Honyery (Thawengarakwen): 155, 197; dines with Schuyler, 149; Oriskany, 132, 135; pillages, 147 Drunkenness, Indian, 34-35, 67, 100, 112, 227,278, 286 Dubois, Colonel Lewis, at Newton, 211 Dunosahadahgah, 2 18 Dunmore, John Murray, Lord, 49 Durlach: 166; Indian raid on, 245 Dutch, 20, 24, 26 Dygert, William, 179 Edick, Conrad, 248 Edwards, Timothy, 91, 149 Eliot, Andrew, 60 Elliott, John, 278 Elliott, Walter, letter from Brant, 231 Elmore, Colonel Samuel, 113, 115 England: administrative changes in Que­ bec, 175; aid to Indians, 88-89; alli­ ance with Iroquois, 33, 44; attempts to enlist Indians, 106; assurances to In­ dians, 255; battle in New York City, 108; bibliographical information, 336, 342; defense of Canada, 76-78; embar­ rassed by Cherry Valley, 190; evacua­ tion of Boston, 91; Fort Stanwix, 146; Indian administration, 66; Indian cam­ paign (1780), 240; Indian trade, 164; in Massachusetts, 80; Mohawk allies, 29; military failure (1777), 155; Oris­ kany, 140, 142; parliamentary debates, 161-62; Preliminary Articles of Peace, 260-61; Proclamation of 1763, 49;

INDEX

protectors of Iroquois, 27; seizure of New Netherlands, 20, 24, 26; tax mea­ sures, 40-41; on territorial sovereignty, 105; three-pronged attack of colonies, 114, 150; treaties with Indians, 32, 85, 87,122 Erie Indians (Cat Nation), 5, 13, 17, 25 Eskahare. S ee Schoharie Esopus, 244 European trade with Iroquois, 24, 26 Evans, Griffith, on Iroquois warrior, 281 Farmer’s Brother. S ee Honeyewus Fish Carrier (Hojiagede): 168, 224-25; at Newtown, 209; at Canajoharie, 236 Fish Hook, 229 Flying Crow, 80, 99 Fogg, Major Jeremiah, 220 Fonda, Major Jelles, death of father, 233 Fort Alden, 185 Fort Ann, seizure of, 238 Fort Dayton, 178 Fort Edward: 30; untouched, 230 Fort Freeland, attack of, 202-203 Fort George; 101; seizure of, 238 Fort Herkimer: 178-79, 246; land treaty, 286-87 Fort Hunter: 63, 147; Indian raid on, 245 Fort Niagara: 47, 86, 90, 96; Butler’s con­ ference at, 114, 161; illustration, 202; Indian assistance, 220; peace congress (1764), 33 Fort Ontario, 64 Fort Oswego: 33; Butler’s conference, 120; destruction of buildings at, 174; final campaign, 256-57; St. Leger’s retreat to, 146 Fort Pitt: 49, 80, 160; bibliographical in­ formation, 329; American-Indian treaty of friendship, 80, 97; raid on, 245 Fort Schuyler. S ee Fort Stanwix Fort Stanwix (Schuyler): 64, 111-13, 115, 117-18, 167; bibliographical informa­ tion, 338; description of, 130-31; il­ lustration, 131; morale of, 174-77; “Old Treaty Line,” 2-4; poor condi­ tion of, 245; Oriskany, 142; trade at, 164 Fort Stanwix, siege of, 117, 124, 127-32, 143_45, 172 Fort Stanwix, Treaty of (1768): 3, 43, 48,

349

61, 104; Indians' conception of, 260; land boundaries of, 263; purpose of, 49 Fort Stanwix, Treaty of (1784): 16, 273, 276-81; bibliographical information, 342-43; defeats Indians, 276-77; guarantees, 282, 286; hostages, 282; League refuses to ratify, 284; text of, 297-98 Fort Sullivan, 208 Forty Fort, 168 Foster, Captain, 94 Fowler, David, 34 Fox, Charles James, 263 Francis, Turbot (Turbutt), 66, 70-71 Fraser, General Simon, 150 Frazer, Captain Alexander: 148, 154-55, 283; with Burgoyne, 150; with John Johnson, 223 Freeman’s Farm, battle of, 149, 154 France: allied with Hurons, 24; Indian War (1754-63), 18, 26, 29-30; raids on Iroquois, 27; rivalry with English, 26, 55; trade with Senecas, 30, 32; with­ drawal from Canada, 32 Gage, General Thomas: 40-42, 50, 58, 60, 68; bibliographical information, 329-30; on missionaries, 62; recalled from America, 80 Gahgeote (Half Town): 168; Cherry Val­ ley, 184; Newtown, 209 Gahkoondenoiya, 168 Gahnahage, 138 Gahsaweda, Chief, 57 Ganaghsaraga: 11, 233, 244; Major Ross, 247 Ganiodaio (Handsome Lake): Longhouse religion, 293; Newtown, 209; Scho­ harie; 238; at Wyoming Valley, 168; s e e a ls o Iroquois religion and ritual Ganonsyoni. S ee League of the Iroquois Gansevoort, Leonard, 115 Gansevoort, Colonel Peter: 174; biblio­ graphical information, 328; commander at Fort Stanwix, 115; illustration, 133; petitions Washington, 176; refuses de­ struction, 219; siege of Fort Stanwix, 129-32, 143; with Sullivan, 218-19 Gates, General Horatio: 107, 149; biblio­ graphical information, 329; funded by Congress, 167 ; letter to Congress, 114;

350

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Gates, General Horatio (c o n tin u e d ) refuses command of expedition against Indians, 193; replaces Schuyler, 151; use of Indians, 155 Gathtsegwarohare: 216; destruction of, 217-18 Gayentwahga. S ee Cornplanter General Council of League. S e e League, government structure of Genesee Castle. S ee Chenussio Georgia, 6 Georgian Bay, 5 Germain, Lord George, 80, 104 German Flats: 175, Brant's raid on, 17879; Committee of Safety at Oriskany, 136-37, 139; Indian conference at, 64-65, 69-70, 101, 106 Girty, Simon; 101-102; bibliographical information, 329 Glen, Henry: at Indian conference, 272; Schuyler’s appeal to, 242 Gnadenhuetten: 252-53; s e e a ls o Mora­ vian massacre Good Peter (Agorondajats): desire for peace, 227; imprisoned at Niagara, 234, 279; Schenectady conference, 266; spokesman, 287-88 Gorham, Nathaniel, 270 Grand Council of League: 14, 22, 52-53, 74, 90-91, 95, 101-102; s e e a ls o League, government structure of Grand River: 5; Iroquois settlement at, 293; lands from Haldimand, 284-85 Grasshopper, 179 Great Tree. Chief, 180, 2 16 Green Corn Ceremony: 11; s e e a ls o Iro­ quois, ritual Greene, General Nathanael: 194-95, 197; Indian commissioner, 266 Grenville Plan, 40 Groton, Connecticut, 59 Gustin, Samuel, 171

Hadden, Lieutenant James, 154 Haldimand, General Frederick: 159; after Newtown, 214; bibliographical informa­ tion, 327-28, 342; concern for In­ dians, 263; council with Indians, 197; disbelieves reports, 196, 199; illustra­

tion, 176; on Indians, 251; land nego­ tiations with Brant, 284; lateness of, 254; recalls Indians, 255; recommends Sir John Johnson, 252; replaces Carleton, 175 Haldifnand Grant: Brant on, 294; extent of, 293; text of, 299 Half Town. S e e Gahgeote Halifax, Nova Scotia, 64, 183 Hanau C h a sse u rs, 124, 223 Hancock, John, 65, 79, 103 Hand, General Edward: 186; at Chemung, 204; at Newtown, 2 11; at Tioga, 206 Handsome Lake. S ee Ganiodaio Hare, John, 118, 129, 138 Harper, Captain Alexander, spared by Brant, 230 Harper, Colonel John, 147 Harrodsburg, Ohio, 49 Hartley, Colonel Thomas: 180-81; threat­ ens Indians, 184; Wyoming, 183 Harvard College, support of Kirkland, 39 Hasquesahah, 138 Hathorn, Colonel John, 201 Hawley, Major Joseph, 65-66, 71 Hellmer, Adam: 132; on Oriskany, 141 Helmer, John, 178 Hendrick, Chief (Thoyanoguen), 28, 30, 57 Herkimer, Joost, 131 Herkimer, General Nicholas: 116-17, 131, 142; death of, 136; Fort Stanwix, 132; Oriskany, 134-42; wounded, 135 Herkimer Treaty, boundary description, 287-88 Herrick, Daniel, 248-49 Hessians, 129 Hiadagoo (Hiakatoo). S e e Mary Jemison, husband Hiadeoni, 184 Hiawatha, 14,47, 128, 296 Higginson, Stephen, Indian commissioner, 266 Hill, Captain Aaron (Kanonraron): 121; attempts to persuade Oneidas, 234; hostage at Fort Stanwix, 282; loyalty to English, 226-28; translator, 260; speech to American commissioners, 279

INDEX

Hill, Captain David: bibliographical in­ formation, 328; competence of, 250; at Durlach, 245 Hill, Captain Isaac, 254 Hill, Mary, and Schuyler, 239 Hochhadunk, at Newtown, 209 Hodashateh, 17 Hojiagede. S ee Fish Carrier Holland, Major Samuel, surveys Indian land, 263 Holland Land Company, 241, 290 Honeyewus (Farmer’s Brother): 168; Cherry Valley, 184; Newtown, 209 Hohnogwus, 184 Honeoye, 217 Hospitality, Indian: 38; s e e a ls o Indian poverty Howe, General William: 109; failure of peace mission, 108; succeeds Gage, 80 Hubbardton, 150 Hudson River: military strategies along, 114; s e e a ls o Burgoyne, St. Leger Hung Face, raids Tryon County, 237-38 Hunter, Sergeant Adam, 186 Hunter, Governor Robert, 28 Huron Indians; 7-9, 18, 20, 24, 64; clas­ sification of, 6, 17, 25; destruction of villages, 19; location of, 5; with Bur­ goyne, 150 Hutchinson, Lieutenant GovernorThomas, 40 Hutgueote (Redeye), 215 theory of Iroquois origins, 7-8 Irondequoit, Butler's council at, 120-21, 126 Iroquois: adoption of prisoners, 215; ad­ vanced civilization in settlements, 218-19; agricultural economy, 10, 290; archeological theories of origins, 7; assaulted at Schenectady barracks, 243-44; bibliographical information on history of, 330, 333; bibliographical information on land claims, 330; on loyalty to Americans, 341; on neutral­ ity, 337; on origins, 334; on religion, 332, 335; on social structure, 331-32; on warfare, 332, 339-40; clans, 1213; concept of authority, 22; concept of womanhood, 291; concepts of sover­

In situ

351

eignty, 268; creation myth, 11-12; de­ pendence on whites, 88; description of villages, 8-9; European contact, 13, 23-24; factionalism, 294; famine and disease, 113, 220, 224, 242-44, 273, 278; food, 10-11; Fort Stanwix, 129, 146; ideals of manhood, 17, 294; Laurentian, 6; linguistics, 6, 17, 21; loyalty to English, 13, 33, 48, 50, 67; Newtown, 211; oral history, viii; pov­ erty of, 89, 203, 205, 287; power bro­ ken, 241; pro-American, 235; problem of citizenship, 269-70; problems after war, 294; reject peace, 251; religion, 10-11; resentment of English, 259; reservation period, 292-93; ritual, 15, 19, 113; sacrifice of prisoners, 139, 217; scouts, 75, 87, 94, 118; territory, 5-6; torture of prisoners, 17-18; treatment of prisoners, 232-33; war­ rior, nature of, 184, 281; willing to fight French and English, 32; s e e a ls o individual tribes by name. League, Sachems, Women Isle aux Noix, 78 Jamestown Colony, 19 Jemison, Mary: 108, 127; adopted by Senecas, 18; as farm hand, 222; hus­ band Hiadagoo, 168, 232; on Oriskany, 141 ; reports torture, 2 17 Jenkins’ Fort, 168-69, 171 Jeskaka (Little Billy), 168 Jesuits: 13, 17, 19, 26-28, 59; biblio­ graphical information, 331; found Caughnawaga settlement, 199; s e e a ls o M issionaries J i-gon-sa-seh (“The Mother of Nations”), 5 Johnson, George, 29 Johnson, Guy: 68, 81; bibliographical in­ formation, 328, 341; to Canada, 18283; Canadian expedition, 76-79; in charge of Indians, 222; early adminis­ tration of, 53, 55; to England, 81, 86; illustration, 51 ; on incendiary ideas, 6263; Indian council, 50, 52, 64-66, 197; on Indian grievances, 56; map of In­ dian territory, 3; on missionaries, 60; at Niagara, 110-11; on parliamentary debates, 162; return to New York, 104;

352

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Johnson, Guy (c o n tin u e d ) threatens Kirkland, 70; urges Indians against Americans, 69 Johnson, Jacob, 43 Johnson, Sir John: 81, 117; Battle of Oriskany, 134-42; confronted by Schuyler, 82-84, 91; escape to Canada, 94; ex­ plains peace to Indians, 255; Fort Stanwix, 129, 131; illustration, 83; Indian superintendent, 252; Iroquois council, 277; after Newtown, 214; raids Caughnawaga District, 233; raids Tryon County, 237-38; Royal Yorkers, 83, 223; s e e a ls o Royal Yorkers Johnson, Peter, 29, 79, 81 Johnson’s Greens. S ee Royal Yorkers Johnson, Sir William: 32; attachment to Mohawks, 47; attempts to calm Indian resentment, 49-50; bibliographical in­ formation, 327; concern for Indians, 89; death of, 48; early years with Mo­ hawks, 29-30; endorses Kirkland, 34, 40; husband of Mary Brant, 13; illustra­ tion, 31; Indian name, 90; on mission­ aries, 42; pressure on Oneida sachems, 44-46; requests specific Indian bound­ ary, 3; on stamp tax, 41; Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1768), 48; s e e a ls o Mary Brant Johnson, Captain William, Jr.: 76, 79, 116; on Cherry Valley, 190 Johnston, Francis, 282 Johnston, Captain John: 158, 171; Cherry Valley, 184 Johnston, Captain William, 245 Johnstown: 81, 82, 95; Indian council, 162-63 Kaghnatsho. S ee Nicholas Cusick Kahiktoton, Cornelius, 197 Kanadesaga, 215-16 Kanadesko, 37 Kanaghsatirhon, Joseph, 197 Kanaghsaws, 216 Kanandaigua, 218 Kanawagoras, 216, 2 18 Kanonraron. S e e Captain Aaron Hill Kanowalohale (Kanowarohare), 33, 38, 53, 55-56, 163 Kanughsgawiat, 107 Karachadeia, 218

Karaghqunty, David; with Brant, 225, 245 Kayaderosseras, 105 Kayashuta: 80, 98, 160; invasion of In­ dian country, 204; on prisoners, 232 Kayendalongwe, 114 Kember, John Adam, 132 Kempe, John Tabor, 105 Kendaia (Appletown), 215 Kennebec River, 74 King Charles I, murderers of, 42 King George III, 61 King George’s War (1744-48), 29 King William’s War, 27 Kingsland District, 3, 84 Kirkland, Samuel: 66, 100; accusations against, 56-57; bibliographical infor­ mation, 329, 335; break with Wheelock, 39; concern for Indians, 43-44, 46, 52, 60-61, 113; at Fort Stanwix, 112; with Guy Johnson, 62; illustrations, 35, 289; importance of ministry, 37-39, 55; intelligence to Schuyler, 101; mar­ riage, 36; missionary training, 34; quar­ rel with Stuart, 62; testifies before Con­ gress, 65; threatened by Guy Johnson, 70; translator, 231 Klock, George, 116 Klock, Colonel Jacob: 79, 166; Cherry Valley, 179; Oriskany, 134 Lachine, Canada, 27, 67, 75, 284 Lackawanna, 171 La Corne St. Luc, Luc de Chapet de: 81; with Burgoyne, 150-52, 154 LaFayette, Marquis de: battle of Barren Hill, 165; bibliographical information, 340; council at Johnstown, 163; illus­ tration, 275; orders Cherry Valley fort, 177; scolds Indians, 273-74, 276; Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784), 278 Lake Champlain: 67, 74-75; s e e a ls o map, 153 Lake George, 30 Lake Erie, 5, 27 Lake Nipissing, 5 Lake Simcoe, 5 Lake of Two Mountains Indians: 150; member tribes, 199 de Lanaudiere, Charles Louis Tarieu, 152 Land grabs, 241

INDEX

Langlade. Charles. 150 Language. Indian, transliteration of, ix. 7-8 Laurens, Henry, 164 League of Iroquois: alliance with English. 32-33; American treaty of friendship. 80, 91, 97, 149; Canadian expedition, 78; cleavages, 90, 101. 128, 143, 157, 192; commissioners, 71-74; desire for trade, 73; founding of, 14; govern­ ment structure, 2, 13-14, 16, 22-23, 103, 110, 159, 288; Irondequoit coun­ cil, 126; location of, I; losses of, 229; members, 6; Oriskany, 142; preserva­ tion of local autonomy, 16; reestablished on Grand River, 285; refusal to ratify Fort Stanwix Treaty (1784), 284; stra­ tegic position of, 25; struggle to main­ tain neutrality, 72, 74, 90, 95, 98. 107. 111-12; vengeance of. Chapter 9; visit Washington, 92, 100 Lebanon, Connecticut, 34, 53 Lee, Arthur. Indian commissioner, 267, 273,279, 281 Lernoult, Captain. 143-44, 225-26 Lewiston, New York, 290 Lexington, Massachusetts, 62 Lincoln, General Benjamin, envoy to Indians, 265 Little Aaron, 187 Little Abraham (Tigoransera): 72-73, 82, 91-92, 225; death of, 279; desire for peace, 226-28; imprisoned, 228 Little Bear, 217 Little Beard. S ee Sequidonquee Little Billy: 184; at Newtown, 209 Livingston, John Henry, on Brant, 191 Lochry, Colonel Archibald, ambushed by Brant, 246 London Company for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England and Parts Adjacent in America, 39 Longhouse, description of, 9-10 Long Island, battle of, 108-109 Longhouse religion. S e e Iroquois religion de Lorimier brothers, 75 Lottridge, Captain Robert, 244 Louisville, Ohio, 49 Loyal Confederate Valley (Village), 25455

353

MacNeish, Richard S., in situ theory of Iroquois origins. 7-8 McCauley. Lieutenant Nathaniel. 213 McClay, William, 282 McClellan, Lieutenant Thomas, 174 McClellan, William, 187-88 McCrea, Jane, murder of, 151 -52 McDonell, Captain John: 81, 92; attempts to persuade Oneidas, 234; Cherry Val­ ley, 184, 187, 189; Fort Freeland, 202203; Newtown, 209 McGinnis, George, 144 McGinnis, the Widow Sarah: 13. 144; role in keeping Indians loyal to English. 158 McLeland, Colin, 63 Maclean, General Allan; 157; commander at Niagara, 260 Madison, James: Indian conference, 273; on Sullivan-Clinton Expedition, 240; on treaty-making, 269-70 Mahican Indians, 244 Mahusquechikoken, 2 18 Massachusetts: Bay, 42; Circular Letter (1768), 41; Provincial Congress, 60; recruitment of Indians, 87 Maxwell, General William: 206-207; at Newtown, 2 11 Meherin Indians, 6 Mercer, Lieutenant John, 278 Midwinter rite: 11-12; s e e a ls o Iroquois religion and ritual Migration hypothesis of Iroquois origins, 7 Milet, Pierre, Jesuit missionary, 17 Minisink: 231; attacked by Brant, 199201; raid on, 245 Missionaries: 55, 63, 74; Anglican, 28, 33, 36, 45, 47, 56, 61, 63; Jesuit, 17, 19, 26-28, 59, 74; “Presbyterian,” 34; Roman Catholic, 36, 56, 110, 117, 148-49 Missisauga Indians: 118; blamed by St. Leger, 145 Mohawk District, 3 Mohawk Indians: 7-8, 19, 30, 64; at­ tachment to English, 28, 32, 44; biblio­ graphical information, 343; chiefs, 72; clans, 13; classification, 6; enveloped by whites, 3; grievances, 116-17; and Sir William Johnson, 47; land encroach-

354

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Mohawk Indians (c o n tin u e d ) ments on, 61; location of, 13, 26; mean­ ing of name, 6; members of League, 6, 14; missionaries to, 28, 61; move to Canada, 264; neutrality, 70, 82; Oriskany, 135; pillaged by Oriskas, 147; pro-English, 69, 74, 102; proximity to Dutch, 20 Mohawk River, settlement along, 3, 29, 53, 65 Mohawk Valley; 64, 79; destruction of, 156 Moheconnuck Indians. S ee Stockbridge Indians Mohegan Indians, 33 Monroe, James, on treaty-making, 269 Montauk Indians, 34 Montgomery, General Richard, 74, 78 Montgomery County, establishment of, 4 Montreal, 6-7, 27, 30, 59, 66, 68, 76, 79, 94 Montour, Catherine (Esther), at Wyoming Valley, 174 Montour, Captain Rowland: 184, 204; on warpath, 229 Moore, Thoroughgood, 28 Moravian massacre, 252-53 More’s Indian Charity School, 34 Morgan, George: 97, 101-102; SullivanClinton Expedition, 208 Morgan, Lewis Henry, 38 “The Mother of Nations.” Scr Ji-gon-sa-seh Munsee Indians, 97 Muskingum River, 252 Nanticoke Indians: 224; Susquehanna raid, 245 Nanticoke Town, 213 Negro: fighter with Brant, 166, 237; Mary Jemison with, 222 Nelles, Captain Henry: Indian responsibil­ ity, 244; with Brant, 225 Neutral Indians (Attiwandaronk), 5, 8, 13, 17,25 New Jersey, 34 New Haven Colony, 42 New Light principles: 34, 36, 39; s e e a ls o Missionaries New Netherlands, 25-26 New York State Legislature: bibliograph­ ical information, 343; conference with

Indians, 270; grants Indian lands to whites, 266-67 New York State, Iroquois origins in, 7-8 Newtown (Chuknut); 208; battle of, 21213,215, 223 N iagara. S e e Fort N iagara Niagara River, 5 Nimham, Captain Abraham, 67-68 de Noailles, Marquis, 161 North Carolina, 6 North, Frederick (Lord), and Indians, 263 North ministry: fall of, 254; coalition, 263 Nottaway Indians, 6 Nova Scotia, 60 Occum, Samson, 33 Ogden, Colonel Matthias, at Newtown, 2 11 Ogden Land Company, 241 Ohio River, 5, 48 Okonyota, Cornelius, 197 Old England District, 179 Ohaendarighton, hostage at Fort Stanwix Treaty, 282 Oneida Indians: 60-61, 71, 110, 112; al­ liance with English, 44; attempts to maintain neutrality, 65, 70, 86, 111, 114; avenge Oriskany, 146; biblio­ graphical information, 342; Brant’s Palmerstown raid, 244; castle, 33; clans, 13; condemn Mohawks, 100; culture, 7, 17; destitution, 242; divisions within, 58; Fort Stanwix, 132; head League, 6, 14; missionaries to, 27, 33-36, 38, 42, 46, 56; Oriska, 175; pro-American, 69, 112; refusal to Guy Johnson, 64; ter­ ritory, 3; with Schuyler, 149 Onondaga Indians: 12, 70-71, 112; clans, 13; classification of, 6; council, 53, 9091, 95, 101-102; council with Butler, 106; council with Schuyler, 163; coun­ cil fire, 71; destruction of American wampum belt, 230; destruction of set­ tlement, 96; divisions within, 161, 19293; epidemic, 113; location of, 14; Mary Brant, 146; member of League, 6, 14; wampum keepers, 16 Onondaga County, New York, 9 Onoongadaka, 184 Onoquaga Indians: Anglican faction, 110; anti-American, 109; attack Schoharie, 251; border raids, 182; headquarters

INDEX

of Brant, 115; pro-American, 101, 117 Onoquaga, 33, 59, 165-67, 172 Ontario, Province of, 5 Oriskany, Battle of: 121, 134-43, 158; bibliographical information, 339; il­ lustration, 137; Indian losses, 162, 172; psychological impact on Indians, 142 Oriska Indians: 131-32, 142, 147; fa­ vorable to Americans, 2 18 Oswald, Richard, at Paris, 262 Oswegatchie, 112, 118 Oswego. S e e Fort Oswego Otaawighton, John, 197 Otchiningo, 244 Otis, James, 40 Otsego Lake, 174 Ottawa Indians, 80 Palatine District, 3, 175 Palmerstown: Brant's raid on, 244; Indians to, 243 Paris, Isaac, 81 Paris peace negotiations: 256; ignore In­ dians, 264 Parliament, English: debates, 48, 161-62; bibliographical information, 342 Parker, Michael, 217 Parr, James, 182 Patrick, Captain Samuel, 165 Peace chief. S ee Sachems Pellinger, Frederick, 65 Pennsylvania: 73; dispute over Wyoming Valley, 167; frontier raids, 180-81; Iroquois territory in, 5 Percy, Baron Hugh, 62, 108 Perrot, Nicolas, 7 Petun Indians (Tobacco Nation), 5-6, 8, 25 Phelps, Oliver, 270 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 65-66 Pitcairn, Major John, 62 Pitt, William (Lord Chatham), 161-62 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 102 Point au Fer, 68 Pollard, Edward, 190 Pontiac, war against English, 33, 55 Poor, General Enoch: 206-207; at New­ town, 211-13 Powel, Captain John, with Guy Johnson, 225 Powell, General H. Watson: 150; on Mo­

355

ravian massacre, 253; names Indian village, 254; Niagara commander, 244 Preliminary Articles of Peace: 258; ig­ nores Indians, 259, 278; territorial transfer, 268-69 Presbyterians, Middle Colony: 43; se e a ls o Missionaries Prescott, General, 68 Preston, Major Charles, 75 Prisoners: Iroquois torture of, 17-18, 19; adoption of, 17-18; se e a lso Iroquois religion and ritual Proclamation of 1763: 2-3; purpose of, 49 Quebec, 64, 67, 74, 79 Quebec City, 6, 75 Queen Anne, visited by Indians, 28 Queen Anne’s War (1701-13), 29 Ramsay, James, 188 Rangers. S ee Butler’s Rangers Red Jacket: 120; adviser to sachems, 23, 216; bravery of, 215-16; Cherry Val­ ley, 185; illustration, 173; Newtown, 209, 212; Oriskany, 134; Schoharie, 238; with LaFayette, 274, 276; Wy­ oming Valley, 168-69, 171 Redeye. S ee Hutgueote Reed, Jacob, interpreter, 235 Reservation period, 285-86 Riedesel, Friedrich Adolph, Major Gen­ eral Baron von, 150 River Indian, 28 Ross, Major John: on Brant, 255; invades Mohawk Valley, 246-50; to Oswego, 254 Royal Yorkers (Johnson’s Greens): 83, 94; Fort Stanwix, 129, 132; at Niagara, 223; Oriskany, 136, 138-40, 142; raid Tryon County, 237-38 Royanehr (sachem chief), 15 Ryckman, Lieutenant Peter: 97, 107; re­ cruits Indians, 247; spies for Schuyler, 273 Sacandaga, 167 Sachems: 15, 44, 70, 93, 107, 117, 160, 168, 234; condolence ceremony, 113; description of role, 20, 23; diplomats, 46, 55-56; government after war, 293; at Grand River, 285; neutrality

356

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Sachems (c o n tin u e d ) of. 96, 107; replacement of, 17; versus warriors, 2, 14, 45, 110, 163, 280; in war, 225; visit American leaders, 92 Sagard, Gabriel, 11 Sagoharase, John, 197, 242 Sagwarithra: 168; Cherry Valley, 184; Newtown, 209; sachem, 225; Tryon County, 237-38 Sahanwad, Paulus, 252 Saratoga, Battle of: 149, 155, 158; burn­ ing of, 239 Sargent, John, 55 Saybrook Platform (1708), 34 Sayenqueraghta (Kayenquatah): 33, 102, 165, 184, 203, 227; on American cru­ elties, 256; Canajoharie, 236; Chemung, 204; Fort Pitt, 245; Fort Stanwix Treaty, 277; at Kanawagoras, 217; neutrality of, 121, 160; Newtown, 208-209, 212; Oriskany, 136, 141; Pennsylvania fron­ tier, 160, 167; Schoharie, 239; Tryon County, 237-38; war chief, 123, 159; Wyoming Valley, 169, 172 Schenectady, 65, 73, 82, 148, 167 Schoharie: 29, 160, 177; forts, 178; raid of, 238 Schrine, Johannes (John Crine, White Hans, Unaquandahoojie): 225; impris­ onment at Niagara, 236, 279 Schuyler, HanJost, 144, 146 Schuyler, Peter, 272 Schuyler, General Philip: 65-66, 86-88, 175; attempts to neutralize League, 228; bibliographical information, 32829; Canadian expedition, 74, 76, 7879; confronts Sir John Johnson, 84, 91-92; councils with Indians, 71-74, 101, 106-107, 114-15, 149, 163, 266; exchange of prisoners, 226-27; and Herkimer, 117; illustration, 77; on Indian lands, 291; on Indian plight, 242-43; on Indian reconciliation, 264; letter to Congress, 164; rebukes League, 107; releases Mohawks, 219-20; re­ placed by Gates, 151; requests Indian commissions, 197; sends wampum belt, 159, 162; urges Congress to consider Indians, 69, 95; war party attacks home of, 246 Scovell, Lieutenant Elisha, 168, 172

Seghnagenrat, 71 Seneca Indians: 11, 19, 27, 64, 97; ac­ cept tomahawk, 106; anti-American, 123, 181; attempts to maintain neu­ trality, 70, 108, 121; American treaty o’f friendship, 80; burning of Canajo­ harie District, 236; clans, 13; Conawago, 214-15; divisions within, 180; and French, 29, 32; at Fort Stanwix, 131-32; harrassment of frontiers, 160; location of, 14; members of League, 6, 14; Oriskany losses, 138, 162; peace, 55; pro-English, 74; promise of fidelity to English, 32, 34; support of Kirkland, 45; war chieftainship, 21 Sequidonquee (Little Beard): 168; Cherry Valley, 184, 187; Newtown, 209; Wy­ oming Valley, 229; Schenectady con­ ference, 266 Seven Nations of Canada, members of, 199 Shamokin, raid on, 245 Shankland family saved by Brant, 188— 89 Shawnee Indians, 49-50, 52-53, 57, 80, 97 Shechquago. S e e Catherine’s Town Sherburne, Major, 107 Shelburne ministry: fall of, 263; treat­ ment of Iroquois, 254 Shelburne, William Petty Fitzmaurice, Second Earl of, response to criticism of peace treaty, 262 Shinop, Captain: 224; Susquehanna, 245; Wyoming Valley, 229 Showado, 106 Sheshecunnunk, 180 Simms, Jeptha, 166 Sitz, Peter, 166 Skenandon: 53, 111-12, 114, 236; harsh treatment of, 235, 279; illustration, 289; imprisonment at Niagara, 234; mes­ senger from Schuyler, 225; transition to farming, 291 Simsbury Mines, 88 Six Nations Confederacy. S ee League of Iroquois Skenesboro: 150-51; capture of garri­ son, 230 Smallpox, Indians: 243; s e e a ls o Iroquois, disease and famine

INDEX

Smith, Lieutenant Colonel Francis, 62 Sohnage, 172 Sons of Liberty, 40 Soskawek, 172 Souetdo, 184 Spencer, Thomas: 112, 134; death of, 135 Spoor, John, 118 Springfield, 174-75 Spruce Carrier, war council, 234 Stamp Act: 40; repeal of, 41 St. Leger, General Barry: army at Oswego, 125; blames Indians, 145; expedition along Mohawk Valley, 115, 117, 12324, 157; at Fort Stanwix, 158; Oriskany, 135-36, 140; retreat from Fort Stanwix, 146, 149; siege of Fort Stan­ wix, 126, 129-32, 143-45; spies, 118 St. Francis Indians, 150 St. John’s, Canada: 68, 75-76; Indians to, 157 St. Lawrence River, 6, 64 St. Lawrence Valley: 182; Iroquois van­ ished from, 6 St. Regis Indians: 67, 69; with Burgoyne, 150, 152; Oswegatchies, 199 Staten Island, 106 Stockbridge Indians (Moheconnucks): 33, 60, 67, 71, 87, 286-87; siege of Bos­ ton, 80 Stone Arabia, destruction of, 238 Stuart, John: 47, 61, 149; illustration, 148; influence on Mohawks, 148 Sugar Act (1764), 40 Sullivan, General John: illustration, 198; plans expedition, 193; Susquehanna, 196; with Clinton’s army, 206 Sullivan-Clinton Expedition (1779): 10, 193; bibliographical information, 328, 340-41; brigades, 206-207; Cath­ erine’s Town, 215; delays, 199; destruc­ tion of Cayuga, 218; destruction of crops, 213, 215; effects of, 220, 222, 240-41; Gathtsegwarohare, 217; In­ dian contingent, 207; Indian retaliation for, 223; Newtown, 213; route of, map, 195; Tioga, 204, 206 Sullivan County, 167 Suscuhaloani, hostage at Fort Stanwix Treaty, 282 Susquehannock Indians, 6, 13, 17, 25 Susquehanna River, region of, 5, 109, 172

357

Swetland, Luke, 215 Tagaais, with Brant, 225 Tanaghkewas, 229 Tederighroono Indians (Tuteloes), 225, 244 Tekarihogea, 225 Ten Broeck, General Abraham, Indian offensive, 181 Tennessee, 6 Tewaghtahkotte, 197 Teyawendarokough, 28-29 Tenhoghskweaghta, 163 Thaosagwat, Hanyost, 197, 207, 216-17 Thawengarakwen. S ee Honyery Doxtator Tharondawagon, 280 Thathnontale, hostage at Fort Stanwix Treaty, 282 Thayagonentalgetita, hostage at Fort Stan­ wix Treaty, 282 Theyendanegea. S e e Joseph Brant Thomas, Chief, 57 Thomas, Deacon, 37 Thonayute, hostage at Fort Stanwix Treaty, 282 Thonigwenghsohare, Christian, 197 Three Rivers: Canada, 7; N.Y., 125-26 Tiahogwando: 71,73, belt from Butler, 114 Tice, Captain Gilbert: 75-76, 81, 10910; Fort Stanwix, 130; on Indians, 251; Indian responsibility, 244; messenger from St. Leger, 124-25; to Oswego, 246; raid on Mohawk Valley, 178 Ticonderoga, 67 Tigoransera. S ee Little Abraham Tioga, 172, 180 Tionontati. S ee Petun Indians Toconando, 106 Tobacco Nation. S ee Petun Indians Totyaneahawi, 197 Townshend, Lord, 106 Townshend Acts, 40-41 Trade: at Fort Stanwix, 164; fur, 26; De­ troit, 27; Indian requests for, 89, 91, 112; Niagara, 32 Trimper, Lawrence, 278 Trumbull, Governor Jonathan, 58 Tryon, Royal Governor William, 81, 92 Tryon County: 64-65, 84, 155, 167, 178; bibliographical information, 329; end of, 4; establishment of, 3

358

The Iroquois in the American Revolution

Tryon County Committee of Safety: 63, 81, 117, 147, 164; Fort Stanwix, 132; Oriskany, 139 Turney, Lieutenant John, 168 Tuscarora Indians: 9, 40, 149, 168; biblio­ graphical information on refugees, 342; clans, 13; classification of, 6; destitu­ tion of, 242, 292; join League, 6; lan­ guage analysis, 8; missionaries to, 3336; pro-American, 101, 112, 161, 163; town, 37 Twenty Canoes. S e e Dahgonwasha Tutelo Indians. SeeTederighroono Indians Ulster County: 167; Brant's raid on, 182 Unadilla: 116; destruction of Indian set­ tlement, 181; River, 178 Unaquandahoojie. S e e Johannes Schrine Uraghquadirha. S e e Guy Johnson United States Constitution: minimum In­ dian assistance, 291 ; treaty with Indians, 283 Van Auken, Abram, 201 Van Auken, Jeremiah, death of, 199-200 Van Dyck, Colonel Cornelius, com­ mander of Fort Stanwix, 234 Van Schaick, Colonel Goose: 116; attack on Onondaga, 196 Vermont (New Hampshire Grants), 68 Virginia: 6, 43, 49; militia destroys Shaw­ nee towns, 252 Visscher, Colonel Frederick: Oriskany, 134; scalped, 233 Wagondenage, 233-34 Wait, Captain Jason, 208 Wakarontharane, James, 197 Wallace, William, death of, 253 Walsingham, Lord, concern for Indians, 260-62 Wampum: 109, 111; archives, 16, 229; Butler’s, 122; condolence council, 1415; factories, 88; friendship belt to Americans, 91, 101-102; from Con­ gress, 69, 90; from Schuyler, 158-59, 162, 227; inadequate, 279-80; keep­ ers, s e e Onondaga Indians; rituals, 17, 19; treaties, 32; war belts, 69, 79 War chief: 22-23, III, 121; rivalry

with sachems, 45, 110; Sayenqueraghta, 159 War parties: 254; description of, 21 ; fron­ tier, 245; individualistic, 237; at Schuy­ ler's, 246 Warfare: Iroquois method of, 20-21; training of warrior, 191 Warner, George, 165 Warraghiyagey. S ee Sir William Johnson Warmuth, Lieutenant Matthew, 166 Warren, Admiral Peter, 29 Washington, General George: 76, 112, 176; conference with Cornplanter, 283; authorized to recruit Indians, 100, 165; consoles Willett, 258; Cornwallis sur­ renders to, 251; illustration, 221; In­ dian name, 192; lack of interest in re­ cruiting Indians, 87; retreat from Brook­ lyn, 108; Sullivan-Clinton Expedition, 193,220 Weisenburg, Catherine, 29 Wellington Square, Ontario, 53 Wells, Nathaniel, opposes Moravian mas­ sacre, 253 Wells, Robert, 187 Wemple, Abraham: 166; Canajoharie, 236-37 Wendot. S e e Huron Indians Wenro Indians, 5, 13 West Canada Creek, 248, 250 Westmoreland, 171 Westbrook, Anthony, 200 Wheelock, Eleazar: break with Kirkland, 39; Indian School, 33-34, 36, 40, 53 White Dog Sacrifice: 19; s e e a ls o Iroquois religion and ritual White Mingo, 160 White Hans. S ee Johannes Schrine Whiting, Major Daniel, 185, 187 Willett, Colonel Marinus: 132; lost in woods, 257-58; Oriskany, 135, 13839, 141-42; skirmish, 247-48 Williams, Eleazar, 286 Williams, Colonel Ephraim, 30 Wintermoot’s Fort, 168-69 Wisconsin Territory, Oneidas remove to, 288 Wolcott, Oliver: 66, 71; Indian commis­ sioner, 266, 273 Women, Iroquois: in battle, 132, 141, 188;

INDEX

in councils, 120, 122-23; hunting, 1011; influence of, 18, 21, 159; matrilineage, 10, 13 Wood, John, tricks Brant, 201-202 Wundungohteh, 184 Wyalusing, battle, 180 Wyandot Indians, 80

359

Wyoming land controversy, 73 Wyoming: battle of, 168-74, 181, 215; Valley, 60 Yates, Robert, 92 Yoghroonwago, 2 18 Yorktown, surrender at, 25 1