USA > Illinois > St Clair County > Cahokia > Cahokia records, 1778-1790 > Part 10
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68
The court was not frightened into submissiveness, but an- swered: "We have received your letter of to-day in which you give us over your signature the most complete mark of your capacity in the trust which you imagine you hold.
"We do not doubt the desire on your part to make yourself absolute master; but we have acts of the legislative power of the state of Virginia to govern us and to which we believe we are bound to conform, even as you are yourself, when we require your assistance.
"As to the injustice with which you charge us, there will, perhaps, come a more happy day when we shall prove our good faith, which is always the only motive which leads honorable men.'
cii
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
Possibly Bentley realized the weakness of Rogers threat, for he now drew up a protest against the action of the court in which he appealed to Virginia. In the February session the court con- sidered the protest, after previously receiving the promise of support from the county lieutenant, Winston. They affirmed that the right oath had been tendered to Bentley, and offered again to permit him to take it either before the court, one of the justices, or the county lieutenant ; if he did not wish to do this he was permitted to bring in and show the oath which he claimed to have taken.
Bentley's answer was a public announcement that he was starting for Virginia to carry his case before the governor and council.1 Another reason for his going was his desire to collect the money for the certificates which he and Dodge had bought up, and about the first of April he together with his two assistants, Dodge and Captain Rogers, departed.2
This proceeding of Bentley called for immediate action on the part of the French in order to counteract the influence which would be exerted against them, and it was decided to send representa- tives to Virginia. But there were preparations to make before they could take their departure. Besides the affair with Bentley the inhabitants wished to send the bills and accounts of the people against the state, and asked Cahokia to unite in this. The Kas- kaskians chose Richard McCarty and Pierre Prevost to represent
1 All the papers here indicated belong to the Menard Collection and are therefore copies from the Kaskaskia Register, except the letter of the court to Rogers, which is among the Kaskaskia records. They are all written in French. Besides those mentioned in the text are two certificates that the oath tendered to Bentley was the oath of fidelity, one by Winston and the other by Daniel Murray. The latter had been brought into court by Bentley him- self to witness the taking of the oath. The only explanation of Bentley's action is that he feared the news of his having taken the oath would reach Canada.
2 Va. State Papers, ü., 258 and 260; Dr. MSS., 51J52. After arriving at the Falls of the Ohio, criticisms of his conduct came to the ears of Captain Rogers and he wrote a letter to Governor Jefferson defending himself. He accused Winston and McCarty with being the authors of his difficulties by persuading the inhabitants not to furnish provisions for his troops; and had not Bentley offered his personal credit the troops would have starved, al- though meat was abundant. He enclosed the affidavits of officers and citizens to prove his statement. He ended by writing: "I cannot conclude without informing you that 'tis my positive opinion the people of the Illinois & Post Vincennes have been in an absolute state of Rebellion for these several months past & ought to have no further Indulgence shewn them, & such is the nature of these people, the more they are indulged, the more turbulent they grow-& I look upon it that Winston & McCarty have been the principle instruments to bring them to the pitch they are now at." (Va. State Papers, ii., 76.)
I should have given greater weight to the testimony of this letter, were not the character and actions of Bentley and Dodge at this and other times well known from various sources. See this vol., pp. 475, 621; Kas. Rec., Petitions, etc.
ciii
INTRODUCTION
them. The agreement with them was made on the fifth of May and signed by forty-one inhabitants, the most representative of the village.1 The people of Cahokia had not learned to trust McCarty, even after his change of parties, for they remembered his arrogance and tyranny while he commanded the troops in their village. They therefore chose only Prevost.2 Meanwhile the clerk of the Kaskaskia court had prepared copies of all the papers throwing light on the hard treatment the people had endured and all other matters. These were countersigned by Richard Winston, deputy county lieutenant, who at this time was supporting the French party. A five page memorial was written to the governor setting forth in detail the grievances of the people and was signed by sixty-two Kaskaskians. 3
It was an unpropitious time to petition Virginia, since the scene of war in the East had been shifted to her territory and she could give little heed to her western dependencies. The Kas- kaskia papers did not, however, reach their destination; for one of the bearers, Richard McCarty, while on his way was met and killed by the Indians and his papers carried to Detroit. What became of Prevost is not known. This event was to bear immediate results. Learning from McCarty's papers that the French were heartily weary of the Virginians, the British officers determined to use other means than war to recover their dominion over the Illinois. 4
Since Clark with his half-naked Virginians had surprised them
1 Kas. Rec., Pol. Papers.
2 See post, p. 479.
3 Menard Col., Tard. Papers, the original memorial with signatures. A copy of the memorial is in Papers of Old Cong., xlviii., I. A similar one was sent from Vincennes on June 30. Va. State Papers, ii., 192. It is from the papers prepared at this time that the fore- going narrative is largely drawn. They never reached Virginia, but in the year 1787 these same papers were given to another agent, named Tardiveau, who had them in his possession when he died. As he was indebted for a considerable sum to Pierre Menard, the later lieutenant governor of Illinois, the judge of Cape Girardeau, where Tardiveau was living previous to his death, turned them over to Menard. These I found in a warehouse on the banks of the Mississippi at Fort Gage, Illinois; and they have been presented by their owner, the grandson of Pierre Menard, to the Illinois State Historical Library.
4 De Peyster to Powell, July 12, 1781, Mich. Pio. and Hist. Col., xix., 646. See also Papers of Old Cong., xlviii., 19. Since the papers, which should have been in the possession of McCarty at the time of his death, were in Kaskaskia in 1787 (see previous note), it is necessary to conclude that MeCarty did not carry with him the important copies from the record-book and that Prevost, who was to have carried them, never started or returned with them, or else that duplicates were made for the two messengers. The last alternative is probably the correct explanation.
i
civ
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
on that July night in 1778, the people of Illinois had passed through many phases of feeling towards the Americans. They had at first rejoiced that at last the liberty which had been the subject of their dreams was to be enjoyed. There followed a few months of peace under Clark's mild rule, when the French actually stripped themselves, of their property to supply the. troops with necessities and to further the cause which they had adopted. Then the anxious days came when the vandalism of the troops and the doubt about the payment for their goods made them less jubilant. They received Todd with his civil government as a prophet of a new era. Todd had failed and had handed them over to the military, and Montgomery had suc- ceeded in so thoroughly cowing them, that their power of opposi- tion was weak. De la Balme had aroused them by the new born hope of once more coming under the dominion of France, and he too had failed; but their pride in the name of Frenchmen had been awakened and from that hour their opposition to the Vir- ginians was more forceful. The number of troops in the Illinois under Rogers was not large, so their boldness had little cause for fear from that source; but the long struggle against poverty and tyranny was telling on their courage, and many were beginning to look to England, their allegiance to which they had so lightly repudiated, as a power that might possibly offer them protection. The feeling was not an active force, but simply an indifference in regard to what might happen. The intercourse with Canada had not been completely broken off by the war, for the French there found opportunity now and then to send their goods to their brothers in the Illinois.
This feeling of a possible renewal of relations with England was not confined to the French of the Northwest. Among the western Americans also the same attitude was to be found. George Mor- gan, writing at this time, mentions a letter he had received in regard to Kentucky, where the indifference to the American cause appears to have been widespread, due largely to events somewhat similar to those affecting the Illinois.1
1 Dr. MSS., 46J59.
CV
INTRODUCTION
It was this feeling that gave the British hope that they might persuade the French to renew their allegiance to the British crown. In June the lieutenant governor of Michillimackinac sent six men to the Illinois to see what could be accomplished. In the three accounts, printed in this volume,1 their exact mission is differently described; in one it was to excite the people to offensive action against the Spaniards, in another to raise militia to be paid by the British, and in the third to make a commercial treaty. The agents made the mistake of going first to St. Louis, probably to open negotiations with the French of that city, who appear to have been as discontented as their relatives on the other bank. They were arrested by the Spanish commandant, Cruzat, and a letter addressed to the inhabitants of Kaskaskia and Cahokia was found in their possession. A copy of this letter was sent to Major John Williams, who had replaced Captain Rogers at Kaskaskia.
Cruzat gave every appearance of acting in good faith towards the Americans in this matter, and evidently did arouse the discontent of the people in the Illinois who felt that their letter should have been sent to them. But the Spaniard was crafty and no doubt would have been willing to see the eastern bank pass again into the hands of the British in order that Spain might reconquer it.2 Cruzat was clever enough to persuade Linctot, a Virginia Indian agent at the time in St. Louis, and possibly Gratiot, of his loyalty to the Americans. This may be seen by the letters of these two written to Clark, July 31 and August I, in praise of the action in withholding the letter and messengers from the French of the American Bottom. But six weeks before those letters were written the Spanish governor had reached an understanding with the Illinois people, and two of the British agents were permitted to go to Cahokia, provided they found bondsmen. The agents accomplished very little, however, owing to their initial mistake; but that the undertaking might have been successful or the mistake even rectified may be inferred from a letter of Antoine Girardin to Governor Sinclair.3 Girardin was
1 See post, p. 553, 555, 559.
2 Doniol, Hist. de la Participation, iv., ch. 6.
3 See post, pp. 95, 559.
cvi
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
one of the most important citizens of Cahokia at this time, had been elected one of the members of the first court, and was the most enterprising man in the village. His position was such that he understood the feeling of the people, and his letter probably reflected their attitude correctly. He wrote that, if a force of British soldiers without any Indians should be sent to the Illinois, he was sure the people would receive them; and at the same time he offered his assistance. It is possible that, had the British acted promptly, they might have succeeded. Yet possibly not, for shortly after this letter was written, the news of the surrender of Cornwallis reached the West and naturally raised the hopes of those who still clung to the American cause.
During the summer of 1781 the court at Kaskaskia had tried to assert itself in the interests of good order. Certain American settlers had followed the example of the troops in killing the cattle of the French. As long as the soldiers were present, they were safe from prosecution, but now, when there does not appear to have been any garrison at Fort Clark, indictments were brought against six Americans by eleven Frenchmen for shooting the cows and other animals in the commons. The Americans were arrested and tried; the charge was proved against them and three were banished from the country for three years and the others fined.1
The justices also dared make opposition to the deputy county lieutenant. Without consulting the court, Winston appointed, as notary public, Antoine Labuxiere, son of Joseph Labuxiere who held the office of state's attorney after the resignation of Jean Girault .? The first opposition to this appointment came from the notary-clerk of the court, Carbonneaux, who, perhaps, was not anxious to have a rival. The court supported their clerk and Winston was obliged to yield. The principal reasons alleged by the court for their objection were the youth of Antoine Labuxiere and the law that no officer could be appointed except
1 Kas. Rec., Court Papers; Transactions of the Ill. Hist. Soc. 1906, p. 258, et seq.
2 See post, p. 487.
cvii
INTRODUCTION
by the vote of the people. Winston answered that he was in no way responsible for his actions to the court but only to the state of Virginia.1
The unfriendly relation existing between the county lieutenant and the court that is evident from the foregoing instance had existed ever since the appointment of the former, and from now on appears to have increased, until Winston had few adherents among the French inhabitants, a circumstance which he was to regret in the future. Exactly what bearing this disagreement had upon a new election of justices at this time it is impossible to say. Four justices from Kaskaskia, Lasource, Janis, Lachance, and Charles Charleville, had held office for over two years, in fact ever since the election held by Todd. The other two members had been Duplasy and Cerré. The former had been killed in the De la Balme expedition and the latter had gone to St. Louis. As far as the record shows only one of these places had been filled, by the election of Michel Godin. The two justices from Prairie du Rocher were to remain unchanged for another year. It is not known what became of the Sieur de Girardot who represented St. Philippe. All the justices desired to continue in office, but since the list of magistrates was not complete, two more, J. Bte. Charleville and Antoine Bauvais, had been elected to fill the vacancies on July 19th. The prolongation of their tenure of office by the justices was not popular, and it is possible that Wins- ton utilized the opportunity to bring such pressure to bear that the court was obliged to submit ; for on the tenth of September he was requested to permit the summoning of an assembly of the people to "elect magistrates to fill the places of those who had held their position for two years or more." 2 The assembly was called the same day and there is in existence the polling sheet that was used. Perhaps on account of the shortness of the notice or for some other reason only twenty-seven votes were cast, not exceeding by many the number of candidates which was sixteen. Antoine Morin was the most popular candidate receiving twenty
1 Five letters in Kas. Rec., written in August, 1781.
2 Kas. Rec., Petitions.
cviii
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
votes. The next one on the list was Pierre Langlois with eigh- teen votes; the third was Vitale Bauvais, whose brother had been elected in July, and whose family was at this time and later one of the most influential among the French population; the fourth was Pierre Picard with eleven votes. The other candidates had only a few supporters. The analysis of the vote would indicate that Winston had not been supported at the poll and that his opponents had carried their candidates. At the bottom of the polling sheet is written the certificate of election. The clerk first wrote the name of Pierre Langlois, who was more friendly to Winston than the other justices, as president of the new court, although he had received fewer votes than Morin. He then crossed this name off and substituted that of J. Bte. Charleville, one of the justices chosen in the July election, who may have had a prior right to this position. His vote had been cast for the four successful candidates and he was and remained a firm adherent of the French party. Whatever the explanation of the erasure is, neither of the two men became president of the court, for the position was held during the following year by Antoine Bauvais, who was one of the justices elected in July.1
Kaskaskia was not to have the burden of many troops during the next winter; but the village did not wholly escape persecution, for two of the men formerly most troublesome returned. It is true that the one who had made himself most offensive, Thomas Bentley, never again visited this country. He failed in his attempt to realize on all the certificates which he had bought from the French His petition to the Virginia council was denied, and that body intimated that the gentleman was an impostor. Bent- ley defended himself against the accusation and appealed to the letter of General Clark and to the testimony of Colonel Mont- gomery and John Dodge.2 Possibly on account of the character of his attestors, one of his claims was afterward allowed. He was still in Richmond waiting for its payment in July, 1783, and
1 Kas. Rec., Pol. Papers and Petitions. A year after this date both the clerk, Carbon- neaux, and Langlois were supporters of Winston.
2 Va. State Papers, ii., 238.
cix .
INTRODUCTION
probably died during the year for his wife began the process for the settlement of the estate shortly afterwards.1
When Rogers and Dodge returned to Kaskaskia I do not know, but there is a characteristic letter from Rogers dated November IO, 1781, demanding supplies. His threats were somewhat modified. He said that if the people did not give him what was needed for his thirty troops, two hundred would be sent ; but there was no suggestion of setting aside the court. He claims to have been acting under orders 2 and was probably sent to Kaskaskia more to reconnoiter than to act as a guard, for Clark expected that the British would make one more attempt to win the West, which had become more important to them now that the southern campaign had ended in the capture of Cornwallis. Rogers evidently did not remain long in the country, for before the winter ended Clark informed the governor that Vincennes had been completely evacuated and that only a few spies were kept at any of the villages.3 Dodge had probably returned with Rogers and remained in the village. Before twelve months had passed the records were to give no uncertain account of the activities of the " illustrious Dodge."
There is among the Kaskaskia Records a long and interesting letter in the French language written in December by George Rogers Clark to the court of Kaskaskia, in which he states that he has learned that there are in the village numerous refugees and vagabonds who are disturbing the peace and tranquility of the community by stealing property in spite of the authority of the court. He laments this fact and urges the court to use its power even to the extent of inflicting corporal punishment or the death penalty. He tells the justices to make use of their militia and to call on the other villages for aid. Just what circum- stances drew this letter from Clark will probably never be known; but the things he speaks of were constantly happening, so that he might have written such a letter at any time after he
1 Kas. Rec., Petitions.
2 Menard Col., Tard. Papers.
3 Va. State Papers, ii., 68; a letter from Colonel Davies to the governor implies the same . Ibid, iii., 198.
CX
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
entered the country. The interesting point is that he desired the court to uphold its authority, and there is nothing to indicate that he authorized the unnecessarily harsh and arbitrary mea- sures of his officers. In notifying the French of the surrender of Cornwallis he gave them the hope that a better day was coming for them.1
Of the winter of 1781-1782 there are no records except such as show that the court was regularly sitting and performing its duties. A single document should be mentioned. On February roth another election was held to appoint a single magistrate. Fifteen votes were cast of which Stanicles Levasseur received five and was elected. Whose place he filled cannot be discovered, for there remain no lists of the judges like those of the court of Cahokia.
The year 1782 was to be the last one of the war. The Vir- ginians had managed to hold the country northwest of the Ohio for almost four years and this last was to pass without real danger. Rocheblave, the former acting commandant of the Illinois, had returned to Canada and laid before the government a plan for the reconquest of the whole territory, but his suggestions were without influence.2 Several parties of Indians were sent into the Northwest, however, and one of these defeated the frontiers- men at Blue Licks-it was in this engagement that John Todd was killed; but no serious attack was made on the French villages. Clark retaliated by leading a large party against the Miami villages and inflicting severe punishment. It was his last achieve- ment in the war.3 On November 30th, a few days after the Miami campaign, a provisional treaty of peace was signed by England and the United States. The danger to the Illinois from Canada was for a time at an end. On January 18, 1783, the Illinois regi- ment was disbanded 4 and in the following July Clark was relieved of his command. 5
1 Kas. Rec., Letter.
2 Va. State Papers, iii., 150; Hald. Col., B., 122, p. 545; and 123, p. 141.
3 Va. State Papers, il., 280, 381; Winsor, Westward Movement, 203 et seq
4 Memorial of Timothe de Monbreun, Va. State Lib.
5 English, Conquest of the Northwest, ii., 783.
cxi
INTRODUCTION
In the villages of the Illinois during these years of neglect we find as close an approximation to the form of the classic city- state as has ever existed in the western hemisphere. For a short time they were practically cut off from the rest of the world and from the only power which might legally exercise authority over them, so that each village was a self-governing community .. As we shall see later the period was for Cahokia one of moderate prosperity and peace; but the more important village, Kaskaskia, passed through all the sufferings which her earlier prototypes experienced during periods of social anarchy. The Greeks gave the special name of stasis to that disease which was so common to their peculiar form of civil organization. It was caused by one party within the state making the political issue the subjugation of all others, an issue which was pursued with maliciousness and violence.1 In a famous passage Thucydides has described the results of this disease: "The cause of all these evils was the love of power, originating in avarice and ambition, and the party spirit which is engendered in them when men are fairly embarked in a contest. Striving in every way to overcome each other, they committed the most monstrous crimes; yet even these were surpassed by the magnitude of their revenges, which they pursued to the very uttermost, neither party observing any definite limits either of justice or public expediency, but both alike making the caprice of the moment their law. Either by the help of an unrighteous sentence, or grasping power with the strong hand, they were eager to satiate the impatience of party spirit."? The description is as applicable to the conditions existing in Kaskaskia during the years following the withdrawal of the Illinois regiment as to the cities of Greece, which Thucydides had in his mind.
The factional strife and the personal enmities, which had been engendered by the past years in Kaskaskia, but had been some- what controlled by the presence of the military force, broke out in the most virulent form of stasis, during the course of which the
1 Fowler, City-State of the Greeks and Romans, 254.
2 Thucydides, Hist. of the Peloponnesian War, Jowett's translation, i., 24.
cxii
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
love of power, avarice, and personal animosities seized control of the government, overthrew it, and left behind only anarchy. Three parties entered into this struggle for power, and probably the final blame for the result must be ascribed in part to all. The mass of the French inhabitants made up what may be called the French party, the leaders of which were the justices of the district court. These latter considered themselves the chief repre- sentatives of sovereignty and would have been glad to compel submission by all rivals. The strength of this party was rather greater in the district than in the village proper, where the people were more divided in their allegiance and more cowed by their opponents.1 Its members were hostile to the Americans who had settled among them and feared that they would be finally overcome in numbers and lose their French laws and officers. They looked upon the deputy county lieutenant in particular as an enemy, who would take the first opportunity to make himself supreme and whose action in trying to placate the Virginians and at the same time to incite the French to opposition they regarded as treacherous.2 It is probably true that the leaders of the party were ignorant, as Winston asserted, and incapable under the existing conditions of fulfilling the duties which the accidents of war and geographical position had thrust upon them.3
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.