USA > Illinois > St Clair County > Cahokia > Cahokia records, 1778-1790 > Part 8
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
1 Menard Col., Tard. Papers, a copy by the Kaskaskia clerk. Translation by the editor
1xxxii
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
tain the people of this country in all their rights and liberties. It is there set forth that the military ought to be under the most complete subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power, to which declaration up till to-day the military has given no attention.
"We hope, sir, that you will give attention to our just repre- sentation without forcing us to the disagreeable duty of being obliged to appeal to his Excellency, the Governor, and to the Honorable Assembly of Virginia."1
Montgomery paid no heed to this memorial or to the threat of appeal to the governor of Virginia. He regarded their demand for a statement of the number of those who were supported in the fort as an insult and an impertinence, and ordered his troops to go from house to house to collect whatever they required, and to shoot the animals on the commons. There were at the time only thirty-eight soldiers in the fort, but with these there were many Americans who had come with their families to settle, and also slaves, all of whom the inhabitants were compelled to sup- port.2 The winter was a very hard one, the most severe that had been known for years, and the suffering of the people was very great.3 In spite of this Montgomery proceeded to harsher methods. There is in existence a letter written by him to Deputy County Lieutenant Winston, on March 5th, which shows to what lengths he was ready to go in order to obtain the supplies which he needed. After making the usual demands, he says: "and before that I suffer as much more, I beg you would inform them to put their Guns in good order, as I dont want to take them at any disadvantage. As if they dont furnish I shall look on them as Traitors to the cause of america, and Treat them Accord- ingly."4
Montgomery took the hint in regard to the other villages, however, and went to Cahokia in January, 1780, where he de-
1 Menard Col., Tard. Papers, copy by Kaskaskia clerk. Translated by the editor.
2 Memorial of people of Kaskaskia, to governor of Virginia, May 4, 1781, Menard Col., Tard. Papers, original MS. with signatures.
3 Can. Archives, B., 100, p. 370; Va. State Papers, i., 338.
4 Menard Col., Tard. Papers. Copy, evidently in Winston's handwriting, and certified by the clerk and Winston.
1
.
lxxxiii
INTRODUCTION
manded supplies on the ground that the other villages had given in proportion to their wealth. The court of Cahokia agreed that a census of the population should be taken and each person com- pelled to furnish supplies according to his means. The Caho- kians did not have so much cause for complaint as the people of Kaskaskia, for during this winter there were no troops quar- tered in their village. They preferred no doubt to pay the tax rather than to bring upon themselves a return of the evils they had suffered during the preceding fall, when they had been com- pelled to receive the troops into their homes, to furnish all supplies, and finally to submit to the seizure of the flour in their mills, which were then sealed with the seal of Virginia. Such acts had alienated the Cahokians, who had been excited to deeds of heroism and self denial under the leadership of Joseph Bowman in the winter of 1778-1779.1
When the change of government had failed to satisfy the French and the presence of the soldiers had led to disorder and tyranny, there began a steady stream of emigration to the Spanish bank, which ended in almost depopulating some of the villages of the American Bottom. Among the emigrants were the most impor- tant and progressive of the French inhabitants. One of the first to leave was the richest and foremost citizen of Kaskaskia, Gabriel Cerré, who emigrated to St. Louis either in the fall of 1779 or the following winter. Charles Gratiot of Cahokia soon followed his example, and many others went with them "to seek an asylum where they find the protection which is due a free people."2 Without their leaders the French were less able to hold their own than before. They, however, made their appeal to Virginia, and numerous were the petitions of individuals for the payment of what was owing them. About this time an agent, one Lajeunesse, was appointed to represent the French interests at the capital; but nothing was accomplished, for Virginia had no money to use for investigation or to pay claims, however just,
1 See post, pp. 35, 547, 610.
2 Menard Col., Tard Papers, Memorial of Kaskaskians, to Va. Commissioners, March I, 1783. Original MS.
1 xxxiv
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
against her.1 In fact it was at this time, as we have seen, that Jefferson wrote to Clark that it would be necessary to with- draw as many of the troops as possible from the territory north of the Ohio, for he need expect no help or supplies from the state.2
The people of Illinois did not receive, at this gloomy moment, that assistance from their own officers against their oppressors that they had a right to expect. Instead the justices of Kaskaskia seem to have tried to gain what personal advantage they could from the situation. In the midst of the troubles and poverty of the winter, when the people were attempting to withstand the exac- tions of Montgomery, the justices of the court were demanding pay for their services.3 The magistrates found their office, more- over, sufficiently lucrative to wish to retain it; for, when the time came for a new election, none was held, and, with a few changes to fill vacancies, the justices remained the same for over two years. This irregularity is striking when compared with the annual elections for the court at Cahokia. But Kaskaskia was not alone in troubles of this character; the original justices at Vincennes clung to office until 1787.4
The court was also accused by Jean Girault, state's attorney, with being lax in the performance of its duty. Many settlers were straggling into the colony and taking up land both within the village by purchase and by grants from the court of unpatented lands, a custom which had been permitted by Todd and continued by his successors. The situation was such that the government in the Illinois could not give heed to the general law of Virginia forbidding this practice; for the immigrants were there, fre- quently with their families, and had come without making pro- vision for the future, should they fail to receive land to cultivate. 5 Clark himself had frequently approved of protecting the infant colonies by this means, and the officers of Virginia were among the first to accept grants from the court. One of the earliest
1 Dr. MSS., 50J54.
3 Dr. MSS., 29]14; see also supra lxvii.
3 Dr. MSS., 50J5. Original MS.
4 Dunn, Indiana, passim.
5 Dodge to governor of Va., August 1, 1780, Va. State Papers, i., 368.
1xxxV
INTRODUCTION
records of a land concession of this character is that of one made to Colonel Montgomery. The Indian agent, John Dodge, re- ceived in the year 1780 several such patents.1 Very few of the French seized the opportunity to obtain such concessions at Kas- kaskia and the number was even less at Cahokia, provided no account is taken of Prairie du Pont to which Cahokia had another title. It was not against this practice of conceding land that Girault inveighed; but he critised the court's laxity in not invest- igating the past of these individuals, who were making their homes in the community, to learn if they were British agents, and its neglect to demand of them the oath of allegiance to the United States and Virginia. He urged the justices to compel all strangers to take this oath immediately or he would be obliged to report them to the authorities. He advised them to avoid such a neces- sity, for their position was very critical, since they had many enemies.2
Girault gave his attention to the execution of the law in other particulars. He forbade the justices to arrest parties without proper hearing, and tried to help them keep the peace by persuad- ing Montgomery to permit the civil authorities to use the military prison so that their commands would be obeyed, a privilege which Montgomery later withdrew.3
That protection from military oppression, which might have been expected, was not given by the deputy county lieutenant appointed by Todd. Perhaps it was too much to expect that Winston should succeed where Todd had failed, but at least some opposition to the military exactions should have been attempted. The character of Richard Winston is a difficult one to read, for our knowledge of him depends on the pen pictures drawn by his enemies, and these are not flattering. He came originally from Virginia and had been in Illinois since early in the British period.4 With other traders he had suffered losses
1 Kas. Rec., Land Grants.
2 Kas. Rec., Letters. Original MS.
3 Kas. Rec., Letters. Original MSS .; Winston to Todd, October 24, 1780, Va. State Papers, i., 381.
4 He was one of the original members of the Indiana Co., Va. State Papers, vi., 4. See Jenning's Journal, March 10, 1766, Pennsylvania Hist. Soc.'s lib.
1
lxxxvi
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
in the Pontiac war. With Kennedy he was an agent for George Morgan, and had won the favor of Clark at the time of the occu- pation of Kaskaskia. His nature seems to have been one to inspire distrust rather than confidence, for he was suspected of dishonesty by every man with whom he had business or politi- cal relations. His partner Kennedy suspected him of having sold the cargo of a batteau at New Orleans and pocketed the proceeds.1 Murray feared that he was going to play the rogue at one time.2 Todd left the peltry fund which he had obtained in St. Louis in charge of Winston and Montgomery, and both these financial geniuses made the gravest accusations of dishonesty against each other.3
From the fall of 1779 till January 1783, Winston was on ac- count of his position one of the chief men in the Illinois, and in many ways he might have promoted a happier feeling between the French and the Americans. Instead he seems to have done all in his power to intensify the mutual distrust, at least such was the opinion of the best citizens.4 He had managed to hold together that party which had formerly regarded himself, Murray, and Bentley, as leaders against Rocheblave; and under him this party had gained some accessions.5 Certainly later the clerk of the court, Carbonneaux, became one of his adherents, as did the important Langlois family and also Winston's successor in the county lieutenancy, Timothe de Monbreun. But the real leaders of the French inhabitants were decidedly hostile to him, and he counted among his opponents some of those who had ardently desired American supremacy and had joyfully welcomed Clark. From the sources of information we can judge that Winston's affiliations were always shifting, and it is difficult to find just where he stood at any one time. That he was jealous of the power wielded by the military is unquestionable, but it seems to have
1 Kas. Rec., Court Record.
2 Murray to Bentley, May 25, 1777, Mich. Pio. and Hist. Col., xix., 418. The date is wrongly given as 1779.
3 Mason John Todd Papers, Chi. Hist. Soc.'s Collections, iv., 335, 339; Dr. MSS., 50J9.
4 Memorial of Principal Inhabitants to Va. Commissioners, Menard Col., Tard Papers. Original MS .; Dodge to Clark, March 3, 1783, Dr. MSS., 52]78.
5 See supra, p. xxxvi.
INTRODUCTION
lxxxvii
been his policy never to take a decided stand, unless he was compelled to do so or saw that some personal advantage would accrue thereby. His relation to Montgomery was hostile, for the two men distrusted each other; but outrageously as they abused each other, the French were always firmly persuaded that Winston was betraying them to the military.
The military situation in the spring of the year was a gloomy one; the time of service of most of the troops had exp'red, and there was little chance of recruiting more; there was no hope of financial aid from Virginia, and the supplies in the villages of Illi- nois were exhausted. It was also known that preparations were being made by the British for a concerted attack on the western posts. Under these circumstances there seemed nothing for Clark to do but evacuate the country, leaving a few troops to keep up the courage of the French. He consulted with Todd, after a rapid survey of the posts had been made by the latter,1 and they decided to concentrate the few troops at their disposal at a fort to be built at the mouth of the Ohio. The spot that was finally chosen, and where Fort Jefferson was erected, was a place called the Iron Mines south of the river's mouth.2 All the troops at Vincennes were recalled and commissions were sent to the French to raise a company and take possession of Fort Patrick Henry.3 Orders were also given to Montgomery to retire most of his troops from the villages. But before the preparations for the evacuation of the country could be carried out, news came that the British were already approaching. This expedition was part of a general attack, planned by the British on all the Spanish posts of the Mississippi River in order to prevent any assistance's being given to the Americans by Spain, which had declared war on England the previous year. The British troops from the north and south were to move simultaneously in the spring of 1780, and it was hoped that all the villages from New Orleans to St. Louis would be captured. The energy of Governor Galvez of New Orleans
1 Todd to Clark from Vincennes, March 10, Dr. MSS., 60J80.
2 The letters of Clark and Todd are in Va. State Papers i., 338 and 358.
3 Va. State Papers, i., 358.
Ixxxviii
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
in successfully attacking the British posts on the Gulf during the fall of 1779 and the spring of the next year frustrated the southern plan; but the expedition of the north against St. Louis and the villages held by Clark was made ready, and in the spring of 1780 was under way.1 The British had hoped that their move- ments were unknown, but during the winter the Cahokians had noticed the activity of the British agents among the Indians, and by the beginning of April they had been warned of the approach- ing enemy. On the eleventh of that month they sent Charles Gratiot to Clark, who was at the time building Fort Jefferson, to ask his assistance. At the same time the Spanish commandant and Montgomery wrote him news of the approaching danger.2 Montgomery hastened to Cahokia, where he was immediately joined by Clark just in time to repel the attack. The Spaniards were equally successful at St. Louis. Clark would have given them assistance, had not the strong winds prevented the signals from being heard.3
Throughout the summer of 1780 the people were continually alarmed by accounts of Indian attacks and rumors of others. Fort Jefferson underwent a severe siege;4 the people of Kaskaskia repulsed a large band of Indians on the 17th of July ;5 and the inhabitants of Cahokia made common cause with the Spaniards to defend themselves against an expected attack the following month." Thus at a time when Clark's position was desperate the French inhabitants gave him signal aid, without which the Illinois would have been lost. It was with a company of 300 French, Spaniards, and Americans that Montgomery marched northward to make reprisals against the Indians around Rock River, and, if we are to believe the Frenchmen, the failure of that
1 Mich. Pio. and Hist. Col., ix., 544; Can. Archives, B., 43, p. 153; this vol., p. 531, 539; Gayarre Hist. of Louisiana, iii., 126 et seq,; Hart. Amer. Nation, ix., 285.
2 Mason, John Todd Papers, Chi. Hist. Soc.'s Collections, iv., 354; post, p. 531.
3 The most important documents of the Hald. Col. in regard to this attack have been printed in Mo. Hist. Soc.'s Collections, ii., No. 6.
4 See post, p. 619.
5 Va. State Papers, i., 368; Can. Archives, B., 100, P. 430.
6 See post, p. 59, 61.
lxxxix
INTRODUCTION
expedition was due to Montgomery's incompetence.1 Meanwhile Clark led the expedition against the Shawnees, an expedition which might have been more successful had not a series of events, beginning at Vincennes, led to a further estrangement between the French and Americans and induced the French at Vincennes to give the Indians information of the movements of the Ameri- cans.2
These events are connected with the western career of a French officer, Augustin Mottin de la Balme. His presence in the Illinois may, probably, be attributed to a project conceived by Washing- ton and approved by Lafayette and the French minister, Luzerne, for arousing the Canadians to unite their interests with those of . the Americans and French in an effort to win independence. In this way Washington hoped to conceal his real intentions of attack- ing New York as soon as the expected French fleet and soldiers arrived, and at the same time compel the withdrawal of part of the British forces to Canada.3
1 See post, p. 541.
2 Bentley to Clark, July 30, 1780, Dr. MSS., 50J51; also post. 617.
3 This hypothesis is based on the identity of time and action of the De la Balme expedi- tion with the time and purpose of Washington's plan. There is no other indication of a connection between them. Washington wrote to Lafayette on May 19, 1780, about a pro- clamation which it had been decided some time before that Lafayette should write to incite the Canadians to rise against the British; and on June 4th he wrote to Arnold telling him to have the proclamation printed, which was done. (Sparks, Washington, vii., 44 and 72.) On March 5th of the same year De la Balme wrote to Washington for a general letter of introduction, as he was intending to travel in a short time to the "Southern States of America" where he might be confounded with the many adventurers. (Washington Papers, Lib. of Cong.) By April 24th he had changed his mind and it was known that he was thinking of going to the Illinois, for a Mr. Barriere writes him on that date a letter in which he mentions that purpose. (Can. Archives, B., 184, vol. 2, p. 417.) On June 27th De la Balme was at Fort Pitt treating with the Indians; in this he was associated with Godfrey Linctot, a Virginian Indian agent. His success was reported to Luzerne, French minister to Congress. (Can. Archives, B., 181, P. 371. There is a good calendar of this report in Can. Archives for 1888 p. 865.) His acts at Fort Pitt and later in the Illinois, as narrated in the text, show that he was working in the interests of the alliance between the United States and France. That he was not sent to the West solely in the interests of the latter country, as has been suspected, (Turner, Amer. Hist. Rev. vol. x., No. 2, p. 255, note 2.) is further proved by the fact that the French despatches of the time show that the French government expected that the terri- tory north of the Ohio River would be conceded to the states by a future treaty. (See Views of the Government of the King, and Vergennes to Luzerne September 25, 1779. Doniol, Histoire de la Porticipation de la France, iv., 224 and 360.) The opposition which De la Balme showed to the Virginians is explained by the conditions he found in Illinois as narrated in the text. He was in no way responsible for the interpretation of his actions by Bentley, Winston, and McCarty, who reported that he was hostile to the Americans (See Dr. MSS., 50J51; Va. State Papers, i., 381; this vol., p.617); nor altogether for the misconceptions of the French. (This vol., p. 551; Can. Archives, B., 184 vol. 2, pp. 421, 442.) The only fact that is at all suspicious is the manifesto to the Canadians, found among De la Balme's papers, in which there is no mention of the United States. (Can. Archives, B., 184, vol. 2, p. 498.); but this may have been due to the feeling of antagonism among the French against the Virginians.
XC
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
De la Balme had come to America, highly recommended by Franklin and Silas Deane, to offer his sword to the cause of the colonies.1 He was commissioned inspector general of cavalry by Congress in July, 1777, but feeling himself slighted in not being appointed to the command of that division of the army, he had resigned on October 3d of the same year. He remained in this country, however, and established himself in business at Philadel- phia.2 Late in the spring of the year 1780, he was sent West to start a movement among the French of Illinois which it was hoped would spread over Canada.
On the 27th of June he was at Fort Pitt, where he joined God- frey Linctot in his efforts to win the Indians to the cause of the allies, France, Spain, and the United States; but he found the conditions there less favorable for his mission than he had ex- pected, on account of the hostility of the Indians to the Ameri- cans.3 On reaching Vincennes in July he realized that the presence of the Virginians, who had made themselves so obnoxious to the French, was a hindrance to his plan, for no campaign in which the Virginians were to join could be promoted.
On the other hand the part of De la Balme's program in regard to assistance from France was most eagerly received, and the emotional French were soon saying that their beloved father, the king of France, was to take control of the West again. It was this message that they gave to the Indians, who still retained their old affection for their allies. In Kaskaskia the message was received in the same way. De la Balme came with a letter of recommenda- tion from Alexander Fowler, a former British officer of the village
On the other hand there was in the manifesto no intimation that France was intending to recover her dominion over Canada.
On account of the betrayal by Arnold, or for some other reason, Washington changed his plans and gave no further attention to arousing the Canadians. (Sparks, Washington, vii., 44, note.)
Previous to the arrival of De la Balme, on May 10, 1780, another French agent, Jean de St. Germain, was at Kaskaskia. He claimed to have come directly from France and to be acquainted with the desires of the king. He united with John Montgomery and Richard Winston in a proclamation to the Indians, in which they were assured of the friendship existing between the French, Spanish, and Americans. (Can. Archives, B., 122, p. 478). Rocheblave writes that St. Germain landed at Charlestown the previous winter and went to the West (Ibid, B., 122, p. 545.) I have found nothing to connect him with De la Blame.
1 Can. Archives, B., 184, vol. 2, pp. 390 and 381.
2 Ibid, pp. 390, 391, 392, 394; Papers of Old Cong., xl., pp. 144, 168.
$ Can. Archives, B., 181, p. 271.
xci
INTRODUCTION
who had joined the American cause.1 The best citizens of French origin in this village and in Cahokia welcomed him with open arms, or as Winston said, "just as the Hebrews would receive the Masiah."2 He had very little to say to Montgomery and his soldiers, for his mission was not to them, and in the existing cir- cumstances he could not risk alienating the French by assuming a friendship for the Virginians; nor did Montgomery take any notice of his presence. The Spanish commandant of St. Louis seemed also far from cordial.3 De la Balme's proposed plan was the raising of a company in the Illinois to occupy Detroit, which was known to be ready to yield, and then to proceed to Canada, where he expected to be joined by thousands of the inhabitants.
Considering the object of his mission and the conditions existing in the French villages, his address to the inhabitants proves his ability for extricating himself from a difficult position. "It is well," said he, "that you know that the troops of the state of Virginia have come here against the wish of the other states of America, as I learned from members of Congress before my departure from Philadelphia, and that the different deputies who compose that body are ignorant of the revolting proceedings and acts of violence, which the troops are practicing towards you and which are not only blameable but condemnable at the tribunal of the whole world. ... Therefore it is very important for you, gentlemen, on account of the pressing circumstances, that with- out loss of time you address yourselves to the minister of France in order to force the state of Virginia to redeem the paper money, the letters of exchange, and other claims, which you have in your hands, and to recall from among you the troops which are op- pressing you contrary to all right, since you espouse the cause of the king of France and his allies; troops which, far from pre- serving you from the fury of the cruel enemies, render you victims of a war, which the Indians, who have been constantly friends of the French, would never have made without them." He then
1 Menard Col., Tard. Papers. Copy by the clerk.
2 Mason, John Todd Papers, 340.
3 Bentley to Clark, July 30, 1780, Dr. MSS., 50J51; McCarty's Journal, post, p. 620; Dr. MSS., 50J66; Can. Archives, B., 184, vol. 2, p. 468.
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.