USA > Illinois > Illinois, historical and statistical, comprising the essential facts of its planting and growth as a province, county, territory, and state, Vol. I > Part 15
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
168
ILLINOIS-HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL.
The event proved this to have been an unwise and unfortunate step, which would not have been taken could its results have been foreseen. It was in effect an abandonment of the villages of Illinois, which were thereby left exposed and liable to easy conquest by the British. The new post was erected on the hunting-grounds of the Chickasaws, without their consent. In consequence, this tribe, which had theretofore been friendly, at once became hostile, and made frequent raids upon it; and when they became pacified, the beleaguered garrison was attacked by other tribes. As a result, Fort Jefferson was in a constant state of fear; and so far from prospering, as had been hoped and confidently expected, the post proved a con- stant source of annoyance and expense to the government. There was a continual dearth of supplies, particularly of a liquid sort, the demand for which being the hardest to satisfy, and their receipt affording the greatest pleasure. Thus writes Capt. Robert George: "We are now able to drink brandy, taffia, and wine, and, with your good assistance, whisky too; but it has not made us so saucy but we can drink all the whisky you can send us." The fort was evacuated June 8, 1781.
At the same time a spirit of insubordination sprang up among the militia at various points. Richard Winston, as civil com- mandant at Kaskaskia, was having trouble with Col. Montgom- ery, who, Col. Todd says in a letter to Gov. Jefferson, went to New Orleans under circumstances which gave rise to grave scandal; while Capt. Richard McCarty was rendering himself exceedingly disagreeable "by endeavoring to enforce military law upon the civil authorities at Cahokia." *
Without either regularly-constituted military authority or a civil government which commanded respect, the inhabitants of the Illinois villages were subject to the impositions of any adventurer seeking to use them for the accomplishment of his own ends. Of these, one Col. Moltin de la Balme was the most conspicuous. He came to this country with Lafay- ette, and claiming to have authority from the United States, went to Kaskaskia in the fall of 1780, and after obtaining supplies, organized an expedition for the purpose-as he al- leged-of capturing Detroit. He raised a force variously esti-
* "Virginia State Papers," I, 460.
169
ATTACK ON ST JOSEPH.
mated at from twenty to fifty men, which was increased to one hundred and three by additional volunteers from Vincennes, besides a band of Indian allies. From here he marched to the post of Kekionga, at the head of the Maumee River, which settlement, after sacking, he destroyed. Securing the plunder, he proceeded to the river Aboite, and while there encamped, was attacked during the night by a party of Miamis, who over- whelmingly defeated him, killing Col. la Balme and, it was reported, between thirty and forty of his followers, and disper- sing the remainder. The colonel's watch, set with diamonds, his double-barrelled gun, spurs, and valuable papers were brought to Maj. de Peyster by an Indian .*
Fort St. Joseph, situated on the river of that name, was the British post nearest to the Illinois villages. It was used not only as a depot of supplies, but as a general rendezvous for the Indian allies of the British, and from which they had made frequent hos- tile raids. The vigorous pursuit of the force sent against St. Louis and Cahokia, and the unexpected strength of the Americans thereby exhibited, led to the withdrawal of the British garrison at this post by order of Lieut .- Gov. Sinclair in the summer of 1780. The British traders there feeling secure in the protection afforded them by the presence of friendly Indians, decided, however, to remain. When these facts became known in the Illinois it was determined to raise a small force and make a raid against the post. The company consisted of seventeen men only, and was commanded by Thomas Brady, a patriotic citizen of Cahokia who had emigrated from Pennsylvania and who is described as having been both restless and daring. Marching across the country in October, he succeeded in eluding the Indian guards and captured the place, taking a few British prisoners together with a large quantity of goods. Being over- confident, on his return he was attacked by a force of Potta- watomies and British traders, hastily organized for that purpose, while he lay encamped on the Calumet. His party was easily defeated; two of them were killed, two wounded, and ten taken prisoners. Brady, with two others, succeeded in making his escape, and, returning to Illinois, did not rest until another expedition was organized to rescue his friends and avenge his
* " History of Detroit and Michigan," by Silas Farmer, 257.
170
ILLINOIS-HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL.
defeat. This was the now noted invasion of which the following is an account :* Learning that the post had been again occupied, it was determined by the authorities at St. Louis and Cahokia to make another effort to capture the place and avenge their common wrongs. An expedition composed of about sixty-five whites, including Spaniards and Cahokians, and some two hun- dred Indians, was organized to proceed against it. It was com- manded by a Spanish captain named Don Eugenio Pourré, and started out on Jan. 2, 1781, marching across the country in the usual pioneer fashion and meeting with but few obstructions and very little opposition. The Indians encountered on the way and in the vicinity of the fort were easily placated by presents and the promise of receiving a portion of the anticipated spoils. Arriving at the fort and finding no force prepared to oppose them, the raiders "valorously dashed in" and captured it without striking a blow. The few traders there had relied on the rep- resentations and friendship of the neighboring Indians, some of whom accompanied the attacking party, and having lent a willing ear to the superior inducements offered by the lat- ter, permitted their unopposed approach. The place was plundered and the goods and provisions distributed among the Indians as had been promised. The British flag was replaced by that of Spain, and possession was taken in the name of "His Catholic Majesty," not only of St. Joseph and its dependencies, but also of the Illinois River.+
Possession was retained only a few days, when the fort was evacuated and the command returned to St. Louis. Yet from this affair, which was deemed of but little importance by the British, there arose serious international complications. A report of the alleged "conquest," no doubt exaggerated and highly colored, was forwarded to Madrid and published in the official gazette. Copies of this paper were transmitted to Gen. Washington by John Jay, our Spanish minister; and Ben- jamin Franklin, our minister to France, made it the subject of a special communication to Congress. It has, indeed, been contended that the expedition was "inspired and directed" by
* The date given by Gov. Reynolds and others for this expedition, 1777, is erro- neous .- See "Virginia State Papers," I, 465.
+ Dillon's "Historical 'Notes, " 190; "Secret Journal of Congress," IV, 65.
I71
ATTACK ON ST. JOSEPHI.
the Spanish ministry as a part of their scheme to acquire a portion at least of the Mississippi Valley. But the facts seem to warrant the assertion that it was simply an ordinary raid, having plunder for its object, which originated at St. Louis and Cahokia, being composed of troops from both places, and was intended as a legitimate retaliation to the attack by the British and Indians upon these places the preceding year. The idea of giving it the importance subsequently attached to it and of using it for diplomatic purposes was probably an afterthought, possibly justified by the misleading terms of the report. At all events, it served the purpose of giving added strength to the Spanish claim to the Mississippi Valley, for the assertion of which the previous reduction of British posts above New Orleans had already laid the foundation .*
The preposterous character of this claim appears from the following considerations:
(1) It was evidently a joint expedition, conceived and under- taken by the authorities at both St. Louis and Cahokia. Cer- tainly neither party could fairly claim the benefit arising from its success exclusively for itself; and it is hardly to be supposed that the inhabitants of an Illinois village would engage in a warlike undertaking which had for its object the transfer of a portion of the territory belonging to the colonies to a foreign power.
(2) The claim of Spain was, that in consequence of having taken St. Joseph, they "had made a conquest of the Illinois country." + The fact is that St. Joseph was not then, if indeed it had ever been, any part of the Illinois country either as a district or territory. In this respect and in coupling the name of the Illinois River with the capture, it was a bare-faced fraud, without a shadow of evidence to support it. If the Spanish government had desired to establish a bona-fide claim to Illinois by virtue of conquest, the coveted territory was near at hand -only across the river. The military had been withdrawn therefrom, its towns were not garrisoned except by small de- tachments of militia, who would not have been able to resist a serious attack or endure a siege.
(3) Even if the claim had been geographically correct, the * "Secret Journal of Congress," IV, 62. + Spark's "Franklin, " IX, 128.
172
ILLINOIS-HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL.
fact that no effort was made to retain possession of so important a post shows that it was not intended at the time to base a claim of conquest upon its capture.
But, notwithstanding the effrontery and absurdity of the claim, it was seriously presented and urged by Spain at the preliminary negotiations for peace between the colonies and Great Britain at Paris in 1782, and was even supported by France. But owing to the sagacity, firmness, and wisdom of Jay, Franklin, and Adams, who were well acquainted with the facts and cir- cumstance of the case, the accomplishment of the scheme which might have made the Ohio River instead of the Mississippi the western boundry of the United States was prevented.
This was the last expedition in which the citizens of Illinois are reported to have taken any part during the Revolution.
In 1780, Col. Todd, the commandant, was elected a delegate from the county of Kentucky to the general assembly of Vir- ginia, and in November of that year he was appointed colonel of Fayette County. In May, 1781, he became a citizen, and was elected a trustee, of Lexington. After this date he seems to have paid no attention to Illinois affairs, as in a letter to the governor of Virginia, dated Oct. 21, he makes no allusion to them as he had done in previous communications. He was killed at the battle of Blue Licks, Aug. 18, 1782.
But little now remains to be added regarding Illinois as a county of Virginia. In 1782, one "Thimothe Demunbrunt, Lt. comd'g par interim, etc.," as he signed himself in the old record- book, exercised authority; and claimed to act as commandant until the arrival of Gov. Arthur St. Clair, in 1790 ;* but so far as appears, his official acts were confined to " affording succor," upon their application, to some Delaware and Shawnee Indians. They pleaded poverty as their excuse for asking assistance, and professed their willingness to be conciliated by the receipt of corn, flour, tobacco, and taffia, of which the latter article was much the largest quantity in proportion to the others. It is also known that Demunbrunt was quite liberal in the issuing of land-grants, which afterward formed the subject of much litigation.
After the close of the war of the Revolution, however, the
* "Virginia State Papers," V, 408.
173
AFFAIRS IN ILLINOIS COUNTY.
civil affairs of the country were entirely neglected by both Virginia and Congress, and the people were left without a government. Courts ceased to be held and public officers failed or refused to discharge their duties." To make the condition of the people, if possible, still more deplorable, in 1784, after the cession of the country to the United States, an irresponsible body of soldiers, pretending to have authority from Virginia, organized themselves, assumed control, and plundered and op- pressed the inhabitants "with a high hand."+
The old record-book contains no entries from April 29, 1782, until June 5, 1787, and only two thereafter. The last of these is the record of a jury trial between John Edgar, plaintiff, and Thomas Green, defendant. Col. Josiah Harmar had visited the country and endeavored to restore order by reestablishing the courts, but in effect there was neither law nor order in the Illinois country for the seven years from 1783 to 1790. The French inhabitants were the greatest sufferers on account of the absence of these essential safeguards of society, being ignor- ant and easily imposed upon. The American settlers, though as yet few and scattered, were better able to take care of them- selves.
* Dillon's "Historical Notes, " 405. + Gen. St. Clair's report to Congress.
Authorities: Calendar of Virginia State Papers; "Western Annals"; "Michigan Pioneer Collection, " Vol. IX; "Report of Canadian Archives"; Winsor's "America," Vol. VI, Chap. V, by William F. Poole; " Magazine of American History," Vol. XV; " March of the Spaniards across Illinois," by E. G. Mason; "Secret Journals of Congress"; Farmer's "History of Detroit and Michigan"; Dillon's "Notes and Northwestern Territory"; "Magazine of Western History"; Butler's "History of Kentucky"; Reynolds' " Pioneer History of Illinois"; Col. Todd's "Old Record- Book"; Mason's " Illinois in the Eighteenth Century"; Girardin's "History of Virginia, " IV; Pitkin's "History of the United States."
PERIOD IV .- UNDER THE UNITED STATES, 1784-1818.
CHAPTER XI.
The Public Domain-How Obtained-Its Extent-What it Cost-How Surveyed.
T HE treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain, concluded at Paris, Sept. 3, 1783, was ratified by Congress, Jan. 14, 1784. The second article of the treaty defined the western boundaries of the United States as follows: "From the most northwest point of the Lake of the Woods on a due-west course to the River Mississippi, thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of said River Mississippi until it shall intersect the northwest part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude."
The claims of Virginia and of other states to the territory of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys, whether the same had been included in ancient charters, in treaties with the Indians, or obtained by conquest, were opposed by the states of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, which had no claims to western lands.
Under the Articles of Confederation it was provided that no State should be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States; and that settlements of disputed boundaries or jurisdiction as between the states should be by commissioners appointed by Congress. Maryland refused to agree to the Articles of Confederation because of the above provisions until, in May, 1781-the other five states having done so, protesting against it. The disagreeing states claimed that if the unsettled western country ceded by France to Great Britain had been, as they contended, wrested from the common enemy by the blood and treasure of the thirteen states, it should be considered as a common acquisition to be divided by Congress into free and independent governments "in such manner as its wisdom might direct." It was contended that if the claim of Virginia to the
I74
175
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
country lying east of the Mississippi should be allowed, she could raise and equip volunteers on more favorable terms than the other states by offering large bounties in the form of lands; that that commonwealth would also be able to derive a vast revenue from sales of the same, thus securing an undue advantage in the way of taxation. She would also, by attracting settlers to cheap lands, deprive other states not so advantageously situated of their most enterprising citizens.
Virginia and North Carolina, under that provision of the Articles of Confederation which left the disposition of lands to the states owning them, opened land-offices as early as 1779, and proposed to dispose of them by grants of bounties and sales. So pronounced had become the opposition to these pro- ceedings that Congress, on Oct. 30, 1779, adopted a resolution, which was transmitted to the different states, "that it be ear- nestly recommended to the State of Virginia to reconsider their late act of assembly for opening their land-office, and that it be recommended to said state, and all other states similarly cir- cumstanced, to forbear settling or issuing warrants for unappro- priated land, or granting the same during the continuance of the present war." *
New York was the first state to respond, and on March 7, 1780, her legislature passed an act authorizing her delegates in Congress to limit and restrict the boundaries of the state in such manner as they should judge to be expedient, and to cede its claim to western lands. Virginia remonstrated and held back, but on Sept. 6, 1780, on the report of a committee, Con- gress resolved "That it be earnestly recommended to those states who have claims to the western country to pass such laws and give their delegates in Congress such powers as may remove the only obstacle to a final ratification of the Articles of Con- federation." As a farther act of pacification, Congress, on Oct. IO, adopted a resolution "that the unappropriated lands that may be ceded or relinquished to the United States pursuant to the recommendation of Sept. 6, shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and be formed into distinct republican states, which shall become members of the Federal Union and have the same rights of
* "Public Domain," 63.
176
ILLINOIS-HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL.
sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other states."*
On Jan. 2, 1781, Virginia passed an act proposing to Congress to cede her lands northwest of the Ohio River on certain con- ditions. On Oct. 31, 1781, the resolution of Oct. 10, together with the acts and resolutions of New York and Virginia, were referred by Congress to a committee of seven. The formal deed of cession of New York was made and filed in Congress March 1, 1781, but no immediate action was taken thereon.
In the meantime, other claimants had arisen to a large por- tion of the lands in question, namely, the Indiana, the Vandalia, the Illinois, and the Wabash land companies, who filed their petitions before the committee, setting up their claims by right of purchase from the Indians. Against this action Virginia protested, and raised the question that the committee had no authority to consider these claims.
On Nov. 3, 1781, the committee, as appears by subsequent proceedings, made its report, which was not only adverse to Virginia, but recommended favorable action in regard to certain of the land-claims filed, and in favor of the right of New York to the western territory, on the ground "that all the lands belonging to the Six Nations [of which these were claimed to be a part] and their tributaries had been in due form put under the protection of England by said Six Nations, as appendant to the late government of New York." When this remarkable document came up for consideration, May 1, 1782, Theodoric Bland, a delegate from Virginia, offered the following resolution: "Resolved, That previous to any determination in Congress relative to the cessions of the western lands, the name of each member present be called over by the secretary; that on such call, each member do declare upon his honor whether he is or is not personally interested, directly or indirectly, in the claims of any company or companies which have petitioned against the territorial rights of any of the states by whom such cessions have been made, and that such declarations be entered upon the Journal."
The legislative squabble which not unusually follows the in- troduction into Congress of unpalatable measures now occurred. Motions to postpone and amend were made, and the body
* "Journal of Congress," III, 535.
177
CLAIMS OF VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK.
adjourned without reaching a vote on Mr. Bland's proposition. The next day its consideration was declared out of order; but no vote upon the adoption of the committee's report was ever taken in Congress, although action was frequently sought by the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the journals show. On Oct. 29, 1782, the cession of New York was formally filed and accepted as an independent proposition.
After failing to agree upon several intervening reports, the whole matter, including the report of Nov. 3, 1781, was referred to a new committee, who brought in what proved to be a final report on Sept. 13, 1783, in which the entire question is dis- cussed, and the proposition of Virginia as originally made was recommended to be accepted with but few, and those imma- terial, modifications. The report was adopted, and on March I, 1784, the deed of cession, signed by Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, was presented, formally executed, and accepted, New Jersey alone voting in the nega- tive .*
The conditions insisted upon by Virginia and agreed to before the cession were: That the expenses incurred by the state in subduing any British posts, or in maintaining forts and garrisons therein, should be reimbursed by the United States; and that the French inhabitants and other settlers of Kaskaskia and neighboring villages who had become citizens of Virginia should have their possessions and titles confirmed to them and be protected in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties; and that the one hundred and fifty thousand acres of land promised by the state should be allowed and granted to Gen. George Rogers Clark and the officers and soldiers of his regiment who marched with him when Kaskaskia and Vincennes were reduced, and the officers and soldiers who have been since incorporated in said regiment, to be laid off in one tract and to be divided among said officers and soldiers in due proportion. There was also another stipulation of reservation in the deed relating to the " Virginia Military Lands" in Ohio.
Without regard to the claim of Virginia to the western terri- tory by virtue of ancient charters, which it is not necessary here to discuss, her claim in right of conquest was certainly well
* "Journal of Congress," IV, 344.
12
178
ILLINOIS-HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL.
founded, if, indeed, it was not unimpeachable. The Articles of Confederation (VI) provided that "no state shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assem- bled, unless such state be actually invaded by enemies or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of delay." Just the condition of things contemplated by this article existed when, in 1778, Virginia organized and sent the expedition under Col. George Rogers Clark which reduced the posts in Illinois, and subse- quently held them by Virginia authority until the close of the war. They had been in possession of and garrisoned by British forces, and were continually stirring up the Indians in what is now Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois to make hostile and murderous raids into Virginia. These were constantly occurring-the British furnishing not only men to assist, but ammunition and supplies to maintain the invading forces. The timely campaign of Col. Clark was the outgrowth of Virginia foresight, enterprise, and valor, and Virginia money paid the bills. But for this conquest the Northwest at the close of the Revolution would have been in possession of the British and would doubtless have so remained, as did Canada; and the western line of the United States, as before observed, would have been the ridge of the Alleghanies and the Ohio River, instead of the channel of the Mississippi. The supreme court of the United States in speak- ing of this title says "the grant of Virginia contained reserva- tions and stipulations which could only be made by the owners of the soil." *
That the claim of New York through the Iroquois, so readily yielded at the time, was presented more for the purpose of effecting a favorable settlement of its disputed claim to the territory of Vermont, or to serve some other special purpose, than with any serious belief in its merits is more than probable.
The title of the Indians to land in this country has been long settled by both the British and American governments, and the adjudication of the courts. While they were admitted to be rightful occupants, with a legal and just claim to possession, they never acquired any proprietary interests in the vast tracts
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.