Century history of Youngstown and Mahoning County, Ohio, and representative citizens, 20th, Part 7

Author: Sanderson, Thomas W., comp
Publication date: 1907
Publisher: Chicago : Biographical Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1074

USA > Ohio > Mahoning County > Youngstown > Century history of Youngstown and Mahoning County, Ohio, and representative citizens, 20th > Part 7

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).

FRONTIER CHARACTERS.

Among the interesting personages of the period of the French war and for some years both previous and subsequent to it, were the adventurous scouts and frontiersmen, Christo- pher Gist, George Croghan and Andrew Mon- tour, all of whom were employed at various times, and, indeed, for most of the time. by the Colonial governments or the great trading companies, to negotiate with the Indians. These three men took a large part in shaping the history of those eventful years. Gist had accompanied Washington on his mission to the commander of the French troops on the upper Ohio just previous to the breaking out of the war, and on a subsequent expedition. He was also employed by the Ohio Company to make

explorations and treat with the Indians. He kept a journal in which he described the country through which he passed on his vari- ous missions, and his descriptions, and the maps which he drew of the course of the Ohio and of the surrounding country, were repro- duced in the leading London journals of the day, as the most accurate source of information obtainable of the valley of that river.

George Croghan, who was employed by the Pennsylvania government in transactions with the Indians, and who was "the idol of the Scotch-Irish settlers," had spent some years in trading along the shore of Lake Erie, and in acquiring the Indian tongue. He was a man of great tact and thoroughly understood how to deal with the Indians. His services were of the utmost value in counteracting French in- fluence with the savages. For some years the deputy of Sir William Johnson, he was sent by the latter to England, after Bouquet's expedi- tion, to advise with the government upon Indian matters, and his recommendations had a direct influence on shaping the policy em- bodied in the treaty made at Fort Stanwix with the Iroquois four years later.

Andrew Montour, perhaps the most pic- turesque character of the three, was the son of Big Tree, an Oneida chief, by a French half- breed mother. When Gist, in the latter part of the year 1750, was sent out by the Ohio Company to survey the country along the Ohio take note of the tribes on the way, and search for good lands, he overtook Croghan and Mon- tour at the Muskingum River. The latter, who was on the war path against the Catawba Indians, who some years before had slain his father, was painted like a savage, and with his clothes decked out with tinkling spangles. He was regarded by the Indians as a chief, and was a valuable aid to Croghan in his negotia- tions with them. His services also were in request by Washington during the early opera- tions of the war.

FIRST WHITE MAN'S HOUSE IN OHIO.

Another useful intermediary between the Colonial government and the Indians was

AND REPRESENTATIVE CITIZENS

Christian Frederick Post, "an honest and fear- less Moravian," who had married among the savages, and was thoroughly familiar with their customs. In 1761 he built himself a cabin on Tuscarawas Creek, Stark County, "which," says Winsor, "was probably the first white man's house in the wilds of Ohio."

MILITARY EXPEDITIONS TO THE WEST.

From 1760 to 1764 the English made sev- eral military expeditions into the lake country, one of which-that under Colonel Bradstreet -has been already noticed. That under Major Rogers, in the autumn of 1760, took possession of Detroit. Major Rogers is said to have had an interview with Pontiac, the famous chief of the Ottawas, who, with some haughtiness, demanded to know by what authority the Eng- lish had invaded his country. Another expedi- tion, under command of Major Wilkins, was shipwrecked on Lake Erie in December, 1763. owing to a sudden storm, and seventy men and three officers perished.

UNLAWFUL SETTLEMENTS SUPPRESSED.

The vagrant whites who at the close of the war, under the pretence of hunting, were making unlawful settlements which had a tendency to provoke the Indians, met with a determined enemy in Colonel Bouquet, who was in command at Fort Pitt. Besides remov- ing interlopers from the Monongahela, he is- sued a proclamation "prohibiting all settle- ments beyond the mountains without the per- mission of the general or of the governors of the provinces," under the penalty of martial law. This called forth a protest from Gov- ernor Fauquier, but Bouquet was supported by Amherst, who, however, cautioned his sub- ordinate to be discreet, "for no room must be given to the colonies to complain of the mili- tary power."

GEORGE III FORBIDS WESTERN SETTLEMENTS.

In December, 1761, the Colonial governors received orders forbidding them to make any grants of land in disregard of Indian rights. On October, 1763, King George III, in a proclamation, with the concurrence of his council and in disregard of the sea-to-sea chart- ers, established as crown lands to be held "for the use of the Indians, for the present, and until our further pleasure is known." all the vast region between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi, wherever in the north its source might be. The governors of the Atlantic col- onies were "restrained from allotting any lands beyond the sources of the divers which fell into the Atlantic Ocean, or upon any lands reserved to the Indians, and not having been ceded to, or purchased by, the king." All private persons were forbidden to buy land of the Indians, such right of purchase being reserved to the crown1.

This proclamation caused much discontent to a large and growing party in the colonies. who regarded it as a "tyrannous check on the inevitable expansion of the race, and as an adoption by the home government of what was recognized as the French system. By the con- servative adherents of the crown it was looked upon as a necessary protection of the rights of the Indians. It was probably the king's purpose to confine the colonies as much as pos- sible to the coast. within easy reach of the British trade, and to keep the population under the restraint of the seaboard authorities. As a means of pacifying the Indians, it came, as has been seen, too late. That it was equally in- effective in restraining white emigration is shown in the fact that, on a reliable estimate. from 1765 to 1768 some thirty thousand whites crossed over and settled beyond the mountains.

CHAPTER VIII

EXPEDITION OF GEORGE ROGERS CLARK

Clark's Project-Capture of Forts Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Vincennes-The British Try to Recover the Forts-Project Against Detroit Abandoned-Disappearance of the French Population-The British Retain the Northwestern Forts After the Treaty of Paris.

With one important exception there were no events of any historical significance during the Revolutionary period. Great Britain was fully occupied in the endeavor to conquer her rebellious subjects, and the demands upon the resources of the colonies in the arduous and protracted struggle were too great to allow any attention to be given to schemes of Western colonization. The exception to which refer- ence has been made was the capture of the British military posts in the west by George Rogers Clark. Clark was a Virginian who had made his home in Kentucky. With a far- sighted sagacity, which had in it something of statesmanship, he conceived and executed the plan which subsequently furnished the Ameri- can commissioners entrusted with the negotia- · tion of the treaty of 1783, at Paris, with their strongest argument in support of the claim of the United States to territory west of the Ohio. It is probable that Clark did not himself fully realize its far-reaching consequences. His im- mediate purpose was to put a stop to the per- sistent Indian attacks on the outer settlements, which he reasoned could be most effectually done by destroying the British posts whence the savages obtained supplies, ammunition, and oftentimes leadership. One person, however, appreciated the full significance of Clark's plan,

as will be seen by the following extract from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Clark be- fore the issue of the campaign was known in Virginia : "Much solicitude will be felt for the issue of your expedition to the Wabash; it will at least delay their expedition to the frontier- settlement, and if successful have an important bearing ultimately in establishing our north- western boundary."

CAPTURE OF FORTS KASKASKIA, CAHOKIA AND VINCENNES.

In 1777 Clark sent out scouts to spy out the country, secure information in regard to the forts, and ascertain the sentiment of the French inhabitants of the villages. Having re- ceived a favorable report, he went to Williams- burg, then the capital of Virginia, where he obtained authority from Governor Patrick Henry to enlist a militia force of seven com- panies of men to act under his command. The object of the expedition was kept as secret as possible. Private instructions were given Clark by the Governor, in accordance with which he was to attack the post of Kaskaskia. Supplies were to be obtained at Fort Pitt. The secrecy which he was obliged to maintain made the work of recruiting his command one of great

RESIDENCE OF MRS. KATE M. MACKEY, YOUNGSTOWN. OHIO

RICHARD BROWN MEMORIAL SUNDAY SCHOOL CHAPEL, YOUNGSTOWN

RESIDENCE OF MYRON I. ARMS, YOUNGSTOWN

ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, YOUNGSTOWN

AND REPRESENTATIVE CITIZENS

difficulty, and he found obstructions thrown in his way by many leading men on the frontier, "which prevented the enlistment of as many men as had been contemplated, and led to fre- quent desertions." At last, on June 26, 1778, with a small command, not exceeding two hun- dred men, he left the Falls of the Ohio, and descended the river in boats to Fort Massac, forty miles from its mouth. Thence he marched to Kaskaskia, which fell into his hands, as did Cahokia soon after, without the loss of a single life. Vincennes surrendered "to a mere proclamation when there was not an American soldier within 100 miles of the place." For this easy victory Clark was largely indebted to Father Gibault, who, representing the senti- ment of the French population, entered into his plans with great warmth and energy, and afforded him all the assistance in his power.

Here, although in possession of the coun- try, Clark was placed in an embarrassing posi- tion, owing to the desire of his men to return home, their term of enlistment having expired. It was necessary to hold the conquered terri- tory, or all would be lost. After much persua- tion he prevailed upon 800 of the men to re- enlist for eight months, and then filled up his companies with recruits from the villages, at the same time sending an urgent request to Virginia for reinforcements. The good effect of his expedition was already seen in the con- duct of the Indian tribes, some ten or twelve of which within five weeks sent representatives to sue for peace. Clark completed his con- quests on the Wabash by capturing the post of Ouiatenon, and also showed great ability in outwitting the English and counteracting their influence with the savages.

THE BRITISH TRY TO RECOVER THE FORTS.

"And now," says Hinsdale, from whom this narrative has been condensed, "Clark be- gan really to feel the difficulties of his situation. Destitute of money, poorly supplied, command- ing a small and widely scattered force, he had to meet and circumvent an active enemy who was determined to regain what he had lost. Gov- ernor Hamilton projected a grand campaign

against the French towns that had been cap- tured and the small force that held them. The feeble issue was the capture, in December, 1778, of Vincennes, which was occupied by but two Americans. Clark, who was in the Illinois at the time of this disaster, at once put his little force in motion for the Wabash, knowing, he says, that if he did not take Hamilton, Hamil- ton would take him; and, February 25, 1779, at the end of a march of two hundred and fifty miles, that ranks in peril and hardship with Arnold's winter march to Canada, he again captured the town, the fort, the gover- nor, and his whole command. Hamilton was sent to Virginia a prisoner of war, where he was found guilty of treating American prison- ers with cruelty, and of offering the Indians premiums for scalps but none for prisoners."

PROJECT AGAINST DETROIT ABANDONED.

Clark was very anxious to attempt the cap- ture of Detroit, as being by far the most im- portant of the British posts, but he had to abandon the enterprise owing to the lack of sufficient resources. The project was several times considered by Congress, and also by the Virginia State authorities, but was as often abandoned for the same reason. Detroit, there- fore, to Clark's great chagrin. remained in the hands of the British till the end of the war, and, in fact, till 1796. As it was, Clark won and held the Illinois and the Wabash in the name of Virginia and of the United States, thus enabling the American commissioners "to plead uti possidetis in reference to much of the country beyond the Ohio." "It would not be easy," says Hinsdale. "to find in our history a case of an officer accomplishing results that were so great and far-reaching with so small a force."

DISAPPEARANCE OF THE FRENCH POPULATION.

It is worthy of note that Clark's success was due largely to the spirit in which he was received and aided by the French settlers be- vond the Ohio. In thus assisting him they were actuated by their ancient feeling of antipathy

HISTORY OF MAHONING COUNTY

to the British, and by a desire to see the work of 1763 apparently undone; yet in reality they were aiding to perfect it. The French alliance of 1778 "made them think they were again opposing the old enemy." "But * * * the wel- come which they gave the Americans did not arrest their fate or retard their decline. The breath of Anglo-American civilization seemed almost as fatal to them as to the Indians them- selves. Louisiana and the fur lands continued to draw away their strength and scarcely a trace of them can be found in Northwestern life today. Champlain laid the foundation of the British province of Quebec; the State of Louisiana is the child of the French colony; but the habitants of the Northwest seem as effectually lost in the past as the Mound Builders."

THE BRITISH RETAIN NORTHWESTERN POSTS AFTER THE TREATY OF PARIS.

It was the Clark conquest, together with the colonial titles, that enabled the United States to wrest the Northwestern territory from Great Britain. Possession was reluctantly yielded, and for some time England, in the hope that the young republic would prove a failure, refused to surrender the military posts in the territory that remained in her hands at

the close of the war, alleging as an excuse the non-fulfilment on the part of the United States of certain stipulations of the treaty of peace. For thirteen years after the conclusion of the treaty British garrisons continued to occupy Oswego, Niagara, Detroit, Mackinaw, and a number of minor posts, and a British force even invaded territory that England did not hold at the close of the war and built Fort Miami at the rapids of the Maumee. It was at these forts that the Indians found aid and encouragement in their attacks on the settle- ments. This state of things was finally brought to an end by General Wayne, who pursued the Indians up to the very guns of Miami, and, in 1795, negotiated with them the treaty of Greenville. The Jay treaty by which England bound herself to surrender the forts which she should have yielded in 1783 had been nego- tiated the year before. "On July 11, 1796, a detachment from Wayne's army raised the Stars and Stripes above the stockade and vil- lage of Detroit, where the French and British colors had successively waved, and this act completed the tardy transfer of the old North- west to the United States."

The war of 1812, with Hull's surrender of Detroit, revived for a time British hopes of recovering the Northwest, and not until the signing of the treaty of Ghent was the destiny of the territory fully assured.

CHAPTER IX

STATE CESSIONS

A New Phase of the Land Question-Maryland's Proposal-National Ownership Proposed by Rhode Island-Delay in Ratifying the Articles-Claims of the Indiana and Other Companies-New York Makes the First Cession-Conditional Cessions-Unconditional Cessions Urged by Congress-Triumph of the National Idea.

The demands upon the resources of the colonies for carrying on the Revolutionary war, caused the western land question to as- sume a new and complicated phase, which led ultimately, through State cessions, to the na- tionalization of the entire Western territory. This was in the nature of a contest between those states which laid claim to Western lands by virtue of their colonial charters and those which had no such claim. The latter included New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware, which were confined to the At- lantic plain, and Pennsylvania, which now had a definite western boundary just beyond the Forks of the Ohio.

On October 14, 1777, the following rule was adopted by Congress and became a part of the Articles of Confederation :

"All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be de- frayed out of a common treasury which shall be supplied by the several States, in proportion to the value of all land within each State granted to, or surveyed for, any person, as

such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assem- bled shall from time to time direct and ap- point."

MARYLAND'S PROPOSAL.

The land issue was first raised on the fol- lowing day, when the proposition was sub- mitted by Maryland "That the United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive right and power to ascertain and fix the western boundary of such States as claim to the Mississippi or the South Sea, and lay out the land beyond the boundary so ascer- tained into separate and independent States, from time to time, as the numbers and circum- stances of the people thereof may require."

This was the first proposition that Con- gress should exercise sovereign jurisdiction over the Western country, and was a plain proposition to nationalize the lands. It met with immediate opposition from the claimant States, who on October 27th caused to be in- serted in the Articles a clause to the effect that the United States in Congress assembled

HISTORY OF MAHONING COUNTY

should be "the last resort, on appeal, in all dis- putes and differences between two or more States concerning boundaries, jurisdiction or any other cause whatever," and further de- clared that "No State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States." Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina, voted for the amendment; New Hampshire voted against it; New Jersey and South Caro- lina were divided; Maryland and Georgia were not present or did not vote, and Connecticut was not counted, as but one member was present.

NATIONAL OWNERSHIP PROPOSED BY RHODE ISLAND.

When a month later Congress sent a cir- cular letter to the several States requesting the ratification of the Articles, a number of amend- ments were proposed, some of which related to the land question. Maryland revived her proposition of the year before, though in a slightly modified form, and was supported by Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, all non-claimant States. The claim- ant States in general, with New Hampshire, voted against it; New York was divided, with North Carolina and Georgia not present or not voting. Rhode Island submitted an amend- ment providing for the national ownership of all lands within the States, the property of which before the war was vested in the Crown of Great Britain, the jurisdiction to remain with the States to which such lands severally belonged. This was lost by a vote of nine to one.

New Jersey proposed that Congress should have power to dispose of all vacant and un- patented lands, commonly called Crown lands for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the war, with the same provision as to juris- diction as in the case of Rhode Island. Though all these amendments were voted down, it was apparent that "the opposition to the land claims of the claimant States was broadening and deepening."

DELAY IN RATIFYING THE ARTICLES.

There was a delay on the part of several States in ratifying the Articles. Delaware wished Congress to assign moderate limits to those States claiming to the Mississippi, and also declared that the western lands ought to be "common estate to be granted out on terms beneficial to the United States," since they had been, or must be, gained by the blood and treasure of all. She finally, however, ratified the Articles, as did also New Jersey and Geor- gia, being willing to trust to the wisdom of future deliberations for "such alterations and amendments as experience might show to be expedient and just."

Maryland still held back, basing her op- position on the ground that it was contrary to every principle of equity and good policy "that Maryland or any other State entering into the Confederation should be burdened with heavy expenses for the subduing and guaranteeing of immense tracts of country, if she is not in any way to be benefitted thereby. She held out for the right of Congress to fix the western limits of the States claiming to the Mississippi river, and also for a national claim to the lands lying to the westward of the frontiers thus fixed, besides protesting against the exclusive claim set up by some States to the whole west- ern country without any solid foundation, which she declared, would, if persisted in, "prove ruinous to the interests of Maryland and other States similarly situated, and in pro- cess of time be the means of subverting the confederacy."

The manner in which these results would be brought about was thus described :

"Virginia, by selling on the most moderate terms a small proportion of the lands in ques- tion, would draw into her treasury vast sums of money : and in proportion to the sums aris- ing from such sales. would be enabled to lessen her taxes. Lands comparatively cheap and taxes comparatively low, with the lands and taxes of an adjacent State, would quickly drain the State thus dis- advantageously circumstanced of its most

AND REPRESENTATIVE CITIZENS

useful inhabitants; its wealth and its consequence in the scale of the confederated States would sink of course. A claim so in- jurious to more than one-half, if not to the whole of the United States, ought to be sup- ported by the clearest evidence of the right. Yet what evidence of that right have been pro- duced? What arguments alleged in support either of the evidence or the right? None that we have heard of deserving a serious refuta- tion."

CLAIMS OF THE INDIANA AND OTHER COM- PANIES.

This description evidences the somewhat exaggerated estimate of the value of wild lands then prevalent both with Congress and the States. Such lands in the long run have not been found a source of revenue by the govern- ment.

As Maryland persisted in her refusal to ratify the Articles of Confederation unless they were amended in accordance with the spirit of her proposition of 1777, the machinery for filling the treasury and recruiting the army could not be set in motion and a condition en- sued which threatened serious injury to the national cause. In May, 1779, Virginia, in disregard of the growing sentiment in favor of endowing the United States with the west- ern lands, opened a land office and made prep- arations to sell lands in the western territory claimed by her. This proceeding, however, was interrupted by a memorial signed by George Morgan and presented to Congress on behalf of certain persons who claimed title by virtue of a grant received from the Six Nations, at the Fort Stanwix Congress, of a tract of land on the south side of the Ohio river between the southern limit of Pennsylvania and the little Kanawha river. This tract, called Indiana, as included within the bounds of a larger tract called Vandalia, was, they asserted, separated by the King in Council from the domain which Virginia claimed over it, and was not subject to the jurisdiction of Virginia or of any par- ticular State, but of the United States. Hence !

the memorialists prayed Congress to take such action as should arrest the sale of lands until the rights of the owners of the tract called Vandalia could be ascertained, and the sover- eignty of the United States and the just rights of individuals supported. Another memorial, signed by William Trent, on behalf of Thomas Walpole and his associates in the Grand Com- pany was presented at the same time. After some opposition on the part of New Hamp- shire, Massachusetts, Virginia and both Caro- linas, both memorials were referred to a com- mittee. The committee was also instructed to inquire into the question of the jurisdiction of Congress over this matter, the right of such jurisdiction having been denied by Virginia.

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.

Century history of Youngstown and Mahoning County, Ohio, and representative citizens, 20th, Part 7

Author: Sanderson, Thomas W., comp Publication date: 1907 Publisher: Chicago : Biographical Pub. Co. Number of Pages: 1074

Author: Sanderson, Thomas W., comp
Publication date: 1907
Publisher: Chicago : Biographical Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1074