USA > Ohio > History of Ohio; the rise and progress of an American state, Volume Two > 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
Scippo
جورج اليوتيوب
105
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
a war. They were now at the mercy of the Virginians who under Dunmore were rapidly approaching the Indian capital, and ere many days Lewis would also arrive from the south. "What," said the desperate chief, "will you do now? We must fight or we are destroyed." But the braves, lately so fierce for war, remained silent, their wisdom was at an end. Corn- stalk then said "let us kill all our women and children and go and fight till we die." But still none would answer. Then the chief arose and striking his toma- hawk in the post in the center of the council house, exclaimed: "I'll go and make peace, " and the warriors all grunted "ough, ough, ough," their form of assent.
Runners were instantly dispatched to Dunmore's army to solicit a parley and bring about a cessation of hostilities. The envoys of peace, several Indians, accompanied by Mathew Elliott, a white man, bearing a flag of truce, met the advance soldiers of Dunmore when the latter was within fifteen miles of the Shawnee
towns. Cornstalk's embassy requested the assistance of an interpreter and an audience with Lord Dunmore. Captain John Gibson, was appointed as interpreter and received the message from Cornstalk's runners that peace was desired. Lord Dunmore, however, con- tinued his advance to the Shawnee towns and on Octo- ber 17 (1774) encamped on the Plains, in what is now Pickaway Township, Pickaway County. This camp, named "Charlotte," after Lord Dunmore's wife, or as some state after the wife of George III., who was also a Charlotte, was located on the north bank of Scippo Creek, a few miles from Cornstalk's town, the Shawnee capital.
106
RISE AND PROGRESS OF AN AMERICAN STATE
In his headquarters in Camp Charlotte, Dunmore (on October 19th), gave audience to the Indian embassy. It was an occasion of imposing importance. Major John Connolly acted as secretary; John Gibson and Thomas Nicholson as interpreters. It was indeed as Mr. Lewis says, "a great day away out in that western wilderness, white and red men met to consummate a treaty of peace, after a march of two thousand four hundred men from the heart of Virginia to the center of the then known American wilderness."
The officers gathered about Lord Dunmore while the Indian leaders acted as a retinue to the conquered Cornstalk. In all the dignity and passion of his race, in the simple but picturesque language of the savage, he recited the sufferings of his people, the wrongs done his tribesmen, and plead for peace. Captain Benjamin Wilson, who was present at this council, as one of Dunmore's officers, wrote of Cornstalk, "when he arose, he was in no wise confused or daunted, but spoke in a direct and audible voice, without stammering or repetition and with peculiar emphasis. His looks, while addressing Dunmore, were truly grand and majes- tic, yet graceful and attractive. I have heard the first orators in Virginia-Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee-but never have I heard one whose powers of delivery surpassed those of Cornstalk."
CHAPTER V. LOGAN'S SPEECH
T" HE day following the hearing of the Indian envoys Lord Dunmore submitted to the reassembled council what he called "The terms of our reconciliation;" to which the Cornstalk confederacy agreed. Those terms were in substance: the Indians were to restore, without reserve, all white prisoners in their possession; never again to wage war against the Virginia frontier; pay for all property of the whites destroyed by the Indians and return all horses and other property still retained, taken from the whites; no more to molest the boats of the whites, descending or ascending the Ohio River; nor hunt nor visit, except for trading purposes, in the territory south of the Ohio; to give hostages as guaranty for fulfilling above agreements; Governor Dunmore agreed that no white people should be per- mitted to hunt on the northern or Indian side of the Ohio River. Cornstalk could do no other than haugh- tily accede to the terms required by the Virginians.
But there was one brave distinguished in Indian affairs, conspicuous for his absence from that treaty meeting. He had sworn implacable enmity against the whites and had taken-in accordance with his vow-no less than thirty scalps from the pale face pioneers. His hostility must be appeased. It was Tah-gah-jute, the Mingo known as Chief Logan, though his chieftaincy, so far as the Mingoes were concerned, was nominal rather than real. He was not in the battle of Point Pleasant, though many authori- ties assert that he was, especially John Clark Ridpath in his popular History of the United States, in which the author erroneously says: "Logan had fought
110
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
bravely and taken many scalps at Point Pleasant." The evidence is conclusive that Logan was far away from the scene of that battle; he was not even in the army of Cornstalk. Perhaps like Achilles of old, he had sulked in his Mingo quarters,-on or near the Scioto-contemplating the entire proceedings with scorn and disdain. "His fellows, when questioned about his absence, answered that he was like a mad dog, whose bristles were still up; and when he was entreated to be present, he responded that he was a warrior and not a councillor, and would not come." But his influence with his people made it important that his concurrence be secured. His cabin, where at this time he resided, quite isolated from most of his Mingo tribe, was four or five miles from Dunmore's camp. The governor sent John Gibson, whose squaw, murdered at Baker's-as before stated- was the sister of the Mingo chief, to urge the attendence of Logan.
There is much controversy over the events that immediately ensued. According to Brantz Mayer, a partisan defender of Captain Michael Cresap, in his history of the latter, says, "Gibson found Logan some miles off at a hut with several Indians; and, pretending, in the Indian fashion, that he had nothing in view, talked and drank with them until the savage touched his coat stealthily, and, beckoning him out of the house, led him out into a solitary thicket, where sitting down on a log, he burst into tears and uttered some sentences of impassioned eloquence, which Gibson, immediately returning to the British camp, committed to paper. As soon as the envoy had reduced the message to writing, it was read aloud in the council; heard by the
111
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
soldiers; and proved to be neither a speech, a message, nor a pledge of peace." Mayer continues: "Thus the speech of Logan, which has been so long celebrated as the finest specimen of Indian eloquence, dwindles into a reported conversation with, or outburst from, a blood-stained savage; excited perhaps, when he delivered it, as well by the cruelties he had committed as by liquor; false in its allegations as to Cresap; and, at least, after being conveyed to camp, six miles distant, in the memory of Gibson, written down, and read by proxy to the council of Lord Dunmore."
Logan spoke English but could not write it; Gibson was versed in the Indian tongue and made an English transcription of the speech, unquestionably preserving its spirit and form in a most successful degree. In the year 1781, Thomas Jefferson wrote his "Notes on the State of Virginia." They were corrected and enlarged in the following year, and published in 1787. In these "Notes" Mr. Jefferson describes the characteristics and customs of the American Indian, and says: "hence eloquence in council, bravery and address in war, became the foundation of all conquest with them. To these acquirements all their faculties are directed. Of their bravery and address in war we have multiplied proofs, because we have been the subjects on which they were exercised. Of their eminence in oratory, we have fewer examples, because displayed chiefly in their own councils. Some, however, we have of very superior lustre. I may challenge the whole orations of Demosthenes and Cicero, and of any more eminent orator, if Europe has furnished any more eminent, to ›roduce a single passage, superior to the speech of
112
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
Logan, a Mingo chief, to Lord Dunmore, when governor of this state." Then, after stating the circumstances under which it was delivered and sent by messenger to Dunmore, Jefferson quotes the speech: "I appeal to any white man to say if ever he entered Logan's cabin hungry and he gave him not meat; if ever he came cold and naked and he clothed him not? During the course of the last long and bloody war, Logan remained idle in his camp, an advocate for peace. Such was my love for the whites that my countrymen pointed as I passed and said, 'Logan is the friend of the white man.' I had even thought to have lived with you but for the injuries of one man. Colonel Cresap, the last spring, in cold blood and unprovoked, murdered all the relations of Logan, not even sparing my women and children. There runs not a drop of my blood in the veins of any living creature. This called on me for revenge. I have sought it. I have killed many. I have fully glutted my vengeance. For my country I rejoice at the beams of peace; but don't harbor a thought that mine is the joy of fear. Logan never felt fear. He will not turn on his heel to save his life. Who is there to mourn for Logan? Not one."
Some years after the publication of the "Notes" containing the speech, Mr. Jefferson was charged ir public prints by Luther Martin with having forged or "manufactured" this address of Logan or at leas- the part of it in which the Mingo chief attributed the murder of his family to Michael Cresap. Luthe Martin was a brilliant lawyer and orator; attorney general of Maryland (1778); an ardent Federalist an( political opponent of Jefferson; he had married th
113
F AN AMERICAN STATE
aughter, Mary, of Michael Cresap. As is fully set orth in "The Olden Time" magazine, edited by 'eville Craig, Martin in 1797 wrote a public letter ) an elocutionist, who had recited Logan's speech, in hich letter Martin defended Michael Cresap as to ne charge that he killed Logan's family and accused efferson of fictitiously creating the speech, saying: I am convinced the charge exhibited by him [Jefferson] gainst Colonel Cresap is not founded in truth; and so, that no such specimen of Indian oratory was ever hibited."
Mr. Jefferson tartly replied to these charges in an en letter to Governor Henry of Maryland, written December, 1797, and published in an appendix to s "Notes" in the edition of 1801. Mr. Jefferson, in le letter, states that he published the Logan speech as [Jefferson] had heard it related at Lord Dunmore's, y the latter and his officers, after their return to tr tes d rg le r Williamsburg and as it was "circulated in the news- pers through all the then colonies, through the maga- nes of Great Britain and periodical publications of urope," adding "and I find in my pocketbook of at year (1774) an entry of the narrative as taken from te mouth of some person, whose name, however, is t noted, nor recollected, precisely in the words ated in the 'Notes on Virginia;' the speech was iblished in the Virginia Gazette of that time, (I have myself in the volume of Gazettes of that year) and ough in a style by no means elegant, yet it was so Imired, that it flew through all the public papers of It .e continent. "
114
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
Mr. Henry S. Randall who wrote an exhaustive and most faithful biography of Jefferson, verifies the latter's testimony concerning his authority for the Logar speech, even to the finding of Jefferson's "pocket-book' (of 1774) containing the copy taken down at the time Mr. Jefferson accompanies his appendix letter to Governor Henry with affidavits concerning the speech These affidavits which we have previously quoted il connection with Cresap's alleged guilt, prove unques tionably that Michael Cresap did not participate in th murder of Logan's relatives, but that Logan though Cresap was guilty and so charged in his speech, whic was reproduced by Jefferson as it came from Dunmore' report, and this version has been the accepted one i historical literature. In addition to that of Jefferso there are two other versions, immaterially differing preserved; one of these, taken from a letter written ¿ Williamsburg, February 4, 1775 found its way into th American Archives; another, also extracted from Virginia letter and later appearing in the Archive was published in New York, February 16, 1775.
There is another account of the circumstances und which the speech was conveyed to Dunmore. Th is the testimony made and signed by Benjamin Tor linson, on April 17, 1797. Tomlinson was present the Dunmore treaty proceedings and later testifie "Logan was not at the treaty, perhaps Cornstalk, tl chief of the Shawnee nation, mentioned, among oth grievances, the Indians killed on Yellow Creek; but I b lieve neither Cresap nor any other person, were named the perpetrators; and I perfectly recollect, that I w that day officer of the guard, and stood near Dunmore
1
G
P
115
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
person, that consequently I saw and heard all that passed; that also two or three days before the treaty, when I was on the out-guard, Simon Girty who was passing by, stopped with me and conversed-he said he was going after Logan, but he did not like his business, for he [Logan] was a surly fellow-he however, proceeded on, and I saw him return on the day of the treaty, and Logan was not with him; at this time a circle was formed and the treaty begun, I saw John Gibson on Girty's arrival, get up and go out of the circle and talk with Girty after which he [Gibson] went into a tent, and soon after returning into the circle, drew out of his pocket a piece of clean new paper, on which was written in his own handwriting- a speech for and in the name of Logan. This I heard read three times, once by Gibson, and twice by Dun- more; the purport of which was, that he [Logan] was the white man's friend, that on a journey to Pittsburg to brighten this friendship, or on his return from thence, all his friends were killed at Yellow Creek, that now when he died who should bury him, for the blood of Logan was running in no creature's veins; but neither was the name of Cresap, or the name of any other person mentioned in this speech. But I recollect to see Dunmore put this speech among the other treaty papers."
George Rogers Clark in a letter to Dr. Samuel Brown (1798) narrating the incident of the speech which he heard Gibson and Dunmore read; states, "The army knew it was wrong so far as it respected Cresap and afforded an opportunity of rallying that gentleman on the subject,-I discovered that Cresap was displeased
I mo
O t
116
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
and told him that he must be a very great man, that the Indians shouldered him with everything that had happened-he smiled and said he had a great mind to tomahawk Greathouse about the matter. What is here related is fact, I was intimate with Cresap, and better acquainted with Logan at that time than with any other Indian in the Western country, and had a knowledge of the conduct of both parties. Logan is the author of the speech as related by Mr. Jefferson, and Cresap's conduct was such as I have related."
Consul W. Butterfield, a most painstaking and usually accurate historian, in his "History of the Girtys," quotes Tomlinson's testimony and then says: it is now well established that the version as first printed was substantially the words of Logan, but it is equally certain, that he [Logan] in attributing the murder of his relatives to Colonel Cresap, was mis- taken. Girty from recollection, translated the speech to Gibson and the latter put it into excellent English, as he was abundantly capable of doing." Roosevelt in his allusion to this controversy, makes the comment, "he [Tomlinson] hints but does not frankly assert, that Gibson was not sent after Logan, but that Girty was;" again, "there is some uncertainty as to whether Logan came up to Gibson at the treaty and drew him aside or whether the latter went to seek him in his wigwam." To this Butterfield very emphatically replies, that Tomlinson's "hint" is about as plain as any frank assertion could be, and that he (Butterfield) is abun- dantly satisfied that Tomlinson's testimony in this respect is to be relied upon, "Gibson," he says, "was not ambitious to have his name connected with that
AT
117
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
of Girty, after it became odious, " and it had so become when Tomlinson made his testimony. Butterfield was thoroughly convinced that Logan and Gibson never met at all concerning the speech, but that Logan made it to Girty, who related it to Gibson, who wrote it down and passed it on to Dunmore. But, as Roose- velt points out, Gibson's affidavit was to the effect that he (Gibson) went to Logan and personally received the speech, and "Gibson," says Roosevelt, "was a man of note and of unblemished character and through- out his life he bore a reputation for absolute truthful- ness." Gibson's affidavit (April 1800) was to the effect: "that this deponent [Gibson], at the request of Lord Dunmore and the whole of the officers with him, went in; that on his arrival at the towns, Logan, the Indian, came to where this deponent was sitting with the Corn-Stalk, and the other chiefs of the Shawa- nese, and asked him to walk out with him; that they went into a copse of wood, where they sat down, when Logan, after shedding abundance of tears, delivered to him the speech, nearly as related by Mr. Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia; that he the deponent told him then that it was not Colonel Cresap who had murdered his relations, and that although his son Capt. Michael Cresap was with the party who killed a Shawanese chief and other Indians, yet he was not present when his relations were killed at Baker's near the mouth of Yellow Creek on the Ohio; that this deponent on his return to camp delivered the speech to Lord Dunmore; and that the murders perpetrated as above, were considered as ultimately the cause of the war of 1774, commonly called Cresap's war."
118
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
John J. Jacob in his "Life of Captain Michael Cresap," after discussing this episode expresses himself thus: "now, here may it please the court, is a witness [Tomlinson] unimpeached and unimpeachable, and fully competent to bear testimony, who declares first, that Logan was not at this treaty; that the pretended speech was made by Gibson, whose sensibility, per- haps, was a little wounded by the loss of his squaw, who was Logan's sister and unhappily killed at Yellow Creek; nor yet was Cresap's name in the speech," and thus Jacob pertinently asks, "Where shall we look, or where is the man, that can unriddle this mystery?"
Sure enough. We have entered into this discussion at some length because of its historic interest. Many more witnesses might be summoned and innumerable reviewers of the evidence might be heard, for the trial has been going on for over a century. Probably no additional evidence of value can now be secured on either one side or the other. The conclusion is absolute that Logan made the speech and Gibson reported it, prac- tically as published in the American Archives and reported by Jefferson. Few incidents in Ohio annals are more romantic or more worthy of careful preserva- tion in historic annals. Doubtless every reader of these pages has either recited that speech in early youth or heard it spoken to intent auditors, in assumed fervor from the school room rostrum. It certainly has been accorded unprecedented praise by poets and prose writers. Mayer cleverly notes that Logan and his appealing lament was the source whence the English
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
119
oet Campbell derived his conception of Outalissi, in Gertrude of Wyoming," and he has paraphrased, in hyme, the passionate outburst;
Gainst Brant himself I went to battle forth :--- Accursed Brant !- he left of all my tribe Nor man, nor child, nor thing of living birth! No! not the dog that watched my household hearth Escaped that night of death upon our plains! All perished-I, alone, am left on earth!
To whom nor relative, nor blood remains,- No! not a kindred drop that runs in human veins!
We have already cited Jefferson's comment upon s place in rhetorical effort. Roosevelt characterizes le speech as one, "which will always retain its place ; perhaps the finest outburst of savage eloquence of hich we have any authentic record," and Alfred ee, a most scholarly and discriminating writer, sec- tary to Governor Hayes and later Consul-General Germany, in his History of the City of Columbus, mmenting on Logan's speech pays this tribute: Taken in connection with the circumstances, which e said to have inspired it, this is one of the most thetic deliverances in all literature. In brevity, nplicity and directness of appeal, as well as in the mortality of its thoughts, it bears a striking resem- ance to Abraham Lincoln's dedicatory address at ettysburg. "
n y le al 10 er at .c- nd als ra- of rly hed has ose his fish
CHAPTER VI. RESULTS OF THE DUNMORE WAR
T HE day following the battle of Point Pleasant, the dead were buried in shallow graves and General Lewis began the reorganization of the victorious but depleted forces. Tem- porary intrenchments were erected and provision made or the care of the disabled. Colonel Fleming, though eriously wounded, was placed in command of the garrison composed of some three hundred men and officers, and on the evening of October 17th, General Lewis crossed the Ohio with about twelve hundred nen and encamped on the site of the present town of Kanauga, in Gallia County, Ohio. Thence, with ten lays' rations, sixty-one pack horses and one hundred .nd fifty beeves, the little army, next to that of Dun- nore, the most extensive and warlike that had ever ppeared on Ohio soil, marched along the Ohio and ip the valley of Champaign Creek. On the 22d they eached the banks of Kinnickinnick Creek, in the north- astern portion of Ross County. At this point, within ifteen miles of Dunmore's camp Charlotte, Lewis was net by the Indian chief White Fish, bearing the news hat the Virginia governor had made a treaty with the Cornstalk confederacy. Lewis's army however pro- eeded on to Congo Creek, and on the 23d went into amp to await further developments. Lewis was now rithin four and one half miles of Dunmore's camp. The general had expected that, either alone before caching Dunmore or in union with the latter, he would hake war upon the Ohio Indians and destroy their cioto towns. In this expectation the soldiers of Lewis eartily joined as the battle of Point Pleasant had iven them a bitter taste of savage warfare and aroused
124
THE RISE AND PROGRES
their vengeance against Cornstalk's tribesmen. In th various published accounts of Lewis's march, it i sometimes stated that Dunmore, learning Lewis wa advancing upon the Shawnee towns, sent message directing Lewis to stop and return to the Ohio bu that the victor of Point Pleasant refused to obey an continued to push on with the implacable design c punishing the Indians, proposing particularly to destro the village of Old Chillicothe, which stood where West fall now is and which was one of the strongholds ( Cornstalk. Indeed some alleged authorities assert tha Lewis mistrusted the good faith of Dunmore, suspec ing the governor intended no serious injury to th Indians but on the contrary wished to placate them an win their allegiance to the British cause. Indeed is stated that being unable to stop the march of Lewi the governor proceeded in person to meet Lewis an reprimand him for his disobedience, going so far in h insulting treatment as to strike the general with th flat side of his sword.
But of all this there is no foundation in fact. To th contrary are many undoubted testimonies. Colon Fleming in his journal, kept during the campaig. after relating the march of Lewis to the vicinity ‹ Dunmore's camp, says, "the Indians were struck wit a dread that we were going to attack their towns, we by a mistake of the guide had got rather betwi: his Lordship's camp and the towns and much near than we imagined. All the Indians with his Lordshi immediately quitted his camp, except White Fish, wl with Gibson, a trader, attended his Lordship to o1 army. My Lord informed us the Shawanise ha
re
125
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
agreed to all his terms and that our presence could be of no service but rather a hindrance to the peace being concluded, he ordered the whole to return which we did the next day." This statement of Fleming was written at Point Pleasant, where he remained in charge, from a report made to him by Lewis personally on the latter's return to the scene of battle.
Again Captain John Stuart, the historian, who was present, thus tells of the visit of Lord Dunmore to the camp of General Lewis: "When the governor reached General Lewis's camp his Lordship requested that officer to introduce him to his officers; and we were accordingly ranged in rank and had the honor of an ntroduction to the Governor and Commander-in-chief who politely thanked us for services rendered on so nomentous occasion and assured us of his high esteem und respect for our conduct."
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.