USA > Pennsylvania > Historical register : notes and queries historical and genealogical, chiefly relating to interior Pennsylvania. Volume II > 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
As to the character of the fort, it is everywhere called "a stockade fort." I have not been able to learn anything definite regarding its size; but it must have been small, as a large forti-
85
Fort Armstrong and the Manor of Kittanning.
fication was not required either to accommodate the garrison usually quartered there, or to defend the place against the Indians. The short time, too, during which it was occupied. and the fact that it was never threatened with nor called upon to sustain a siege would lead to the conclusion that it was not of great strength when built, and was not afterwards strength- ened.
The naming of the fort was the most interesting feature in its history-at least when viewed from this distant day. The author of the Annals of the West says (p. 716): "A fort was built on the site of the old village of Kittanning, known by the name of Appleby's fort. by the government, in 1776." This statement is incorrect in every particular. The fort did not oc- cupy the site of the Indian village of Kittanning. as we shall see presently ; nor was it called Appleby's fort, as I shall now prove; nor was it built, as I have shown, in 1776, but in 1779. As to the name of the fort we have all the evidence that could be desired. It would seem that Col. Bayard, who built it, wished to name it after himself or Col. Brodhead, but most probably the former; for, although his letters are not extant, Brodhead's replies, which we have, plainly indicate so much, The correspondence was evidently animated, and appears to have been not altogether devoid of a sarcastic feature. In a . letter of Brodhead to Bayard, dated July 1, he says: " I think it is a compliment due to Gen. Armstrong to call that fort after him ; therefore, it is my pleasure from this time forward it be called Fort Armstrong, and I doubt not we shall soon be in the neighborhood of a place where greater regard is paid to saints than at Kittanning, where your sainthood may not be forgotten." And in another letter of the 9th of the same month he writes: "I have said that I thought it a compliment due to Gen. Armstrong to name the fort now erecting at Kit- tanning after him; and I should be very sorry to have the first fort erected by my direction in the department named after me. Besides, I should consider it will be more proper to have our names at a greater distance from our metropolis. I never de- nied the sainthood of Stephen or John, but some regard to priority must be necessary even among saints." The name
86
Historical Register.
then beyond all question was Fort Armstrong, no other being mentioned in authentic history.
But where precisely was Fort Armstrong situated? It is always spoken of as "at Kittanning," and even as occupying the site of the Indian village of that name. But the name was used, as we shall see, not because the fort stood precisely upon that spot, but because it being an historic name, and the best known near the place, the fort was naturally enough said to be there, the better to point out its location to persons living at a distance and unacquainted with the geography of the country. The fort stood, indeed, within the manor of Kittan- ning, but not on the site of the town, for the town was two miles, as I have said, above the northern limit of the manor of the same name. The fort was situated exactly two miles below the southern extremity of the present town of Kittanning, on property now owned by Peter F. McClarren, and within half a mile of the place where I was born. I distinctly remember seeing the well of the fort filled with stumps some thirty or more years ago; and my father, who came to that part of the country in 1830, when nearly the whole bottom was covered with a thick growth of laurel, remembers seeing where the ground was burnt from fires being kindled upon it, and other indications of the location of the fort. I have also heard some of the older inhabitants, whose memories went as far back as 1795, speak of the ruins of the fort as they appeared in their early days. In short, there is, and can be, no question as to its being situated at the place I have designated. Of the relics found in the river bottom there I shall speak further on.
From what we are able to learn, especially from the letters of the commander of Fort Pitt, to which Fort Armstrong was subject, the following were the commanders of the place before, during, and after the construction of the fortification. Before the building of the fort, the first officer stationed at Kittan- ning, by which, I suppose, the site of the future fort is meant, was Van Swearingen, who, with some militia raised in West- moreland county, arrived most probably some time before June 5, 1776. Soon after, July 20 of the same year, he was suc- ceeded by Col. Æneas Mackay, who, with his battalion, was
87
Fort Armstrong and the Manor of Kittanning.
posted there, and remained till December 15, when he was ordered elsewhere. Mr. Philip Mechling, now past ninety years of age and residing at Kittanning, heard his father, Michael Mechling, relate, that when young he and others hauled provisions from about Hannahstown and Greensburg to the soldiers then stationed in the manor, but whether to those under Col. Mackay's command, or to others stationed here afterwards, he cannot say. Col. Rawlings was, as we have seen, ordered to build the fort and leave in it a small garrison while he proceeded elsewhere ; but it has been shown that he did not build the fort at all, or, at least, only begun it. Whether he left a part of his command there without a fortifi- cation or not it would be difficult to determine at this distant day ; but if so, the name of the commanding officer has not been transmitted to us. Col. Bayard, who completed the fort in July, 1779, was relieved of the command about the 1st of August. It would appear that the fort was not occupied for some time after this date, for on October 2, Brodhead wrote to Capt. Campbell : "Capt. Irwin will be ordered to Kittanning." But it would appear that Capt. Irwin would not or did not obey the order, for a sharp correspondence took place between him and Brodhead. In one of his letters, dated October 13, the latter writes: "You had my positive orders to wait upon me for instructions to govern you at Fort Armstrong, which orders you have been hardy enough to disobey and are to answer for." During this dispute Francis Mellvaine was sent to occupy the fort. Capt. Irwin appears to have left the ser- vice about this time, or to have been deprived of his command, for Brodhead in a letter to Lieut. Glass, or the commanding officer of Capt. Irwin's company, of October 18, says: "You are to march the company under your command to Fort Arm- strong, and there relieve the present garrison under Mr. Mc- Ilvaine." Later, there was talk of court-martialing Irwin, but it would seem not to have been done. But the officers of the fort were soon to experience another change, for under date of October 27, Brodhead wrote to Lieut. John Jameson: "I have received your favor of the 24th inst. I am glad to hear you are at length got to Fort Armstrong." He was to be the last
-
88
Historical Register.
commander of the post, for on the 27th of November, Joseph L. Finley wrote to him : "I am directed by Col. Brodhead to require you to evacuate Fort Armstrong, and to repair to this post (Fort Pitt) with all convenient dispatch, taking care to bring off all the stores in your possession and pertaining to the garrison of whatsoever kinds."
We are able to form no definite idea of the number of sol- diers that garrisoned Fort Armstrong during the vicissitudes of its brief existence, as but one statement is found of the force quartered there. Here and there in the correspondence relating to the post an intimation is made that the garrison, as we would naturally suppose, was small, ill-provided, and not remarkable for strict discipline. I am inclined to believe that it never exceeded one hundred in number, and seldom, if ever, reached it. Col. Brodhead writing to Capt. Finley says: "You will order two sergeants and twenty-four rank and file of ye worst kind to remain at ve post, and with all the rest march to this place" (Pittsburgh.) And to Lieut. Jameson he writes : "Your captain returned me forty-five men." You may, if you like, take a further remark of his to the same officer as an evidence that the number was not large at that . time. He says: "I have ordered for your garrison two kegs of whiskey and fifteen pairs of shoes." The soldiers who garrisoned the fort, it is needless to state, were not regulars but militia, as appears from the whole correspondence relating to the post.
But what ultimately became of the fort ? After the with- drawal of the garrison November 27, 1779, it was never after regularly occupied. Col. Lochry complained of Col. Brod- head's removal of the troops from Fort Armstrong and other frontier posts, and in consequence there was for a time a spirited correspondence between them, which resulted in nothing, how- ever, so far as relates to Fort Armstrong other than in keeping it without a garrison. The frontier was, however, protected by scouting parties. On the 3d of April, 1780, Brodhead wrote to Col. Lochry requiring him to order out from the mil- itia of Westmoreland county sixty able-bodied men of the rank and file and a proportionate number of commissioned
89
Fort Armstrong and the Manor of Kittanning.
and non-commissioned officers, one third of whom were to be detached to Fort Armstrong. But although on this and on other occasions Brodhead wrote to the militia commanders and to General Washington regarding the occupation of the fort, it was never again, as we have said, taken possession of per- manently. Detachments of rangers and scouts may have been stationed there temporarily at various times after the close of the war of the Revolution, while the Indians were trouble- some; but the fort would appear to have been permitted to fall into decay almost as soon as it was built. Such, in brief, ap- pears to have been the history of Fort Armstrong.
About one third of a mile below the spot occupied by the fort a block-house known as "Claypoole's block-house " was built by James Claypoole on the bank of the river. It was erected, as nearly as can be ascertained, between the years 1788 and 1796. It was one of the places of refuge for the settlers and their families from the attacks of the Indians. Many are the adventures with the savages which I have heard related regarding this block-house; but, as it might be expected with accounts depending upon tradition, they do not agree in all cases. I shall relate but one: 'A man by the name of Mc- Farland had a little store near the block-house about the year 1790, and carried on a considerable trade with the Indians, who were accustomed to come to the opposite side of the river and call for him to come over and exchange his merchandise for their produce of the chase. On one occasion they seem to have been smarting under some grievance inflicted by the pale- faces, and they determined, with that lack of discrimination peculiar to the savage races, to take revenge on the first white man they met. No sooner had McFarland reached the oppo- site side of the river than he perceived by his knowledge of the Indian character that something was wrong and that he was destined to be the object of their vengeance. He was made prisoner by the savages, but he succeeded in calling to his wife to acquaint her with his situation and to tell her to make the best of it till he should return, if he should have the good fortune to return at all. He appears to have been taken to Detroit; but whether he ever succeeded in escaping and re-
7
90
Historical Register.
turning to his family or not, I have not been able to ascer- tain.
My father and the other younger members of the family dis- tinctly remember the old block-house -- a building about fifteen feet square and two stories high, the upper extending a little over the lower to permit the occupants to fire downward upon any one who dared come close to the walls. It was a spot to which young people were accustomed to go in search of such relies as musket balls, flints, &c., which were much prized by the juvenile minds of half a century ago, and the more so as they had persons by them who could give a vivid-sometimes alas, too vivid- a description of what these things meant. The old building was torn down, or fell from age, in 1835; and the shrubs which grew upon the spot, and which I have frequently seen, marked the place for thirty years later. But these have long since yielded, like many other such marks of the past, to the encroachments of civilization.
Earthworks were also found at an early day at a point about a mile down the river from the site of Fort Armstrong, which some persons maintain were fortifications, and which were erected, as may be determined from the age of the trees found growing upon them by the first settlers, not later than the be- ginning of the last century. They are thus described by one of the pioneers, and his statements are corroborated by other settlers: "A trench or fosse extended along the bottom about seventy rods easterly from the river, and thence at an obtuse angle southeasterly twenty or thirty rods, which he estimated from the quantity of the earth thrown up must have been four or five feet deep, and as many or more wide. The parapet around the fort, which was a considerable distance below the trench, must have been several feet high when it was construc- ted. Its shape, as he remembered it, was somewhat like, though more circular, than a horeshoe, and enclosed about two acres." It was in the vicinity of these works that nearly all the relics of which I have yet to speak, were found. Now, the question arises, when was that ancient fortification and its out- works built, and by whom? The answer cannot be found in the records of history. If they had been constructed either by
-
91
Fort Armstrong and the Manor of Kittanning.
the French or the English, before or during the period when this valley was disputed territory, there would be some mention of them in the records of the one or the other, or of both claim- ants. Are they a part of the pre-historic works of the mound- builders? Rev. Dr. Eaton, of Franklin, Pa., who has devoted much time and attention to these ancient people and their works, is inclined to think the Allegheny and Ohio valleys were among the prominent places of their settlement. School- craft would appear to be of the same opinion. For my own part, I have not given the subject sufficient attention to form an opinion; but I regard that of Dr. Eaton as very probable.
Relies, I have said, have been found at different times in the river bottom in the vicinity of the last works described, but not, so far as I know, at Fort Armstrong. These relics appear, however, to be of French or Indian rather than of English workmanship. Among others I may mention two German- silver crosses about four or five inches in length, found about the year 1834; a great quantity of large beads, evidently Indian ornaments, were found some time later, but at what date I have not been able to learn; a silver band about an inch in width and eleven inches long, bearing an inscription which the finder does not remember, was also found some forty or fifty years ago. About the year 1832 my father found at two different times, and about a half mile above Fort Armstrong, six steel arrows some fifteen inches in length and of elegant proportions; also a small batchet and a little hoe, which latter was used either for cultivating the ground, or more probably as an adz for dressing the inside of a canoe; and with these were some other articles which have escaped my memory. Part of these things appeared in the edge of the river bank after a flood, and part were found at the foot of a large oak tree a short distance back from the river. All are now lost except two of the ar- rows, one of which is in the possession of my brother, James M. Lambing, of Corry, Pa., and the other I presented to the museum of the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, about a year ago.
92
Historical Register.
DETURK FAMILY.
BY MORTON L. MONTGOMERY.
It is seldom that a progenitor of a family settles in a locality as the pioneer in its settlement, takes up considerable land, improves it by persistent cultivation, rears a family, and trans- mits his name and property in a direct, increasing, and enrich- ing line to the fifth generation. A strong instance of such a progenitorship and such a transmission is the family of Deturk, in the county of Berks.
A fact worthy of special mention in connection with this family is its alınost entire adherence to agriculture as the chosen pursuit of life, from the beginning till now. The name does not appear in the political history of the county. It seldom appears in any pursuit, occupation, or field of operation besides farming. Inconspicuous, however, as it is in the great army of wage and salary workers in the multitudinous affairs of our grand social organization, so is it conspicuous in the owner- ship of land, in the production of things that through labor bring abiding wealth, and in the development of numerous members of our community, who have been and are distin- guished as well for their general health and longevity as for their integrity and respectability. And in it we do not find a selfish ambition to rule, to manipulate political affairs for per- sonal distinction or benefit under the public delusion of gen- eral welfare, but we find in every branch of the family the noble ambition to live and to thrive in the excellence of domes- tic life.
Many families dwell with pride upon their heroes in war and their representatives in peace. But it would seem to be too frequently the case that the more they display of heroes and representatives the less they display of themselves as a, whole; and what is so generally estimated as greatness and distinction in the former respect, is, in reality, but the exhibi-
93
Deturk Family.
tion of physical weakness in the latter. In this family, how- ever, the order-so gratifying to social vanity-is reversed. Though the name be not written in war or in polities to give it worldly prominence, and have no high-sounding titles nor lifeless granite shafts to bear witness of its greatness, it fills so large and continuous a space in our local history that it cannot be overlooked nor forgotten. It has had living witnesses which were brought down in the midst of the "Oley Hills" with their number ever increasing in a geometrical progression from gen- cration to generation for one hundred and fifty years, and now these witnesses are so numerous that, in the ordinary course of nature, it cannot for many years to come, if ever, run into ex- tinction and oblivion. And, furthermore, the whole family distinguishes itself by constant obedience to law, by upright- ness in deportment, and by thrift in labor. These characteristics have been developed to a wonderful degree in its great rela- tionship. Their beneficial influence in our community cannot be estimated. In looking over the family as a whole, it would appear like a great and wide mountain, composed of many parts, which are distinguished for their equality in respect to personal worth and development, rather than like a high and circumscribed hill whose parts are distinguished for inequality. It is a great conspicuous body out of many parts rather than a conspicuous part out of many bodies. And in this particular it is one of the most prominent, as it is also representative, of the many families in the great and populous county of Berks.
The progenitor of this family was Isaac Deturk, or le Turck, as it is first written in legal documents. He emigrated to this country about 1709, and, tradition says, from Alsace, having landed with his sister Esther, at New York, and settled at Esopus. In the spring of 1709 he was among the number who settled on lands on Quassick creek, in Dutchess county, New York, having then been twenty-three years of age, un- married, and a husbandman by occupation.
On June 11, 1712, the commissioners of land of the Province of Pennsylvania issued a warrant to him for 300 acres of land, to be laid out at a place called "Oley." This, by the way, is the earliest record of this prominent locality in our county. In
94
Historical Register.
this he is described as "late of Frankendal, in Germany." Two men accompanied him and took up adjoining land in the same locality. They were named John Frederickfull and John le Dee.
This tract was "to be holden as of our Manor, or reputed Manor of Springetsbury, in the county of Philadelphia, in free and common soccage, yielding and paying every year, on the 1st of March. one English silver shilling for every hun- dred acres." The patent was issued to him on the 28th of July, 1712, for the consideration of £ 30. The land is situated on the Little Manatawny, a branch of Manatawny creek, a short distance south of the present village of Friedensburg.
The time of his, birth is not known -- probably about 1686. He was married to Maria Gerber (possibly in New York) and had three children-a son John and two daughters: Catharine (married to Abraham Levan) and Esther (married to Abraham Bertolet.) He left a last will, dated January 22, 1717, wherein he devised the 300-acre tract to his son John, with direction to pay his two sisters their proportionable parts according to an appraisement to be made. This appraisement was made Oc- tober 18, 1727, by Philip Kiehlwein, Arnold Huffnail, and Samuel Guldin (residents in the vicinity), who directed John to pay his sisters each twenty pounds. Possibly the father died shortly before the appraisement was made. A quit-claim deed to John by his sisters and their husbands was not exe- cuted till December 30, 1761.
The quit-rent was not paid annually as it fell due. Isaac Le Turk paid twenty-one shillings for seven years, in 1719.
John was probably the youngest of the children. He was born in Oley about 1715, the exact time being unknown.
He was married to Deborah High on May 13, 1740, "in ye presence of George Boone, one of the Justices of the Peace for ye city and county of Philadelphia." The following per- sons were present at the marriage, and they, in their own hand- writing, subscribed the certificate: Henry Leinbach, John Hoch, Samuel Hoch, Abraham Bartolet, Esther Bartolet. Abraham Levan, Catharine Levan, Elizabeth Yoder, Mary High, Samuel Hoch. .
95
Deturl: Family.
Their children were :
i. Isaac, b. 25 August, 1741.
ii. Daniel, b. 18 September. 1742.
iii. Susanna, b. 27 March, 1745.
iv. John, b. 20 January, 1747.
v. Maria, b. 16 July, 1748.
vi. Samuel, b. 25 May, 1750.
vii. Abraham, b. 3 March, 1752.
viii. Daughter, b. 18th November, 1753.
ix. Esther, b. 9 February, 1755.
x. Philip, b. 30 April, 1757.
xi. Jacob, b. 24 November, 1759.
xii. Deborah, b. 15 June, 1761.
Of these, the first, eighth, ninth, and eleventh died young. All these children were born on the homestead. During his lifetime he increased the area of the property. Upon his death in 1781, it contained three hundred and seventy-four acres. In his last will he names his eight surviving children, and divides the plantation into two equal parts, devising one part to his son Abraham at a valuation of £900, (in gold or silver money, the Spanish dollars to weigh seventeen pennyweights and six grains,) and the other part to his son Philip at a valua- tion of £1100. The inventory of his personal property amounted to £811, 11s., 11d. He left an estate valued at nearly £3000.
Daniel, the second son named, was married to Catharine Levan, and had one child, a daughter. She was married to Jacob Breil, and had four children-three sons, Peter, Abraham, and Daniel, and a daughter.
John, the third son named, was married to Bartolet. and had children as follows:
i. John, m. -- Bower, and had :
1. Abraham.
2. Daniel.
3. Elizabeth.
iï. Abraham.
iii. Daniel, d. unm.
iv. Elizabeth, m. George Guldin.
96
Historical Register.
Samuel, the fourth son named, married Catharine Kerst, and their children were:
i. George, mn. Catharine Schmeck, and they had :
1. Samuel, m. Sarah Reiff.
2. George.
3. Catharine, m. Jacob Hoch.
4. Mary.
ii. John, m. Sarah Snyder, and had :
1. Daniel.
2. Samuel.
3. John.
4. Harriet, m. - Krebbs, Clarion co., Pa. iii. Samuel, d. unm.
iv. Jacob, m. Esther Goodhart (d. of John Frederick Good- hart, of Exeter,) and they had :
1. Frederick, m. Ist. Sarah Marquart, and 2d. Rebecca Livingood (widow).
2. Catharine, m. Solomon Moser.
3. Mary Ann, m. Ist. Jacob Geiger, and 2d. Isaac Brumbach.
4. Benjamin, m. 1st. Susan Hoch; 2d. Rachel Pyle.
5. Jacob, m. 1st. Susanna B. Miller ; 2d. Emily Shivers.
6. Joshua (went to California).
7. Samuel, m. Ist. Cath. Greenawald; 2d. Oranda Levan.
8. William, m. Mercilla Schafer.
9. Hettie, m. Henry HIall.
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.