History of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, Part 69

Author: Smith, Robert Walter
Publication date: 1883
Publisher: Chicago : Waterman, Watkins
Number of Pages: 790

USA > Pennsylvania > Armstrong County > History of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania > Part 69

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).

In that last-mentioned letter Brodhead also inti- mated that he supposed Capt. Campbell had been sent to Philadelphia to avoid a trial for his inso- lence to him. President Reed, in his letter to Brodhead, dated " In Council, Philadelphia, Feb- ruary 14th, 1780," mentioned that Campbell had attended the " Board with a representation of the affairs of his company." The above-mentioned correspondence between Brodhead and Lochery had also been transmitted, and examined by the presi- dent and council. Reed's letter continued : " Your appointment to the present command was a most desirable event to the authority of the state, as we considered your connection with us and natural attachment to the state to afford the most substan- tial grounds of harmony, and expectation that you would on all occasions promote the interests and welfare of its inhabitants. These happy prospects we had endeavored, on our part, to improve by a careful attention to the comforts and interests of your command, of which we gave you the most substantial proofs in the supplies and clothing for- warded to you from time to time. We cannot, therefore, but lament this change of prospect, for without entering into any discussion of the causes of dispute, it is easy to see that the friendship we endeavored to cultivate between Fort Pitt and the county of Westmoreland is most materially inter-

rupted, and that unless some happy measures of conciliation are adopted, there is little probability of that union of sentiment and action so essential to the public welfare in time of great and general danger. Such measures we have recommended to the inhabitants of that county, and such we must recommend to you. We have, though much pressed, declined taking any measures for restor- ing the men enlisted into the 8th Pa. regt. out of the rangers' companies before the expiration of the term of service, but at the same time we think it our duty to acquaint you that we cannot esteem the enlistment, under these circumstances, proper, for if they might be taken from their offi- cers one month before their discharge, they might have been taken at any time, and the very design of their enlistment frustrated. Still less can we approve the refusing of the companies provisions, which must have, in a great measure, destroyed their usefulness and made them a burthen to the country instead of a benefit ; and we doubt not, on due reflection, you will admit the measures to have been hasty, and, in their consequences, prejudicial to the public. Your zeal to enlist them we highly commend, and had you engaged them so that at the expiration of their term you could have turned them into your regiment, we should have thought it the duty of the officers to have promoted your men by any means in their power. We observe in your letter of January 2 to Col. Lochery you ex- press yourself to the effect that you do not know of any powers the President has to discharge or re-enlist the men. If you mean any powers vested in him as an individual, it is readily agreed no such powers exist, nor was it attempted to exercise any but in conjunction with the council. It was supposed he was fully authorized to discharge the men at any time the public service would admit. Not being disposed to assume powers to which we are not entitled, we hope the officers connected with the state will not easily suppose such a case, much less suffer it to influence their actions. But when they have reasonable doubts, we shall, on proper application, endeavor to remove them.

"We have carefully avoided expressing our sentiments with respect to any of the above points to Col. Lochery or any of the gentlemen of West- moreland, for as we retain a great personal respect for your character and services, we impute what has happened rather to inadvertency than inten- tion, and therefore would by no means lessen your weight and influence in your command or its neighborhood. On the other hand, we shall seek occasions to show our attention and regard."

In his reply, dated at headquarters, Pittsburgh,

* The ranging companies.

323

MANOR TOWNSHIP.

April 20, 1780, Brodhead said : “ As it expresses a want of attention to my duty, and is doubtless of record in the books of the supreme executive council of the state, whereof, although at present a soldier, I glory in being a citizen, I feel the rebuke, gentle and discreet as it may seem, very sensibly. It is, however, a small consolation, that the honor- able supreme executive council was not, perhaps, at the time of writing this letter, fully acquainted with circumstances on this side of the mountain, or with my instructions from his excellency the commander-in-chief ; and therefore I take the lib- erty here of mentioning that it was by his instruc- tions that I enlisted as many men from the different corps, whose terms were nearly expired, as could be prevailed on to serve during the war, and those of the ranging companies enlisted into my regiment, being destitute of clothing, I immediately ordered them to be clothed by my regimental clothier; and after having done this I felt an unwillingness to have the men marched to places where, considering the inclement season .of the year, there was but little prospect of their answering any salutary pur- pose, or even a probability of having them sub- sisted ; and the more so, as their movement appeared to be calculated only to favor the humor of a couple of unmilitary men at the heads of the ranging companies, or to prevent me from engag- ing them during the war into one of the regiments of the state, stationed on its frontier. As to my refusing provisions, I conceive my letter to Col. Lochery might have convinced the supreme execu- tive council that I did not refuse them to those companies, but as I had received no instructions concerning them, and your letter assured me they were not under my command until some offensive operations should take place, it appeared to me that I had nothing more to do with their subsist- ence than with the other companies raised at the same time for the defense of the frontier, and stationed below the mountain, and therefore I thought it unnecessary to give any orders respect- ing them, but left the matter between Col. Lochery and the deputy commissary of issues. I have a great personal regard for Col. Lochery, and by his late letters I am convinced that the harmony sub- sisting between us is uninterrupted, but I conceive on account of his connection with Capts. Irwin and Campbell he has been led to do things con- trary to his own judgment. The inhabitants of Westmoreland in general, I flatter myself, are ready at any time to acknowledge my particular attention and protection. I appeal to the wisdom of the supreme executive council whether, consider- ing the inclemency of the season, the scantiness of

our provisions and the necessity of preventing every unnecessary expense to the public, the rang- ing companies ought not to have been discharged agreeably to my recommendation to Col. Lochery, and whether Capts. Irwin and Campbell ought not to have been tried by a general court-martial of the line for their insolence and disobedience of orders. * * * I could wish, when other troops are to be sent to this district under its particular command, the honorable executive council would be pleased to communicate to me or any succeed- ing commanding officer the terms upon which they are raised, and from what magazines they are to draw their provisions and stores."

Reed subsequently replied to Lochery's letter of January 9, in which, among other things, he wrote: "We very much lament the misunderstanding which has arisen between the commander at Fort Pitt and the principal inhabitants of Westmore- land. We consider the appointment of a Penn- sylvania officer to that command as a very happy circumstance to the state, considering the state of our affairs with Virginia, and as it is highly probable that, in case of a change, some person from that state would be appointed to that command, policy, as well as prudence, makes it necessary to pass over transactions which, at another time, ought to be more fully discussed. * * * You will see the propriety of keeping secret our sentiments with respect to the commander at Fort Pitt, and doubt not, on consideration, you will see very powerful reasons for avoiding any disgusting measures, and that you will also on such an occasion make somes acrifice of private feelings to public neces- sities."

Lochery to Reed, June 1: "Col. Brodhead called me to Fort Pitt to confer on measures for the pro- tection of the frontiers. I am sorry to inform your excellency that he is able to give very little assist- ance to our settlements from the continental troops, although I am certain he will do every- thing in his power."

The proceedings of a certain suit in trespass, instituted against Col. Brodhead for appropriating the house occupied by Edward Ward and Thomas Smallman, in the vicinity of Fort Pitt, to military use, in an expected imminent emergency, in which £5,000 damages were claimed, and of another for taking the demised King's garden for soldiers' gar- dens, in which £40,000 damages were claimed - these proceedings, at least in the first suit, having been referred to congress, that body, April 18, 1780, passed the following:

Resolved, That a copy of Col. Brodhead's letter of the 27th February, and the rapeis referred to in it, be

324

HISTORY OF ARMSTRONG COUNTY.

sent to the governor and council of Virginia, and to the supreme executive council of Pennsylvania.

Resolved, That Col. Brodhead shall be supported by congress in any acts or orders which the nature of the service, and the discharging of his duty as commanding officer at . Fort Pitt, hath made or shall make necessary.

The then president of congress, Samuel Hunt- ington, in communicating these resolutions, or act of congress, to President Reed, reiterating the substance of the last resolution, remarked, "with which sentiment I doubt not the legislative and executive powers of this commonwealth will fully concur, and, so far as appertains to them, support him in every act that is necessary for a faithful discharge of his duty as commanding officer at Fort Pitt."

That clashing of opinion between Brodhead and Lochery is given so much at length because the keeping of a force at Fort Armstrong was affected by it. Though the troops were removed therefrom, it was not intended by the commander of the western department that it should be permanently vacant. On April 3, 1780, he wrote to Col. Lochery requesting him to order out from the militia of Westmoreland county sixty able-bodied rank and file and a proportionate number of commissioned and non-commissioned officers, one-third of whom were to be detached to Fort Armstrong and the other two-thirds to Fort Crawford and to the forks of Black Legs. They were to be drafted for two months, if not sooner discharged. That body of men, with a number of regulars to support those detached to Fort Armstrong, he hoped, would give sufficient countenance to the inhabitants of that county. He wished Lochery "to inculcate a prin- ciple of virtuous resistance against the common enemy." He did not think that that frontier, under the circumstances, need apprehend danger, but it might be necessary for the inhabitants to be on their guard, and they might rest assured of every possible protection in his power. On the 25th of the same month he wrote again to Lochery that he had been disappointed beyond all description in getting clothing for his troops, and, therefore, could not until then send a detachment to Fort Armstrong, and sent an express with his letter informing Lochery that Capt. Thomas Beall would start the next morning with the party and provi- sions for Fort Crawford, where he was to leave a part, if any troops were there, otherwise to move the whole to Fort Armstrong, whence Lochery's detachment was to be furnished. On the 29th Reed wrote to Brodhead: The assembly, at its last session, bad voted that four companies be raised for the frontiers, but the deficient state of the

treasury had prevented its being carried into execu- tion. "You will, therefore," wrote he, "render a very important and acceptable service to us, if you can cover Westmoreland in any considerable degree. After many consultations and much deliberation, we have concluded to offer a reward for scalps, and hope it will serve as an inducement to the young fellows of the county and others to turn out against the Indians."

As to the reward proposed to be offered for scalps, Brodhead expressed his apprehension, in his reply of May 18, that it would be construed into a license to take off the scalps of some of the friendly Delawares, and produce a general Indian war. He was not ignorant of the influence of the Delaware councils over nearly twenty different nations, and for that reason much notice had been taken of them. Their councils had been steady, and their young men serviceable. Goods, paint and trinkets- a small assortment of them - he thought would be more efficacious in keeping them so than paper money without these articles, which they could not be taught to regard as a proper reward.

On the 6th of May, Brodhead wrote to Beall that he had been informed of the discovery of a number of Indians opposite Fort Crawford ; that Beall had sent a man by the name of Guthrie for the Westmoreland militia, and wished that he might not cause too great an alarm ; if the alarm should prove to be false, or the militia should ar- rive at Fort Crawford, Beall should then proceed to Fort Armstrong. On the 13th of May, he in- formed Washington that the above-mentioned detachment of regulars was then at that fort. On the 3d of August, he wrote to Carnahan that he intended to again garrison the upper forts when a sufficient supply of provisions should be secured, and on the 18th, to Reed, that necessity had com- pelled him to evacuate for a short time Forts Arm- strong and Crawford, but that he would return to the garrisons so soon as they could be subsisted.

On the 19th, he expressed to Lochery his hope that, as the Monongahela was slightly rising, he would soon be able to return those garrisons to their stations, and suggested, September 6, that as the Allegheny. had then risen considerably by the late rains, no time should be lost in sending out those garrisons, since it was uncertain what views might be entertained by the British at Niagara. On the 27th of March, he wrote to President Reed that it would be impossible, under existing circumstances, to further garrison Forts Armstrong and Crawford, until the commander-in-chief would direct him to evacuate Fort McIntosh, which was at or near the mouth of Beaver creek.

John & kristy.

Mrs. John Christy.

JOHN CHRISTY.

The old and well-known resident of this county whose name stands at the head of this brief biography was the son of Daniel and Rebecca Christy, respectively of Irish and Scotch-Irish descent, and was born in Hopewell township, Beaver county, Pennsylvania, No- vember 7, 1800. He lived with his parents until he attained his majority, and then went into Allegheny county, where he learned the trade of hatmaking, then one of the leading manufacturing industries of the rural regions, but now carried on only in the cities and upon a large scale.

In 1822 he was married to Miss Agnes McGregor, of Allegheny county, by whom he had three children- one daughter and two sons. Being early bereft of his wife, he was married again in 1830, to Miss Sallie Ann Ross, daughter of Hon. George Ross, of Armstrong county, born February 4, 1805, by whom he had ten children-seven sons and three daughters. After his second marriage Mr. Christy lived in Noblestown, Allegheny county, for about three years, working at his trade; but, yielding to his wife's influence, in the year 1833 he removed to Arm- strong county, and purchased the farm on which he and his wife still reside. Here they reared their large and interesting family of thirteen children, all of whom at- tained manhood or womanhood. With the exception of two sons, one of whom gave his life for his country when in his twenty-sixth year, and one who died in his own home, aged twenty-nine, all are now living to cheer and comfort their parents in their declining years.

Coming to the county as they did when it was new and still bore many traces of its recent savage inhabi- tants, the Christys had much to contend with. Besides

being in straightened circumstances, with nearly the whole of their farm to clear, and no market for their produce nearer than Pittsburgh, their early years were full of hardships and deprivations. Their guiding motto in life, however, was, "Industry and perseverance conquer all things," and they have lived to realize in some measure its verity.

While securing by their well-directed efforts and cor- rect lives personal and family success, Mr. and Mrs. Christy have also ever diligently sought the good of the people among whom they have dwelt, and both by their effort and example have been useful to the community.

In their religious views they are Presbyterians. They labored zealously for the building and sustaining of the Appleby Manor church, of which Mr. Christie has been a ruling elder since its organization. Politically Mr. Christy has progressed from " old line " Whigism to Re- publicanism, and has always been deeply interested in all the issues involving the public good.

The names of the children of Mr. Christy are, by his first wife, Jane (Wilson), in Saline county, Illinois ; Will- iam M., a lawyer of Saline county, Illinois, and Daniel, a farmer of Manor township; by his second wife, George Ross and Joseph Moss, twins, the former deceased ; Mary (Mum), living in Pittsburgh ; Rebecca A., who lives at the old homestead with her parents; James, who died as a Union soldier, in his twenty-sixth year, from exhaustion after the seven days' fight in front of Rich- mond; John Calvin, a merchant of Rosston (who was also a soldier belonging to the western division of the army) ; Washington and Jefferson, farmers in Manor township; Amelia (Blair) and Stephen, who live in the same township.

325

MANOR TOWNSHIP.

It does not appear from the letters either of Col. Brodhead or of Gen. William Irvine, who, in Sep- tember, 1781, succeeded him in the command of Fort Pitt, that Fort Armstrong was afterward either entirely or partly garrisoned by continental or regular troops. Detachments of rangers and scouting parties were stationed here at various times, after the close of the revolutionary war, while the Indians were troublesome and dangerous. Two men were killed near that fort by the Indians, a day or two before Capt. Miller and his company* reached it, whose blood was fresh on the ground when they arrived.

George Cook, who was born about 1764, was a soldier, a scout, and resided in the Manor from either his boyhood or his early manhood until he was nearly fourscore, used to narrate to his neigh- bors, among whom was William MeKelog, of "Glentworth Park," from whom the writer obtained a statement of these tragical facts : While Cook was a member of a scouting party who occupied a fort or blockhouse near Fort Run, so called from Fort Armstrong, some Indians made a small cord from the inner bark of a linden tree, with which they anchored a duek in hole or pool in that run, formed by the action of the water about the roots of a sugar maple tree on its brink. Three of the seouting party, while out on a tour of duty, noticed the duck which must have appeared to them to be floating on the water. They set their guns up against a buttonwood tree, which, with the sugar maple tree, was eut down after that land came into the possession of Richard Bailey. While they were stooping to catch the duek, as it was presumed they did, they were shot by Indians, probably three, because three reports of gun shots were heard. They fell dead into the run, whose water was colored with their blood. Hence that stream also bears the name of Bloody Run. The bodies of those three men were buried on a knoll opposite where they were shot, eight or ten rods higher up the river. The Indians were probably concealed among the weeds, which were then quite rank and abundant. Several of the men who were in the fort or blockhouse, on hearing the gunshots, came out, saw what had occurred, and discovered the In- dians' trail, which, on that or the next day, they followed to the mouth of Pine creek, and were about to give up the pursuit, when, looking up the hill, they saw a smoke on its face. After dark, they crossed the mouth of the creek, and ascer- tained the exact position in which the Indians were. The next morning they crawled as carefully and quickly as possible through the weeds and

willows, until they thought they were within sure gunshot of the murderers of their comrades. They saw one of them mending his moccasin. The other two were, they thought, cooking meat for break- fast. They shot and killed two of the Indians, and captured the other. Having brought him past the mouth of that creek, on their return, and having reached "an open grove," they told him that they would give him a start of some distance ahead of them, and if he would beat them in running a race he should be released. He accepted the offer, started, but was overtaken, fatally shot, and his body was left where he fell.

The late Lt. Samuel Murphy related in his lifetime that a man by the name of MeFarland had a store about fifty rods below Fort Run, be- tween 1787 and 1790, and carried on a considerable trade with the Indians, with whom he was appar- ently on friendly terms. They finally captured and took him to Detroit. MeFarland was a brother-in-law of Gen. Andrew Lewis, of Virginia.

A blockhouse called the Claypoole blockhouse was built by James Claypoole about eighty rods below Fort Run, near the river bank. It is not now known just when it was built. It must have been between 1790 and 1796. His wife, Lavinia Claypoole, died in the last-mentioned year, and was buried but a few rods from the graves of the three men killed by the Indians as above stated. Peter Ehinger, with the ax-end of his mattock, eut her name and the year of her death on the headstone of her grave, which some persons still living re- member to have seen. That blockhouse was one of the places of refuge for the settlers and their families from the attacks of the Indians.

About 120 rods southeast from the site of that blockhouse, at the present residence of Charlton Bailey, is a very ancient well, bedded and walled with limestone. It is not known by whom it was sunk ; some conjecture it was done by the French, and others by James Claypole. The probability is it was there before the latter's advent to the manor. As soon as it was safe to live out of the block- house, his son George built a log house between it and the hill, where D. S. Herrold now resides.

There are two species of grapes still extant in this locality, which have been perpetuated from vines imported and cultured by the French. One is of the ordinary size, very sweet, of a deep pur- ple, and ripens earlier than other grapes. The other is of much larger size, delicious, and is called, whether correctly or not, the fox grape.

The security of the Westmoreland frontier, of which the territory included in Manor township was a part, was either directly or indirectly affected

* Sce sketch of present township of Allegheny.

326

HISTORY OF ARMSTRONG COUNTY.

by the causes which embarrassed operations at and around Fort Pitt, among which was the confusion resulting from the unsettled question * as to whether Pennsylvania or Virginia had the right- ful jurisdiction over the territory in which that fort was located until the latter part of the sum- mer of 1780, when the boundary line between the two states was definitely ascertained, viz., Mason and Dixon's line, which was adopted and agreed upon by George Bryan, Rev. John Ewing and David Ritterhouse, commissioners on the part of Pennsylvania, and Right Rev. James Madison, Bishop of Virginia, and Robert Andrews, commis- sioners on the part of Virginia, at their joint con- vention held at Baltimore, Maryland, Angust 31, 1779. Another distracting element was the pro- ject of forming a new state out of that portion of the southwestern part of Pennsylvania, which Lord Dunmore, "in the extravagance of his views and designs," had claimed as belonging to Virginia, and which was inconsiderately favored even by some Pennsylvanians in that part of our common- wealth.

Not only the confusion in the public mind and the lack of fealty and harmony caused by that pro- ject, but the want of ammunition and other neces- saries, interfered with the adequate protection of this frontier and the constant and adequate garri- soning of Fort Armstrong. "We have observed with much concern," wrote President Reed to Col. Piper, June 12, 1780, "that supplies of ammuni- tion intended for the frontiers, as well as other articles sent by casual opportunities, seldom arrive at the place of destination without much loss. * * We find much more difficulty in the means of transportation than procuring the articles. The public business has sometimes been delayed a whole day while members of the council were em- ployed in looking for wagons and horses, which is not only inconvenient but degrading." Later in the season, on September 16, Brodhead wrote to Reed from Fort Pitt : "Since my last, the whole of this garrison drew out to my quarters. The soldiers were led by sergeants. Upon being asked the cause of such an assembly, the sergeants an- swered that they came to represent to me that they had been five days without bread. They behaved well, and upon being told that their officers were equal sufferers, and that every possible exertion was making to supply their wants, they imme- diately returned to their quarters."

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.

History of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, Part 69

Author: Smith, Robert Walter Publication date: 1883 Publisher: Chicago : Waterman, Watkins Number of Pages: 790

Author: Smith, Robert Walter
Publication date: 1883
Publisher: Chicago : Waterman, Watkins
Number of Pages: 790