Standard history of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, Part 72

Author: Wilson, Erasmus, 1842-1922; Goodspeed, Weston Arthur, 1852-1926. cn
Publication date: 1898
Publisher: Chicago : H.R. Cornell & Co.
Number of Pages: 1192

USA > Pennsylvania > Allegheny County > Pittsburgh > Standard history of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania > Part 72

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).

After the capture of the "Point" by the French, the grand object of the English was to regain possession; but this was not an easy matter, owing to the immense distance from the Atlantic towns and the heavily timbercd and mountainous country, invested with savages hostile to the English, through which a military expedition would have to force its way. The expedition of General Braddock in 1755, though he succeeded in arriving with a large force of men, resulted in failure; but the expedition of General Forbes in 1758 was successful.

According to William Johnson, who was cxamined under oath by a justice of the peace in the Province of Maryland, October 26, 1756, the French and Indians came very near losing the battle at the time Braddock was defeated. He stated that there were about 600 French and 700 Indians in the fort, and that about 300 French and 160 Indians were left to hold it while the battle was in progress. The French commander, two captains, many soldicrs and 260 Indians were killed by the English troops. During the progress of the battle the Indians started to run away three different times, but in each case were rallied by the French cadets and persuadcd to return and renew the attack. When the crisis of the battle arrived and the English began to waver, the French had spent all their ammunition except one round and were themselves on the point of retreating. They were saved from this course by the precipitate retrcat of the English, and having replenished themselves with ammunition left behind by the latter were enabled to force the retreat into a rout. It was then that the terrible slaughter

630

HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.

of the English commenced. Could the force of General Braddock have held on a little longer what became a butchery might have terminated in a brilliant victory for the English and the capitulation of Fort Duquesne. Only one round of ammunition prevented this result, according to Johnson. The latter also stated that the French had begun to build a town about three miles from Fort Duquesne (a). After the consternation in the Eastern settlements over the defeat of General Braddock had subsided, there was considerable talk on the frontier that the English intended to send another strong expedition for the reduction of Fort Duquesne. Could the Indians be won over, the capture of the fort, it was considered, would be an easy matter. The French made preparations to destroy the works should they be unable to hold it. They laid a large mine of powder in the front part of the fort along the Monongahela, intending to spring it as a last resort (b). In 1757 there were many English prisoners among the French at Fort Duquesne, who were treated as prisoners of war and as rapidly as convenient sent to Montreal. What is now known in history as Braddock's Defeat was at first called the battle of Monongahela. Immediately succeeding that slaughter about a dozen captives were burned to death on the bank of the Monongahela, not far from what is now Wood Street.

Provisions for the French soldiers in charge of Fort Duquesne from 1753 to 1758 were usually brought down the Allegheny River from Fort Niagara at the mouth of Niagara River, but occasionally large quantities were brought from the southward, particularly in 1756 and 1757. The vessels used were bateaux and could carry sixty to seventy bags of flour or from twelve to fifteen men.

It is generally supposed, and is not contradicted by some historians, that the attack of Major Grant upon Fort Duquesne, at which time he was so terribly defeated, was due wholly to his own rashness and incompetency. An examination of the facts does not warrant such a conclusion. The expe- dition was planned in detail at Loyal Hanna by Bouquet, Grant, Lewis and others. Before the expedition startcd every measure likely to contribute to success or failure was thoroughly discussed by these officers. No one at this day questions the military sagacity and high courage of Colonel Bouquet. He claimed in his correspondence with General Amhurst that Major Grant came to him and proposed the policy of taking a force of 500 men to attack Fort Duquesne, instead of the uncertain one of sending out several smaller war parties by Colonel Bouquet. The Indians had been trouble- some in the extreme and the expediency of pursuing and attacking them was under discussion at the time Major Grant presented his proposition. Colonel Bouquet not only acquiesced in such a movement, but was no doubt the author of many of the details which were formulated to be carried into effect. Major Grant, therefore, was ordered to proceed to within a few miles of Fort Duquesne and there encamp, and leave a small force of his 900 men to guard the provisions and animals and serve as a rallying point in case of disaster. The principal force was then ordered to proceed to Grant's Hill, the design being to reach that point at 9 o'clock at night, where an ambuscade was to be formed into which the enemy, after being drawn from the fort, were to be led. On Grant's Hill, which of course at that time had no such name, the entire force assembled (after a wearisome march of a much greater distance than had been expected) about 2 o'clock in the morning on the night of September 13, 1758, four or five hours later than the time' which had been fixed for the arrival of the forces at that point. Major Lewis had

(a) Pennsylvania Archives, 1756.

(b) Pennsylvania Archives, 1757.

631

HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.

been assigned to lead a night force to attack the huts or fires outside of the fort, and after speedily doing as much damage as possible was directed to fall back upon the encampment on Grant's Hill, where it was expected the French and Indians would follow. Major Grant was to remain on the hill to cover the retreat, and by means of the drums direct in the darkness the course to be pursued by the retreating forces. Accordingly, about 2 o'clock in the morning, or later, Major Lewis with a force of 100 Americans, 200 Highlanders, supported by 100 Virginians, moved down the hill . toward the . fort. This movement was performed in a cowardly manner and wholly mis- carried, and no doubt greatly disconcerted Major Grant and obliged him to change the plans which had been determined on at Loyal Hanna. In about half an hour Major Lewis returned to the hill and reported to Major Grant that great confusion existed in his command; that he could do nothing with them owing to the darkness, to the logs which crossed the paths, to fences, and to the impossibility under the circumstances of carrying his orders into effect. The truth is, the command under him refused in the most cowardly manner to obey his orders and attack the huts. A moment later it was learned that the soldiers ordered on this attack had followed Major Lewis back to the hill, or nearly so, without orders, in the most craven manner. All these movements consumed considerable time, and day was now fast approaching. Major Grant interviewed Lieutenant Mckenzie and Mr. Fisher, and learned to his dismay that the troops thus ordered to attack were in the greatest confusion, so that it was impossible to form them for an advance, and reinforcements were too far removed to be gotten up in time for an assault before daybreak. The disgraceful failure of this movement, it is evident, greatly disconcerted Major Grant and disarranged his plans almost at the moment when the battle was to begin. However, he coolly did the best he could and kept in view the original design of attacking the huts outside of the fort in which many Indians were supposed to sleep, and of having the attacking party fall back to the hill to lead the enemy into an ambuscade. Accordingly, in order to correct as far as possible the grievous error already made, Lieutenants Robinson and McDonald, with about fifty men, were sent to attack two or three of the fires near the fort, which they did with dispatch, but finding no Indians, set fire to the house. Day began to break before this party could return. Major Grant, in his report, declared emphatically that a greater number than fifty men could not be sent on this attack, owing to the confusion existing in his entire force. Thus again the original plans ordered to be executed by Colonel Bouquet were disarranged. In his report he blamed Major Lewis for not being able to carry into effect the attack on the huts, as had been designed, but this blame was undeserved, as the cowardice of the troops alone was responsible for the failure. At day- break he sent the Americans and the Virginians, under the command of Major Lewis (whose services he now thought to be useless), back to reinforce Captain Bullet, who had been left with a guard of fifty men in charge of the horses and provisions two miles from the fort, directly on the road back to the first encampment. Why this force was thus sent away at this critical time is not altogether clear, unless it was the design of Major Grant to get rid of those who had failed to carry into effect his orders and to establish a different and farther removed rallying point in case of disaster to the remain- ing forces on the coming day. It could not have been because of his wish to humiliate Major Lewis by removing him to the rear, because subsequent events proved that he relied upon the forces under Major Lewis, after they had recovered themselves, to assist him in subsequent stages of the attack.

632

HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.

About 7 o'clock on the morning of the 14th the fog dispersed and the day became clear. Everything indicates that Major Grant underestimated the strength, method and ferocity of the enemy and that he expected a compara- tively easy victory. Inasmuch as the fort and its immediate surroundings could not be seen from the hill, a force of 100 men was sent for closer inspec- tion and directed to take a plan of the place. Thus far no serious error had been committed, but Colonel Bouquet, in his report to General Amhurst, states that at this time Major Grant committed a mistake in not retiring and forming an ambuscade at the encampment several miles distant. It was thought that the force of the enemy was nearly as strong as that of Major Grant. The whole importance of the expedition centered upon the plan of drawing the enemy into an ambuscade and not of bringing on a general engagement in open daylight. The lateness of the arrival on Grant's Hill, the failure of the preliminary movements, and the confusion even to the extent of insubordination and cowardice existing among many of the companies, threw Major Grant upon his own resources, and obliged him to meet new and unexpected emergencies. His greatest mistake (an excusable one) was in underestimating the strength, method of attack and ferocity of the enemy. Upon the break of day, which occurred while confusion still reigned, several Indians discovered a part of Major Grant's forces, whereupon, as stated by that officer, "in order to put on a good countenance and to convince our men that they had no reason to be afraid, I gave directions to our drums to beat the reveille. The troops were in an advantageous post, and, I must own, I thought we had nothing to fear." This was the turning point in the success of the expedition. Major Grant's judgment was only at fault concerning the fight- ing qualities of his troops and the desperate resistance, or attack, which was to be offered by the enemy. He seems to have thought that the enemy would fear to risk a sortie, and to make it appear that his forces were very large he ordered the reveille beat at several different places. After the departure of Major Lewis to the two-mile camp there remained here under Major Grant 100 Royal Americans, 150 Virginians, 200 Highlanders, 100 Mary- landers and 100 Pennsylvanians. Major Grant, in this emergency, knowing that as they had been discovered a distant ambuscade would be out of the question, ordered Captain McDonald with 100 Highlanders to advance down the hill to attack the fort or the enemy should a sortie be made. Within a few minutes after the reveille had been sounded a force of about 300 French and Indians poured out of the fort and fell upon the 100 Highlanders at the brow of the hill, but were pierced by the latter. The enemy accordingly scat- tered and surrounded this small force. Captain McDonald was killed early in the encounter. Captains Monroe and McKenzie were ordered down the hill by Major Grant to the assistance of the 100 Highlanders. More of the French and Indians poured from the fort to reinforce their comrades, and soon the engagement was general. It would seem that either the proper support was not given to the Highlanders under Captain McDonald, or else the latter should have retreated back to the hill on the reserves under Major Grant. At any event there is nothing to show that the Highlanders under Captain McDonald did not fight valiantly until absolutely overcome and crushed by numbers. His force was well-nigh annihilated and many were killed, and many others chased into a small swamp at what is now Smithfield Street and Fifth Avenue, where they were followed and tomahawked by the savages. Major Lewis, from the two-mile encampment, hearing the fire, came to the assistance of Major Grant, although he arrived too late to be of material service. The 100 Pennylvanians, who were stationed on the right and were farthest removed from the enemy, left the field without orders and without

633

HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.

firing a shot, instead of coming to the rescue or assistance. In less than half an hour after the battle became general, the confusion without adequate reason among the forces of Major Grant became so great that a panic seized the men, who began to fly before the enemy. He endeavored with great personal bravery to stem the torrent of retreat, and from time to time collected small squads, which succeeded in checking the too rapid advance of the enemy. The retreat, aside from this, soon degenerated into a rout. Major Grant in a short time found himself at the head of only about a dozen men. He was then near the Allegheny River and was there surrounded by a force of the French, the officers of which demanded his surrender. Upon his refusal the firing was resumed, another squad of his forces having arrived; but the enemy was too strong and many of the men were driven into the river and were there drowned. Major Lewis, who had come in haste to the field, was cap- tured, as was also Major Grant at the river bank. It thus appears, that the principal mistake made by Major Grant was in giving battle to the enemy in open daylight. He was really outnumbered by the enemy, whose tactics of fighting from behind trees caused great confusion in the ranks of his troops. The English forces were pursued back to the encampment, where Captain Bullet, with his 100 Virginians and other troops which had rallied there made a gallant stand, losing two-thirds of his men, and the remainder were driven to the river, where they made the last stand with Major Grant. The cowardice of the troops under Major Lewis, which had been sent on the preliminary attack, and the inexcusable retreat of the Pennsylvanians from the field without firing a shot, so disconcerted Major Grant and dis- composed the remainder of his forces, that the impetuosity of the enemy and their method of fighting from behind trees, with an accompaniment of dreadful yells, proved amply sufficient to send the remainder of the British forces flying from the field as though possessed by the Furies.

As General Forbes approached Fort Duquesne on the morning of Novem- ber 25, 1758, the provincial troops in front were immediately followed by a body of Highlanders. As the latter passed along the elevated ground just east of the fort, they moved over an Indian racetrack, along which a number of poles stripped of bark had been driven, upon each of which were fixed the head and kilt of a Highlander who had been killed at Grant's defeat. As the Highlanders passed the track and saw how their countrymen had been treated, they became exasperated beyond bounds; so much so that in a frenzy they threw down their guns, drew their broadswords and rushed forward, foaming with rage, like so many "mad boars engaged in battle," as Captain Craighead expressed it. Great was their disappointment a few minutes later to find that the enemy had fled down the river" (e).

The French officers in possession of the "Point" in 1758 were satisfied, owing to the lack of strength and want of necessary supplies, that they could not hold the fort against the army under General Forbes, and, accordingly, blew up or destroyed everything possible, and sailed down the Ohio, or up the Allegheny, just previous to the appearance of the English troops. Fort Duquesne was thus destroyed in November, 1758, but the army of General Forbes immediately erected temporary barracks and a redoubt to be used until a larger and stronger fortification could be built. In August, 1759, a large force of workmen arrived here to build the new fort. "It is now near a month since the army has been employed in erecting a most formidable fortification, such a one as will, to latest posterity, secure the British empire on the Ohio" (f). This extract fixes the

(e) Narrative of Captain Craighead in Gazette, June 18, 1833.

(f) Extract from a letter, written from Pittsburg, and dated September 24, 1759.

634

HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.

date of the commencement of the workmen to erect Fort Pitt. General Stanwix commanded the English troops and workmen.

Fort Pitt, thus built, was rightly considered a fortification of great strength. The garrison and the inhabitants felt that they were safe from Indian depredations when near the fort. It was not until 1761 that the earthworks on the river sides of the fort were completed. James Kenney, under date of November 19th of that year, wrote in his diary that the fort banks were nearly raised. The front next the inhabitants was of brick, with corners of hewn stone. The fort was four-sided, with a row of barracks on each side, three of which were frame and one of brick. Three wells were dug inside of the fort, and an open space of about two acres lay in the center, and on the southeast bastion was a pole from which, on Sunday's and holidays, a flag was flung. At the back of each row of barracks were vaults, magazines and dungeons in which prisoners were confined.

At the treaty held at Fort Pitt in July, 1759, between the English and the chiefs and warriors of many Indian tribes, there were present George Croghan, deputy of Sir William Johnson, agent and superintendent; Colonel Hugh Mercer, commandant at Pittsburg; Captains Trent, McKee, Waggoner, Wood- ward, Prentice, Morgan, Smallman, Clayton and Ward; Lieutenants Matthews, Hydler, Biddle, Conrad, Kennedy, Sumner, Anderson, Kitchens, Dangerfield and Wright; Ensigns Crawford (1), Crawford (2), Morgan, McVicar, Armsby, Allen, Gibson and Lightfoot, and Henry Montour, interpreter. At a treaty held here in April, 1768, there were present George Croghan, deputy agent; John Allen and John Shippen, Pennsylvania commissioners; Alexander McKee, Indian commissioner; Colonel John Reed, commandant; Captains Charles Ed- monstone and Pownall; Lieutenants Thomas Ford, Alexander McClellan, Jesse Wright, Samuel Steel, William Wood, Thomas Ball; Ensigns Thomas Hutch- ins, Robert Hamilton, James Savage, Godfrey Tracy, and Henry Montour, interpreter.

In 1760 a party of boatbuilders was sent by the Government to Fort Pitt to construct bateaux for the navigation of the Ohio and its tributaries. The party consisted of Jehu Eyre, John Midwinter, Isaac Middleton, Samuel Duen- shear, William Flood, Daniel Delaney, Nathaniel Goforth, George Careless, Henry Bragg, Friend Streeton, Thomas Smith, John Barter, Daniel Rambo, David Row, James Tull, William McAllister, and George, the sawyer. They reached Fort Pitt June 30th and the next day began to build bateaux. On July Ioth they began the construction of the bomb-proof magazine in the fort. They cut timber in the adjoining woods, hewed puncheons, built and caulked bateaux, built scows, cut log's for other storehouses, etc. (g).

The English determined to make no further mistake in establishing them- selves permanently at the "Point." The sum of £60,000 was spent upon the fort, and it was well known in the Eastern cities, whence the workmen came, that after the new fort had been erected, settlers would receive ample pro- tection from both the French and the Indians. Accordingly, it is not improb- able that a few permanent settlers arrived with the English army in August, 1759. All the settlers and traders here during the French occupation had vanished with the retreating French forces. If any permanent settlers came with the English army in 1759 they must have been few, but the following year saw a large advent of residents, independent of, and in no way connected with, the soldiers except to obtain from them, for goods or services, the money which they received as their pay. That many came in 1760 who intended to remain permanently, and who in no way, except as stated, were connected

(g) Pennsylvania Magazine, Vol. III.

S.o. B. Hill

Goodspeed. & ou Winy Chicago

637

HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.

with the soldiers, there can be no doubt. Consequently, if the permanent set- tlement of the "Point"' is declared not to have been made in 1754, it cannot be said not to have been made at least as early as 1760. The mere laying out of a few blocks of lots has nothing to do with the question, not even with the municipal growth, because that act was performed only to secure claims to land which had been already established. The demand for the laying out and recording in permanent form of lots arose only because rival claimants for the same tract of ground appeared. The very fact that there was a demand for the plotting of a town proves not only the existence of prior and conflicting claims, but also the permanent intentions of the previous claimants. This fact would alone establish the date of perma- nency at 1760, when the first large influx of settlers appeared, and not in 1764, when the first four blocks were laid out by Colonel John Campbell. However, if these facts were not sufficient, the long list of residents who had come here for permanent settlement, and who were independent of the gar- rison, and even of the workmen, would alone fix the date at 1760. In July, 1760, there were located here, independent of the garrison, a total of 88 men, 29 women, 14 male children and 18 female children, and were then standing 146 completed houses, 19 unfinished houses and 36 "hutts." This list was prepared, apparently, by the officer in charge of the garrison and seems to have been obtained from records yet on file in the British Museum. The list of names and the caption thereto read as follows, and particular attention is called to the fact that the inhabitants were said not to have belonged to the army.

"A LIST OF THE NUMBER OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN NOT BELONGING TO THE ARMY; ALSO THE NUMBER OF HOUSES AND HUTTS AT FORT PITT, 22d JULY, 1760:

"Men's Names .- John Langdale, John Barklit, Hugh McSwine, James Braden, Philip Boyle, John Greenfield, Edward Graham, Lewis Bernard, Sam- uel Heyden, William Splane, Robert Hook, John Pierce, William McAllister, James St. Clair, Erasmus Bokias, John Everlow, George Carr, Edward Cook, William Bryan, James Harris (imperfect), William Work, William Downey, James Milligan, John Lindsay, Alex. Ewing, Andrew Biarly, Isaac Hall, Laz- arus Lowry, Uriah Hill, Edward Ward, William Trent, John Finley, Hugh Crawford, Joseph Spear, John McCluer, Thomas Welsh, James Cahoon, Patrick Cunning'm, Samuel Heyden, James Reed, John Daily, Charles Boyle, William Jacobs, Robert Paris, William Fowler, John Judy, Thomas Small, Cornelius Atkinson, Robert Reed, Neil McCullom, John Work, George Tomb, George Sly, Patrick McCarty, Chris. Millar, William Heath, William Winsor, John Graham, John Robinson, John Duncastle, France Ferdinanders Harnider, Nich- olas Phillips, Conrad Crone, (imperfect)-alesky, (imperfect)-dor, (imperfect)-, (imperfect) Sinnott, Jacob Sinnott, John Coleman, Abraham Lingenfilder, Charles Hays, James Sampson, Matthias Doherick, Peter Mumaw, John Snyder, Windle Creamer, Peter Smith, Henry Wumbock, Adam Overwinter, Paul Sharp, Tincas Smith, Philip Byarly, Anthony Baker, Chris. Rorabunck, Thomas Bretton, Joseph George and Ephraim Blane-total men 88. Women's Names-Susan- nah McSwine, Mary Wallen, Mary Atkinson, Martha Reed, Elizabeth Randal, Phebe Byarly, Judah Crawford, Mary Reed, Anna Thomas, Sarah Daily, Hen- eritta Price, Elizabeth Boyle, Elizabeth Jacobs, Mary Judy, Mary Reed, Marget Pomry, Chris'm McCullom, Agnus Tomb, Marget Sly, Lydia McCarty, Lenora Rogers, Elenor Millar, Bridget Winsor, Marget Crone, Susannah Sinnott, Mary Hays, Marget Sampson, Cate Creamer, Chris. Smith-total women 29. Male Children-George McSwine, Jacob Byarly, John Reed, Robert Atkinson, George

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.

Standard history of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, Part 72

Author: Wilson, Erasmus, 1842-1922; Goodspeed, Weston Arthur, 1852-1926. cn Publication date: 1898 Publisher: Chicago : H.R. Cornell & Co. Number of Pages: 1192

Author: Wilson, Erasmus, 1842-1922; Goodspeed, Weston Arthur, 1852-1926. cn
Publication date: 1898
Publisher: Chicago : H.R. Cornell & Co.
Number of Pages: 1192