USA > Pennsylvania > Allegheny County > Pittsburgh > Standard history of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania > Part 84
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 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120 | Part 121 | Part 122 | Part 123 | Part 124 | Part 125 | Part 126 | Part 127 | Part 128 | Part 129 | Part 130 | Part 131 | Part 132 | Part 133 | Part 134
In all treaties with the Indians at Fort Pitt the Virginians were prominent factors, having in view the acquirement of this territory for Virginia. George Croghan and John Gibson favored the cause of Virginia. Previous to 1776 the county of Augusta, in Virginia, embraced much of what is now Western Pennsylvania. but at that date the territory was divided into Ohio, Yohogania and Monongalia counties. Pennsylvania also endeavored to obtain civil control of this territory. From 1750 to 1771 the territory was a part of Cumberland
. 730
HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.
County, and from 1771 to 1773 a part of Bedford County. At the latter date Westmoreland County was created and made to embrace nearly all of what is now Western Pennsylvania. When the territory was a part of Bedford County it comprised eight townships, as follows: Armstrong, Fairfield, Hempfield, Mount Pleasant, Pitt (embracing Pittsburg), Rostraver, Spring Hill and Tyrone. After the formation of Westmoreland County the necessary townships were duly organized. Virginia was not behindhand and also divided the three coun- ties above named into townships. Both colonies appointed civil officers to carry into effect their respective laws. It is thus seen that both colonies, true to the policies that had prevailed for many years, endeavored to gain civil ascendancy in Western Pennsylvania. It is not the design of this chapter to enter into a discussion of the conflict which occurred between the adherents of the two colonies. The particular objects are to present the claims of Virginia in a just light and to remove, so far as possible, any unfavorable judgment which may prevail concerning the integrity of the public acts of Governor Dunmore and Dr. John Connolly. It is customary and quite popular to look altogether from the standpoint of the Pennsylvanians; in fact, the correct attitude taken by Virginia and its agents in this controversy has never been impartially repre- sented on the pages of history. A careful study of the contentions over this territory between the two colonies must result in the removal of much of the odium which fashion persists in attaching to the names of Dunmore and Connolly.
In 1773 Dr. John Connolly, who resided here, was appointed by Lord Dunmore the agent of the Virginia colony, and on January 1, 1774, acting under such authority and in such capacity, he published a manifesto as captain and commandant of the militia of Pittsburg and its dependencies, and called upon all people upon the Western waters to assemble in Pittsburg on January 25, 1774, with the object of carrying into effect the civil authority of Virginia. Arthur St. Clair, then a justice of the peace of Westmoreland County, placed him under arrest and confined him for a short time in jail. Upon his release he promptly went to Pittsburg and continued his former policy. When Fort Pitt was evacuated by order of General Gage, in 1772, there was left here only a corporal's guard of three men. Soon after this Messrs. Ross and Thompson took possession of the fort and held the same until the spring of 1774, when Dr .. Connolly assumed command with a considerable body of militia in the name of Virginia and continued to hold possession until August, 1775, when Captain John Neville, also from Virginia, at the head of 100 men from that province, took command and so continued until the Continental forces were placed here the following year. It will thus be seen that the Virginians main- tained almost continuous control of this settlement in their designs to attach it to the Virginia colony. It is well known to historians that all the acts of Dr. Connolly were not only commended and approved by Lord Dunmore, but by the Virginia Assembly as well. His performances, which have been branded by the adherents of the Penns as tyrannical and unjust, must be regarded in the light of history as of a character thoroughly loyal to the power under which he professed to act. The fact that he resorted to arbitrary measures, that he overrode without compunction and with a high hand the claims and pretentions of Penn's adherents, is a signal proof of his ability, sagacity and loyalty to Lord Dunmore. That he was in earnest is shown by the fact that he remained faithful to the English cause; that he suffered imprisonment, ostracism and persecution at the hands of the Colonial forces, and that he was finally obliged to seek refuge in the dominion of the British Government. In view of these facts it will not suffice to dismiss the subject by characterizing the militia under Dr. Connolly as "a lawless set of men acting under color of authority." While
731
HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.
it is true that Connolly's proceedings were abrupt, arbitrary and severe, it must be admitted that it was necessary for him to pursue that course in order to place this settlement within the jurisdiction of Virginia. George Croghan stated, in 1774, that he had long been convinced that Fort Pitt and its dependencies were without the limits of Pennsylvania, and that, inasmuch as the Virginia colony had, during the winter of 1773-4, provided for the raising of militia and the appointment of civil officers, he would no longer countenance the laws of the Pennsylvania colony, which he had previously obeyed in lieu of something better. Connolly was sustained by George Croghan, John Campbell, Dorsey Pentecost, Thomas Smallman, John Gibson and many others. He was also sustained in the enforcement of the Virginia laws by a body of militia numbering about Ico. He was accused of brutality, but there is nothing to show that he used harsher measures than were necessay to effect his purpose. . He used his militia to sustain the courts organized under the Virginia laws. In the latter part of 1775 he was arrested and placed in prison at Frederickstown, Maryland, and after that date he cut no important figure in the history of Pittsburg. Although Connolly was crushed and Dunmore was thwarted, they did not for a moment lose sight of the primary object of uniting this colony with Virginia.
It is popular to regard Dr. Connolly as a man of no principle; facts will not sustain such a view. In all his movements he was loyal to Virginia and to the English crown. He was unquestionably a man of great ability and excep- tional diplomacy, and facts will support the statement that he was unrivaled in the early history of Pittsburg as an executive officer. Instead of pursuing a course of persecution and tyranny, history must regard him as a patriot of the English Government. He performed no act of treachery such as disgraced Benedict Arnold, but all his performances were consistent with the position he occupied and with his loyalty to Great Britain. It will not suffice to brush aside as an act of oppression the policy of Virginia to attach this settlement to that province. All the acts of Lord Dunmore and Dr. Connolly were sustained by prior claims of ownership. The Tories of the Revolution, to whom the inhabitants of the United States are in the habit of referring in the most deroga- tory terms, were afterward regarded, and have ever since been held by the English Government, as her most patriotic and loyal citizens, and to this day are known in Canada as United Empire Loyalists. Previous to the outbreak of the Revolution, Dr. Connolly was faithful to Lord Dunmore, to Virginia, and to the English Government. After the Declaration of Independence he was still faithful to Great Britain and still endeavored to secure Western Pennsylvania for Virginia. Accordingly, he assisted in the creation of one of the boldest and most brilliant political or military maneuvers ever proposed on the American continent.
This scheme of conquest was best described in a letter written to General Washington and by him communicated to President Reed, bearing date April 25, 1781, the following being the language: "Colonel Connolly, with his corps, is to proceed to Quebec as soon as possible, to be joined in Canada by Sir John Johnston with a number of Tories and Indians, said to amount to 3,000 (the number must be exaggerated). This route to be by Buck Island, Lake Ontario and Venango, and his object Fort Pitt and all the adjacent posts. Connolly takes with him a number of commissions for persons now residing at Pittsburg, and several hundred men at that place have agreed to join to make prisoners of Colonel Brodhead and all friends of America; his (Connolly's) great influence in that country will, it is said, enable him to prevail upon the Indians and inhabitants to assist the British in any measure." This brilliant scheme emanated from Virginia and was designed to regain possession of all the Western posts, with the idea of attaching them not only to the Tory possessions, but to
.732
HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.
the Virginia colony as well. It was really designed to be a masterly attack upon the rear of the Colonial forces; and after the Western posts had been captured the plan was to form a union down the Potomac River with the British forces in Virginia, and thus divide the Colonies as General Sherman divided the Con- federacy by his march to the sea in 1864. It was not only a continuation of the policy of attaching the Western settlements to Virginia, but was a daring scheme to strike the Colonial forces a deadly blow in the rear, and then divide them by a line of fortifications down the Potomac. The fact that several hundred men of this vicinity intended to join the forces of Colonel Connolly; the fact that the leaders were to be presented with commissions and that Fort Pitt and its garrison were to be taken by surprise and capturcd, largely through the influence and treachery of the residents, lend to this scheme an air of mystery, daring and importance.
The entire plot was originated in Virginia. Dr. Connolly was placed in command of the movement. He was given full authority to stir up the Indians, to unite all the Tories possible under his banner, and actually carried in his pocket commissions in blank to be given, according to his judgment, to such persons as should furnish him the greatest aid in the movement. After Pittsburg should have been captured it was designed to make it headquarters for the move- ments of the Tories in the West. Alexandria, Virginia, was likewise to be captured and fortified, and the Earl of Dunmore was to cooperate with the fleet on the Potomac River, to sever the Colonies and unite the Western Tories with those in Virginia. It was the plan that in case Fort Pitt could not be captured to descend the Ohio River and then sail round by New Orleans and join the English forces on the Atlantic Coast. This military maneuver was authorized and approved by no less persons than Lord Dunmore and General Gage (a). Connolly had been appointed a lieutenant-colonel in the Queen's Royal Rangers by Lord Dunmore on November 5, 1775. He was thus a Tory in the full meaning of the word, but at the same time there are many things to prove that both Dunmore and Connolly were working in the interests of the Virginia colony and incidentally for their own aggrandizement. It is reasonable to suppose that the leading Tories of Pittsburg were not only to be given commissions in the British army, but werc likewise promised valuable tracts of land in this vicinity as a reward for their services in case of success. Unfor- tunately for the movement the plans of the leaders were discovered and prompt action to thwart it was taken by General Washington and Colonel Brodhead. A considerable force actually assembled on Lake Chautauqua (Jadaque), but when it was learned that Fort Pitt had been repaired, that the leaders at Pitts- burg had been arrested and that elaborate measures had been taken to resist the movement, the force was disbanded. However, the movement may be said to have terminated in a most harassing Indian war, which galled and decimated the Western settlements for two years.
In June, 1774, a memorial was prepared and forwarded to the Penns recount- ing the performances and usurpations of the Virginians under Dr. Connolly and praying that relief might be furnished the adherents of the former. This memorial was signed by the following persons: Encas Mackay, Devereux Smith, John Ormsby, Richard Butler, William Butler, James O'Hara. James Fowler, Joseph Spear, Andrew Robinson, Frederick Farry, Robert McCully, George McCully, John Shannon, Gabriel Walker, John Walker, Benjamin Elliott, Alexander Wayne, Ralph Wailer. William Evans, William Amberson, William Hamilton, James Smith, John Irwin, Robert Elliott, Richard Carson, Joseph Carrell and Stephen Groves.
(a) J. F. D. Smyth's Tour.
735
HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.
Four weeks after the Battle of Lexington, or May 16, 1775, a public meet- ing was called here and resolutions were passed to sustain the Colonial cause. While it is true that both the Virginians and the Pennsylvanians participated in this meeting, it is equally true that the former largely predominated-another point in favor of the political aggressiveness and ascendency of Virginia. The records of the meeting read as follows: "At a meeting of the inhabitants of that part of Augusta County that lies on the west side of Laurel Hill, 16 May, 1775, the following gentlemen were chosen a committee for said district." It will thus be seen that the meeting was instigated and held by Virginians, or at least that they so greatly outnumbered the Pennsylvanians participating, that, the meeting was represented to have been held by the inhabitants of Augusta County, Virginia. It is also true that nearly all the members of the committee chosen were Virginians. Their names were as follows: George Croghan, John Camp- bell, Edward Ward, Thomas Smallman, John Cannon, John McCullough, William Gee, George Valandingham, John Gibson, Dorsey Pentecost, Edward Cook, William Crawford, Devereux Smith, John Anderson, David Rodgers, Jacob Vanmetre, Henry Enoch, James Ennis, George Wilson, William Vance, Daniel Shepard, William Elliott, Richmond Willis, Samuel Sample, John Ormsby, Richard McMaher, John Neville and John Swearingen. These men were appointed a standing committee of safety to meet political, civil and military emergencies likely to arise, and it was announced that they were vested with the same powers as were given to like committees in other counties of this colony. The meeting, by resolution, extended thanks to John Harvie, the delegate of this colony in the Colonial convention held in Richmond, and to John Neville, the other delegate, who was unable to attend by reason of sickness. The meeting cordially approved the acts of New England against the mother country and recognized the importance of taking steps to avert "the danger to be apprehended, in this colony in particular, from a domestic enemy said to be prompted by the wicked minions of power to execute our ruin," meaning, doubt- less, the danger from the Indian tribes. It was also resolved that the action of the Continental convention, at Richmond, of May 20, 1775, relative to the assembling of the militia, etc., "should be carried into execution here with the greatest diligence." The committee was required to collect all guns and have them repaired, whether in use or not. The meeting ordered to be raised a subscription of £15 in current money, to be sent to Robert C. Nicholas for the use of the deputies sent from this colony to the general Congress, and the full amount was raised at the meeting by the committce. John Campbell, of a select committee, was appointed to prepare instructions to the Congressional delegates representing this colony, and to set forth therein the wants and grievances of this community. John Harvie and George Rootcs were the representatives of the country west of the Laurel Hill in the Colonial Congress. Accordingly, an address was prepared elaborating the despcrate situation of the Western country with regard to the Indian tribes, and calling attention to the probability of an attack of combined British and Indians from Niagara or Detroit. It was urged in the address that should the Indians be stirred up by British agents thousands of settlers in the Western country would be murdered and their homes destroyed. The address also contained this important sentence-"that the unsettled boundary between this colony and the province of Pennsylvania is the occasion of many disputes." It will thus be seen that the meeting was controlled by the Virginians, and history must again record that that province had again antici- pated the action of Pennsylvania and had stepped in to gain the Western country for the purpose of attaching it to the colony of Virginia. Copies of the address were ordered sent to the delegates and ordered published in the Virginia Gazette.
35
,736
HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.
In 1776 Colonel Gibson, Indian agent at Fort Pitt, was succeeded by Colonel Richard Butler. At this time Alexander McKee was Indian superin- tendent. As early as 1776 Alexander McKee was known to be in communica- tion with the English commander at Niagara, and was suspected (justly so) of being a Tory. In the spring of 1776 he was known to have received a letter from Niagara and was compelled by the committee of safety, of which Colonel Croghan was chairman and Thomas Smallman and Thomas Campbell members, to exhibit this letter, wherefrom his Tory proclivities were learned. He was for- bidden to hold any further communications with the English authorities or with the Indians, and promised to comply with the demand. Later, when the leading Tories residing here found that they could do the English cause no good by remaining, and when it again seemed certain that they were likely to get into serious trouble by reason of their hostile acts, they departed suddenly and joined the British forces. Among them were McKee, Elliott and Girty. The termi- nation of the Revolution was the signal for a renewal of the controversy over the boundary. An amicable settlement was finally reached.
"When first the county of Westmoreland was laid out, commissioners were appointed to fix the county town. They are said to have fixed on Pittsburg as the place, but the Governor, at the instance of George Croghan, did not confirm the report. This gentleman, conceiving Pittsburg to be within a grant of boundary to him from the natives, is said to have been unwilling that the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania should extend to it. There is no kind of doubt that if the seat of justice had been then established at this place, the contest with Virginia which has given us so much trouble would never have existed. The strength of civil authority which would have been fixed in this quarter would have baffled at once all the efforts of Lord Dunmore to have engaged adherents. We have presented petitions from one session of our Assembly to another since the Revolution to have a county laid off, comprehending the town of Pittsburg, for in the present extended settlement of the country it would not be convenient to make this town the seat of justice for the county of West- moreland. Our petitions have not been regarded" (b).
An international question in which the citizens of this vicinity took great interest in 1786 was the proposition of Spain to permit the United States to trade with all Spanish ports in our own vessels, upon condition that we would relinquish the trade of the Mississippi country for twenty-five years. It was his opposition to this proposal more, perhaps, than to any other cause, that secured the election of Mr. Brackenridge to the State Legislature in. 1786. Other political questions which figured in the campaign of 1786 were the forma- tion of a new county of which Pittsburg should be the county seat, and the creation of Pittsburg as a borough. These were all important considerations at that time, and no party which opposed them could hope for success at the polls. As a means of defeating the proposition of Spain above mentioned the citizens of the Western country prepared a memorial which was very extensively signed, and addressed both to the State Legislature and to Congress, praying that the proposition should be rejected. Another important question carried into politics was that old certificates of the Government might be taken in lieu of paper money in payment of old land rights. Upon the affirmative of this question Mr. Brackenridge, during the campaign, declared his purpose to stand. Having pledged himself to sustain the Western country in its claims on these propositions, he had no trouble in securing an election. It was afterward claimed that in many particulars he violated his promise to his constituents. In 1787 he was severely taken to task, in a prolonged newspaper controversy,
(b) Gazette, 1787.
737
HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.
by William Findley, but emphatically denied that he had acted otherwise than for the best interests of the Western country. Whether Mr. Findley was correct in his claims is difficult to determine from the mass of conflicting charges and counter-charges made in the newspaper controversy. One thing is certain: Mr. Brackenridge, to some extent, lost by his conduct in the Legislature much of the confidence of the people of the Western country. He had promised that he would favor the acceptance of certificates in lieu of patent money for old rights, but when the bill was put upon its passage in the Legislature, he first voted against it. Although he well knew the sentiments of his constituents, he yielded to the pressure in the East and voted against the measure, but later, when it was reconsidered, in the meantimc having heard from the people of the Western country, he supported the bill. When taken to task for his opposition to the measure, he replied: "It is a principle of representation that the representative is bound by the instructions of those whom he represents; therefore, if the people of Westmoreland County are dissatified with my vote, they should send forward their instructions to the contrary, that in any future discussion of the question I may be bound by them." Unquestionably, Mr. Brackenridge was the shrewdest politician and the greatest diplomatist in all the Western country, not excepting even Albert Gallatin. He possessed great ability, and was an orator of uncommon power.
At that time Pittsburg was in Westmoreland County, and the three representatives to the Legislature were William Findley, H. H. Brackenridge and James Barr. Colonel John Gibson was elected, in October, 1786, coroner of Westmoreland County.
In 1787 the question of a union of the States under a new organic law was the most important question before the public. At the legislative session of 1787-8, William Findley and Samuel Barr, two of the representatives from Westmoreland County in the House, opposed the resolution which recom- mended the calling of a State convention to consider the proposed national constitution. They, together with the minority party in the Assembly, issued an address to their constituents, reciting, mainly, that they had been taken by surprise, and had not been given a suitable opportunity to reply to the resolu- tion, and for that reason had opposed it; that two of the minority party had been forcibly taken to the House by the majority in order to secure a quorum, and while thus detained, the resolution had been passed; that the only question intended to be considered when the delegates had been elected to the last convention, was to revise the Articles of Confederation. It was stated by the sergeant-at-arms of the House that "Particularly he pursued William Findley the length of a square, but he hastened his pace, and by turning a corner got out of view" (c). Mr. Brackenridge declared that Mr. Findley "lay that whole afternoon in the upper story of the house of Robert Irwin," presumably to avoid arrest by the sergeant-of-arms of the House.
The adoption of the new Constitution was an overshadowing question. The Revolution had been successfully fought under the old Articles of Con- federation, but now, in time of peace, many new questions of government arose which the old law failed to embracc, and all realized that it might make a vast and serious difference to the future welfare of the country to adopt an ill- considered and injudicious organic law. Many people feared that the old Articles of Confederation, which had served them so well during the Revolu- tion, and which they had learned to love, would be wholly suppressed and that a new Constitution, perhaps unwisely considered and unduly oppressive, would be substituted therefor. For this reason, and others, the people of Pittsburg
(c) Gazette, October and November, 1787.
738
HISTORY OF PITTSBURG.
and vicinity took great interest in the provisions and character of the new Constitution. Messrs. Findley and Barr doubtless acted in the Legislature according to their best judgment, believing that an over-hasty step toward the adoption of the Constitution would be unwise, and perhaps dangerous to personal rights. They therefore felt justified in absenting themselves from the House and in thus preventing a quorum and the transaction of business. Such course is not unusual on the part of representatives at the present day. However, in spite of opposition, the resolution calling for a convention of the State to consider the proposed Constitution passed in the General Assembly.
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.