Chapter 9

[1]Perkins,France under Louis XV, II, pp. 1-83.[2]Parkman,Montcalm and Wolfe, I, pp. 1-39.[3]Parkman,Montcalm and Wolfe, I, pp. 39-67.[4]Hunt,Pol. Hist. of England, X, pp. 23-40.[5]Text of treaty in Chalmers,Collections of Treaties, I, 467-483. Canadian Archives, 1907Report, 73-84. Hildreth,Hist. of U. S., 501-503.[6]Parkman,La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West, 312.[7]Ibid., 312.[8]Cahokia was founded in 1699 by the priests of the Seminary of Foreign Missions.[9]Winsor,Narr. and Crit. Hist.V, 43.[10]Ibid., 49.[11]Ibid., 53.[12]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 272-273.[13]For the Indian rebellion the best secondary accounts are: Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, 2 vols., passim. Kingsford,Hist. of Can., 1-112. Poole, The West, in Winsor,Narr. & Crit. Hist. of Amer., VI., 684-700. Winsor,Miss. Basin, 432-446. Bancroft,Hist. of U. S., IV., 110-133. (Ed. of 1852, containing references.)[14]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, I, 182.[15]Johnson to Lords of Trade,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, pp 929, 955, 960, 964, 987.[16]Johnson to Amherst, July 11th, 1763,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 532.[17]Johnson to Amherst, July 11th, 1763.N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 532.[18]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, I, 181, quoting from a letter of Sir William Johnson to Gov. Colden, Dec. 24, 1763. Winsor,Miss. Basin, 433.[19]Johnson to Lords of Trade, July 1, 1763,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 525. Johnson to Amherst, July 8, 1763, Ibid., 531. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Dec. 26, 1764, Ibid., 688-689. Gage to Bouquet, June 5, 1764, Can. Arch., Series A, Vol. 8, p 409. Gage to Bouquet, Oct. 21, 1764, Ibid., p 481. Johnson to Gov. Colden, Jan. 22, 1765, Johnson MSS, X, No. 99.[20]Can. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 470. Neyon to Kerlerc, Dec. 1, 1763, Bancroft Coll., Lenox Lib. Extract from letters of M. D'Abaddie, Jan., 1764,Can. Arch. Report, I, 471. D'Abaddie to the French minister, 1764, Ibid., 472.[21]This is the view taken by Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 279, and by Bancroft,Hist. of U. S., V, 133, 136. But Kingsford, in hisHist. of Can., V, 25, takes an opposite view. He says that the "high character claimed for Pontiac cannot be established." "He can be looked upon in higher light, than the instrument of the French officials and traders." On page 6 he declares that "there is no evidence to establish him as the central figure organizing this hostile feeling."[22]Gage to Halifax, July 15, 1764, Bancroft Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Winsor,Miss. Basin, 444, 456. Winsor,Narr. & Crit. Hist. of Am.VI, 702.[23]Beer,British Col. Policy, 263. Kingsford,Hist. of Can., V, 68.[24]Winsor,Miss. Basin, 633. Ogg,Opening of Miss., 301.[25]Bouquet to Amherst, Dec. 1, 1763, Can. Arch., Ser. A, Vol. IV, p 413. Gage to Bouquet, Dec. 22, 1763, Ibid., Vol. 8, p. 341.[26]Lt. Col. Robertson to Gage, March 8, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765, De Villers,Les dernièrs Années de la Louisiana, 180.[27]Robertson to Gage, Mar. 8, 1764.[28]Ibid.[29]Loftus to Gage, April 9, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Gage to Halifax, May 21, 1764, Ibid. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, 88, 283, 285. Kingsford,Hist. of Can., V, 69-74. Winsor,Narr. and Crit. Hist. of Am., VI, 701, 702, Gayarre,Louisiana, II, 102-103.[30]Loftus to Gage, April 9, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. De Villers,Les dernières Années de la Louisiana, 182-184.[31]Ibid.[32]Robertson to Gage, Mar. 8, 1764, Ibid. "Account of what happened when the English attempted to take possession of Illinois by way of the Mississippi," from Paris documents, Can. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 407-411. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 284, note 1, containing a letter from Gage thanking D' Abadie for his efforts in behalf of the English.[33]Extract from the correspondence of D' Abadie with the French commandants, Jan., 1764.Can. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 471. Parkman, who made a careful study of the correspondence in the French archives, came to the conclusion that the French officials may be exonerated. Winsor holds a similar view in hisMississippi Basin, 452. See also Cayarre,Louisiana, II, 101. Kingford, in hisHist, of Can., V, 69-74, places no dependence in D' Abadie's statements. On the other hand he bases most of his argument upon a letter of Loftus which he quotes at length, but gives no hint as to its location, date, &c. It is evidently not the letter written to Gage, which is quoted above.[34]Loftus to Gage, April 9th, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.[35]Gage to Halifax, April 14th, 1764,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 619.[36]This has reference to those tribes along the Mississippi River who were in direct communication with Pontiac and the French. The great Cherokee and Chicksaw nations were favorable to the English.[37]Gage to Bouquet, May 21, 1764, Can. Arch., Ser. A, Vol. 8, p 393. Gage to Halifax, May 2d, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Gage to Haldimand, May 27, 1764, Brit. Mus., Add. MSS, 21, 662. Gage to Halifax, July 13, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.[38]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, Winsor,Miss. Basin, 454.[39]St. Ange to D' Abadie, Aug. 16, 1764,Can. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 471. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 279-280.[40]The original journal kept by Morris during his journey is reprinted in Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 198-208. There is also a biographical sketch in the same volume. Correspondence relating to the Morris mission is to be found in the Bouquet Collection, Can. Arch., Ser. A, Vol. 8, pp 475-491. For a good account of the incident, see Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 198-208, and Kingsford,Hist. of Canada, V, 8.[41]This incident illustrates the practical failure of Bradstreet's campaign against the Indians in the Lake region. While he retook the posts, his terms were so easy that the Indians were not in the least awed by the proximity of his army.[42]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 305.[43]Ross to Farmer, Feb. 21, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Gage to Halifax, Aug. 10, 1765, Ibid.[44]Ross to Farmer, May 25, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. H. Gordon to Johnson, Aug. 10, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 73.[45]Ross to Farmer, May 25, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.[46]Ibid.[47]Ibid.[48]Ibid. Copy of Council held at the Illinois in April, 1765, Home Office Papers, Dom., Geo. III, Vol. 3, No. 4(1). Public Rec. Office. Copy of minutes of Council, April 4, 1765, inCan. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 473. See also De Villiers,Les dernières Années de la Louisiana, p. 220.[49]Ross to Farmer, May 25, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.[50]Johnson to Gage, June 9, 1764, Johnson MSS, Vol. XIX, No. 111. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Dec 26, 1764,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 689. Bouquet to Gage, Jan. 5, 1765, Can. Arch., Ser. A, Vol. VII, p 111. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 291-292. Winsor,Narr. & Crit. Hist, of Am., VI, 702. Croghan is one of the most interesting figures of the period. He had entire charge, as Sir William Johnson's deputy, of the Indians in the Ohio river region and was thoroughly conversant with western affairs. For biographical sketch see Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 47-52, orN. Y. Col. Docs., VII.[51]Gage to Bouquet, Dec. 24, 1764, Can. Arch., Ser. A, Vol. VIII, p 499. Ibid., Dec. 30, 1764, Ibid. This distinction is not generally made. Writers have usually inferred that Fraser simply accompanied Croghan in an unofficial capacity. See, however, Winsor,Miss. Basin, 456. Ogg, inOpening of the Mississippi, 310, places Fraser's journey a year previous to Croghan's, which is obviously an error.[52]Gage to Johnson, Feb. 2, 1765, Parkman Coll., Pontiac:—Miscell., 1765-1778.[53]Jos. Calloway to B. Franklin, Jan. 23, 1765, Sparks MSS, XVI, 54, 55.[54]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 292.[55]The frontiersmen could not understand the significance of giving valuable presents to the Indians.[56]Johnson to Lords of Trade, May 24, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 716. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 292-297.[57]Johnson to Lords of Trade, May 24, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII. 716.[58]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 297.[59]Johnson to Lords of Trade, Jan. 16, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 694.[60]Croghan's Journal of his transactions, from Feb. 28 to May 12, 1765, MS in Parkman Collection. Johnson to Burton, June 6, 1765, Johnson MSS, X, No. 263.[61]Croghan's Journal of his transactions, from Feb. 28 to May 12, 1765, MS in Parkman Collection.[62]Maisonville, a Frenchman, and one Andrew, an interpreter were among the whites. Shawnee and Seneca Indians also accompanied the party. Note the error in Kingsford,Hist. of Can., V, 116, wherein Sinnot is said to have accompanied Fraser. Sinnot had been sent about the same time from the south by Indian agent Stuart. On arriving at the Illinois his goods were plundered and he was finally forced to flee to New Orleans. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Sept. 28, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 765. Ibid., Nov. 16, 1765, Ibid., p 776. Apparently Sinnott must have arrived at Illinois after Fraser's departure for New Orleans, since Croghan implies that the former was still at Fort Chartres while he was a captive at Vincennes. See Croghan's Journal as printed in theN. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 780.[63]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 300.[64]Fraser to Gage, May 15, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Fraser to Crawford, May 20, 1765,Mich. Pion. Colls., X, 216-218. Fraser to Gage, May 26, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Gage to Johnson, Aug. 12, 1765, Parkman Coll., Pontiac, Miscell., 1765-1778.[65]Fraser to Gage, June 16, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 302. De Villiers,Les dernières Années de la Louisiana Française, 220-221. Reports were current in the East that Fraser and his party had been killed by the Indians. See Gage to Johnson, June 17, 1765, Myers Coll., N. Y. Pub. Lib. Johnson to Lords of Trade, July, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 43. One of the party, Maisonville, remained in the Illinois. Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 146.[66]Fraser to Campbell, May 20, 1765,Mich. Pioneer Colls., X, 216-218.[67]St Ange to D' Abadie,Can. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 471.[68]A party of traders under the leadership of one Crawford preceeded Croghan. They were, however, cut off before reaching the Illinois. Shuchburgh to Johnson, July 25, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 56.[69]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 131. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 304. The chief sources of information for this journey are Croghan's Journals, most of which have been printed in Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 126-166. For secondary accounts see, Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 304-315. Kingsfords,Hist. of Can., V, 116-120. Winsor,Narr. & Crit. Hist. of Am., VI, 704. Ibid.,Miss. Basin, 456-457.[70]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 131. Gage to Conway, Sept. 23, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 304.[71]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 139.[72]Croghan to Murray, July 12, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Gage to Conway, Sept. 23, 1765, Ibid.[73]Croghan to Murray, July 12, 1765, Ibid. Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 146.[74]Croghan to Murray, July 12, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 144-145. Johnson to Lords of Trade, July, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 43.[75]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 145-146.[76]Ibid. Jas. Macdonald to Johnson, July 24, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 50. Thos. Hutchins to Johnson, Aug. 13, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 97. Gage to Conway, Sept. 23, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.[77]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 154-166. Johnson to Wallace, Sept. 18, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 56. Gage to Conway, Sept. 25, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am,, 1764-1765. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Sept. 28, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 766. Gage to Conway, Nov. 9, 1765. Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.[78]Gage to Conway, Sept. 23, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Johnson to Wallace, Sept. 18, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 56. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Sept. 28, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 766.[79]Gage to Conway, Sept. 23, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.[80]Ibid.[81]Stirling to Gage, Oct. 18, 1765, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. Ind. Vol. 122.[82]Sterling to Gage, Oct. 18, 1765, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. Ind. Vol. 122.[83]Ibid.[84]Ibid.[85]Ibid. Sterling asserts that although Croghan claimed to have made a peace with all the Illinois chiefs, he is assured that not one was present at the peace conference in Ouiatanon, and that his own sudden appearance at the village was the real cause of his success. Sir William Johnson, in a letter to Croghan, Feb. 21, 1766, (Johnson MSS, Vol. XII, No. 60.) casts doubt upon the representation of Sterling. He says that it is easy to account for his motives, and that he has written Gen. Gage fully upon the subject. The letter referred to has probably been destroyed; at any rate it is not in any of the large collections.[86]Sterling to Gage, Oct. 18, 1765, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. Ind., Vol. 122. Eidington to ——, Oct. 17, 1765, Catham Papers, Vol. 97, Pub. Rec. Office. Gage to Johnson, Dec. 30, 1765, MS letter in Pa. Hist. Soc. Lib. Gage to Barrington, Jan. 8, 1766, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. Ind., Vol. 122. Gage to Conway, Jan. 16, 1766, Ibid. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Jan. 31, 1766,N. Y. Col. Docs.., X, 1161 ff. Capt. Sterling relates in his letter to Gage that he had considerable difficulty in persuading St. Ange to surrender his ammunition and artillery stores. The latter claimed he had positive orders to surrender only the fort and a few pieces of artillery.As to the time of Sterling's arrival, Parkman, II, 314, says he arrived in the early part of winter, while Nicollet, in his sketch of St. Louis, states that the fort was reached in mid-summer. From the above references, there can be no doubt as to the exact date.[87]Text of the Proclamation inCan. Arch. Report, 1906, pp 119-123. For discussion as to the origin of the various clauses, see Alvord,Genesis of the Proclamation of 1763, inMich. Pion. & Hist. Coll.[88]Egremont to Lords of Trade, July 14, 1763.Can. Arch. Report, 1906, p 108.[89]Egremont to Lords of Trade, Aug. 5, 1763, C. A. Rep., 1906, pp 110-111.[90]"We would humbly propose, that a Commission under the Great Seal, for the Government of this Country, should be given to the Commander-in-chief of Your Majesty's Troops for the time being adapted to the Protection of the Indians and the Fur Trade of Your Majesty's subjects." Ibid., p 111.[91]They could not have been ignorant of the existence of such colonies in the ceded territory, for Sir William Johnson, who was familiar with western conditions, was in constant correspondence with the ministry, and such works as theHistoire de Louisianaby Du Pratz, published in 1758, were doubtless familiar to English statesmen.[92]See post Ch. V.[93]Dartmouth to Cramahé, Can. Arch. Ser. Q., Vol. IX, p 157.[94]See post Ch. V.[95]It is very curious that no reference occurs in Art. XV of the Plan, which dealt with civil matters. "That for the maintaining peace and good Order in the Indian Country, and bringing Offenders in criminal Cases to due Punishment, the said Agents or Superintendents, as also the Commissaries at each Post, and in the Country belonging to each Tribe, be empowered to act as Justices of the Peace in their respective Districts and Departments, with all powers and privileges vested in such Officers in any of the Colonies; and also full power of Committing Offenders in Capital Cases, in order that such Offenders may be prosecuted for the same; And that, for deciding all civil actions, the Commissaries be empowered to try and determine in a Summary way all such Actions, as well between the Indians and Traders, as between one Trader and another, to the amount of Ten Pound Sterling, with the Liberty of Appeal to the Chief Agent or Superintendant, or his Deputy, who shall be empowered upon such appeal to give Judgement thereon; which Judgement shall be final, and process issued upon it, in like manner as on the Judgement of any Court of Common Pleas established in any of the Colonies."[96]Brown,Hist. of Ill., 212-213. See post Ch. VII.[97]Gage to Sec. Conway, March 28, 1766. B. T. Papers, Vol. XX, Pa. Hist. Soc. Lib.[98]Gage to Johnson, Jan. 24, 1767, Johnson MSS, XIV, No. 28.[99]See post Ch. IV.[100]Review of the Trade and Affairs of the Indians in the Northern District of America,N. Y. Col. Docs., Vol. VII, 964.[101]Gage to Hillsborough, Aug. 6, 1771, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. I., Vol. 128. Two years before he had written: "Two persons are confined in Fort Chartres for murther, and the Colonel (Wilkins) proposes to send them to Philadelphia, about fifteen hundred miles, to take their Tryall." Gage to Hillsborough, Oct. 7, 1769, Pub. Rec. Office, A. W. I., Vol. 125.[102]Hillsborough to Gage, Dec. 9, 1769, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. I., Vol. 124.[103]"The situation and particular circumstances of the Ilinois (sic) Country, and the use, if that Country is maintained, if guarding the Ohio and Ilinois Rivers at or near their junctions with the Mississippi has been set forth to your Lordship in my letter of the 22d of Feb. last. It is upon that plan the Regiment is posted in the Disposition in the Ilinois Country." Gage to Shelburne, April 3, 1767, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. I., Vol. 123.[104]Blackstone,Commentaries, (3d ed., Cooley)Introduction, sec. 4, 107.[105]Text of the decision inCan. Arch. Report, 1906, pp 366-370.[106]Other important leading cases, such as Calvin's case in 1607 and the case of Blanckard vs Galdy in the 18th century, involving the status of Jamaica, have the same bearing. See Sioussat, English Statutes in Maryland, J. H. U. Studies, XXI, 481-487.[107]Can. Arch. Report, 1906, 120-121.[108]Franklin's Works, (Sparks Ed.) IV, 303-323. "I conceive that to procure all the commerce it will afford and at as little expense to ourselves as we can is the only object we should have in view in the interior Country for a century to come." Gage to Hillsborough, Nov. 10, 1770, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. I., Vol. 126. It may be noted, however, that some members of the government had serious doubts as to this policy. Such men as Shelburne favored an early opening of the country to colonization.[109]Alvord,Gen. of the Proc. of 1763,Mich. Pion. & Hist. Coll., Vol.[110]Alvord,Gen. of Proc. of 1763,Mich. Pion. & Hist. Coll.[111]Can. Arch. Report, 1906, p 122.[112]See supra ch. III.[113]Can. Arch. Report, 1904, pp 242-246. The plan is here presented in full.[114]Franklin's Works, V, 38. Coffin,Quebec Act and the American Revolution, p 415, quoting from Knox,Justice and Policy of the Quebec Act, London, 1774.[115]The failure to successfully carry out this plan would of course leave the country a dead weight on the empire.[116]Johnson MSS, Vol. X, No. 190.[117]Morgan notes something more than mere mention, since he plays an important role in the affairs of the Illinois country from 1765-1771. He was born in Philadelphia in 1741 and was educated at Princeton college. Through the influence of his father-in-law, James Baynton, he was admitted to the firm of Baynton and Wharton and in 1765 became the western representative of the firm. After his experiences in Illinois, Morgan served the Revolutionary cause in the capacity of Indian agent. He died in 1810. SeeBiography of Col. George Morgan, by Julia Morgan Harding, in theWashington (Pa.) Observer, May 21, 1904.

[1]Perkins,France under Louis XV, II, pp. 1-83.

[2]Parkman,Montcalm and Wolfe, I, pp. 1-39.

[3]Parkman,Montcalm and Wolfe, I, pp. 39-67.

[4]Hunt,Pol. Hist. of England, X, pp. 23-40.

[5]Text of treaty in Chalmers,Collections of Treaties, I, 467-483. Canadian Archives, 1907Report, 73-84. Hildreth,Hist. of U. S., 501-503.

[6]Parkman,La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West, 312.

[7]Ibid., 312.

[8]Cahokia was founded in 1699 by the priests of the Seminary of Foreign Missions.

[9]Winsor,Narr. and Crit. Hist.V, 43.

[10]Ibid., 49.

[11]Ibid., 53.

[12]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 272-273.

[13]For the Indian rebellion the best secondary accounts are: Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, 2 vols., passim. Kingsford,Hist. of Can., 1-112. Poole, The West, in Winsor,Narr. & Crit. Hist. of Amer., VI., 684-700. Winsor,Miss. Basin, 432-446. Bancroft,Hist. of U. S., IV., 110-133. (Ed. of 1852, containing references.)

[14]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, I, 182.

[15]Johnson to Lords of Trade,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, pp 929, 955, 960, 964, 987.

[16]Johnson to Amherst, July 11th, 1763,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 532.

[17]Johnson to Amherst, July 11th, 1763.N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 532.

[18]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, I, 181, quoting from a letter of Sir William Johnson to Gov. Colden, Dec. 24, 1763. Winsor,Miss. Basin, 433.

[19]Johnson to Lords of Trade, July 1, 1763,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 525. Johnson to Amherst, July 8, 1763, Ibid., 531. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Dec. 26, 1764, Ibid., 688-689. Gage to Bouquet, June 5, 1764, Can. Arch., Series A, Vol. 8, p 409. Gage to Bouquet, Oct. 21, 1764, Ibid., p 481. Johnson to Gov. Colden, Jan. 22, 1765, Johnson MSS, X, No. 99.

[20]Can. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 470. Neyon to Kerlerc, Dec. 1, 1763, Bancroft Coll., Lenox Lib. Extract from letters of M. D'Abaddie, Jan., 1764,Can. Arch. Report, I, 471. D'Abaddie to the French minister, 1764, Ibid., 472.

[21]This is the view taken by Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 279, and by Bancroft,Hist. of U. S., V, 133, 136. But Kingsford, in hisHist. of Can., V, 25, takes an opposite view. He says that the "high character claimed for Pontiac cannot be established." "He can be looked upon in higher light, than the instrument of the French officials and traders." On page 6 he declares that "there is no evidence to establish him as the central figure organizing this hostile feeling."

[22]Gage to Halifax, July 15, 1764, Bancroft Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Winsor,Miss. Basin, 444, 456. Winsor,Narr. & Crit. Hist. of Am.VI, 702.

[23]Beer,British Col. Policy, 263. Kingsford,Hist. of Can., V, 68.

[24]Winsor,Miss. Basin, 633. Ogg,Opening of Miss., 301.

[25]Bouquet to Amherst, Dec. 1, 1763, Can. Arch., Ser. A, Vol. IV, p 413. Gage to Bouquet, Dec. 22, 1763, Ibid., Vol. 8, p. 341.

[26]Lt. Col. Robertson to Gage, March 8, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765, De Villers,Les dernièrs Années de la Louisiana, 180.

[27]Robertson to Gage, Mar. 8, 1764.

[28]Ibid.

[29]Loftus to Gage, April 9, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Gage to Halifax, May 21, 1764, Ibid. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, 88, 283, 285. Kingsford,Hist. of Can., V, 69-74. Winsor,Narr. and Crit. Hist. of Am., VI, 701, 702, Gayarre,Louisiana, II, 102-103.

[30]Loftus to Gage, April 9, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. De Villers,Les dernières Années de la Louisiana, 182-184.

[31]Ibid.

[32]Robertson to Gage, Mar. 8, 1764, Ibid. "Account of what happened when the English attempted to take possession of Illinois by way of the Mississippi," from Paris documents, Can. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 407-411. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 284, note 1, containing a letter from Gage thanking D' Abadie for his efforts in behalf of the English.

[33]Extract from the correspondence of D' Abadie with the French commandants, Jan., 1764.Can. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 471. Parkman, who made a careful study of the correspondence in the French archives, came to the conclusion that the French officials may be exonerated. Winsor holds a similar view in hisMississippi Basin, 452. See also Cayarre,Louisiana, II, 101. Kingford, in hisHist, of Can., V, 69-74, places no dependence in D' Abadie's statements. On the other hand he bases most of his argument upon a letter of Loftus which he quotes at length, but gives no hint as to its location, date, &c. It is evidently not the letter written to Gage, which is quoted above.

[34]Loftus to Gage, April 9th, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.

[35]Gage to Halifax, April 14th, 1764,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 619.

[36]This has reference to those tribes along the Mississippi River who were in direct communication with Pontiac and the French. The great Cherokee and Chicksaw nations were favorable to the English.

[37]Gage to Bouquet, May 21, 1764, Can. Arch., Ser. A, Vol. 8, p 393. Gage to Halifax, May 2d, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Gage to Haldimand, May 27, 1764, Brit. Mus., Add. MSS, 21, 662. Gage to Halifax, July 13, 1764, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.

[38]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, Winsor,Miss. Basin, 454.

[39]St. Ange to D' Abadie, Aug. 16, 1764,Can. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 471. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 279-280.

[40]The original journal kept by Morris during his journey is reprinted in Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 198-208. There is also a biographical sketch in the same volume. Correspondence relating to the Morris mission is to be found in the Bouquet Collection, Can. Arch., Ser. A, Vol. 8, pp 475-491. For a good account of the incident, see Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 198-208, and Kingsford,Hist. of Canada, V, 8.

[41]This incident illustrates the practical failure of Bradstreet's campaign against the Indians in the Lake region. While he retook the posts, his terms were so easy that the Indians were not in the least awed by the proximity of his army.

[42]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 305.

[43]Ross to Farmer, Feb. 21, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Gage to Halifax, Aug. 10, 1765, Ibid.

[44]Ross to Farmer, May 25, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. H. Gordon to Johnson, Aug. 10, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 73.

[45]Ross to Farmer, May 25, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.

[46]Ibid.

[47]Ibid.

[48]Ibid. Copy of Council held at the Illinois in April, 1765, Home Office Papers, Dom., Geo. III, Vol. 3, No. 4(1). Public Rec. Office. Copy of minutes of Council, April 4, 1765, inCan. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 473. See also De Villiers,Les dernières Années de la Louisiana, p. 220.

[49]Ross to Farmer, May 25, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.

[50]Johnson to Gage, June 9, 1764, Johnson MSS, Vol. XIX, No. 111. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Dec 26, 1764,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 689. Bouquet to Gage, Jan. 5, 1765, Can. Arch., Ser. A, Vol. VII, p 111. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 291-292. Winsor,Narr. & Crit. Hist, of Am., VI, 702. Croghan is one of the most interesting figures of the period. He had entire charge, as Sir William Johnson's deputy, of the Indians in the Ohio river region and was thoroughly conversant with western affairs. For biographical sketch see Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 47-52, orN. Y. Col. Docs., VII.

[51]Gage to Bouquet, Dec. 24, 1764, Can. Arch., Ser. A, Vol. VIII, p 499. Ibid., Dec. 30, 1764, Ibid. This distinction is not generally made. Writers have usually inferred that Fraser simply accompanied Croghan in an unofficial capacity. See, however, Winsor,Miss. Basin, 456. Ogg, inOpening of the Mississippi, 310, places Fraser's journey a year previous to Croghan's, which is obviously an error.

[52]Gage to Johnson, Feb. 2, 1765, Parkman Coll., Pontiac:—Miscell., 1765-1778.

[53]Jos. Calloway to B. Franklin, Jan. 23, 1765, Sparks MSS, XVI, 54, 55.

[54]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 292.

[55]The frontiersmen could not understand the significance of giving valuable presents to the Indians.

[56]Johnson to Lords of Trade, May 24, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 716. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 292-297.

[57]Johnson to Lords of Trade, May 24, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII. 716.

[58]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 297.

[59]Johnson to Lords of Trade, Jan. 16, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 694.

[60]Croghan's Journal of his transactions, from Feb. 28 to May 12, 1765, MS in Parkman Collection. Johnson to Burton, June 6, 1765, Johnson MSS, X, No. 263.

[61]Croghan's Journal of his transactions, from Feb. 28 to May 12, 1765, MS in Parkman Collection.

[62]Maisonville, a Frenchman, and one Andrew, an interpreter were among the whites. Shawnee and Seneca Indians also accompanied the party. Note the error in Kingsford,Hist. of Can., V, 116, wherein Sinnot is said to have accompanied Fraser. Sinnot had been sent about the same time from the south by Indian agent Stuart. On arriving at the Illinois his goods were plundered and he was finally forced to flee to New Orleans. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Sept. 28, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 765. Ibid., Nov. 16, 1765, Ibid., p 776. Apparently Sinnott must have arrived at Illinois after Fraser's departure for New Orleans, since Croghan implies that the former was still at Fort Chartres while he was a captive at Vincennes. See Croghan's Journal as printed in theN. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 780.

[63]Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 300.

[64]Fraser to Gage, May 15, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Fraser to Crawford, May 20, 1765,Mich. Pion. Colls., X, 216-218. Fraser to Gage, May 26, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Gage to Johnson, Aug. 12, 1765, Parkman Coll., Pontiac, Miscell., 1765-1778.

[65]Fraser to Gage, June 16, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 302. De Villiers,Les dernières Années de la Louisiana Française, 220-221. Reports were current in the East that Fraser and his party had been killed by the Indians. See Gage to Johnson, June 17, 1765, Myers Coll., N. Y. Pub. Lib. Johnson to Lords of Trade, July, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 43. One of the party, Maisonville, remained in the Illinois. Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 146.

[66]Fraser to Campbell, May 20, 1765,Mich. Pioneer Colls., X, 216-218.

[67]St Ange to D' Abadie,Can. Arch. Report, 1905, I, 471.

[68]A party of traders under the leadership of one Crawford preceeded Croghan. They were, however, cut off before reaching the Illinois. Shuchburgh to Johnson, July 25, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 56.

[69]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 131. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 304. The chief sources of information for this journey are Croghan's Journals, most of which have been printed in Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 126-166. For secondary accounts see, Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 304-315. Kingsfords,Hist. of Can., V, 116-120. Winsor,Narr. & Crit. Hist. of Am., VI, 704. Ibid.,Miss. Basin, 456-457.

[70]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 131. Gage to Conway, Sept. 23, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Parkman,Conspiracy of Pontiac, II, 304.

[71]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 139.

[72]Croghan to Murray, July 12, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Gage to Conway, Sept. 23, 1765, Ibid.

[73]Croghan to Murray, July 12, 1765, Ibid. Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 146.

[74]Croghan to Murray, July 12, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 144-145. Johnson to Lords of Trade, July, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 43.

[75]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 145-146.

[76]Ibid. Jas. Macdonald to Johnson, July 24, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 50. Thos. Hutchins to Johnson, Aug. 13, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 97. Gage to Conway, Sept. 23, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.

[77]Thwaites,Early Western Travels, I, 154-166. Johnson to Wallace, Sept. 18, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 56. Gage to Conway, Sept. 25, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am,, 1764-1765. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Sept. 28, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 766. Gage to Conway, Nov. 9, 1765. Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.

[78]Gage to Conway, Sept. 23, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765. Johnson to Wallace, Sept. 18, 1765, Johnson MSS, Vol. XI, No. 56. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Sept. 28, 1765,N. Y. Col. Docs., VII, 766.

[79]Gage to Conway, Sept. 23, 1765, Ban. Coll., Eng. & Am., 1764-1765.

[80]Ibid.

[81]Stirling to Gage, Oct. 18, 1765, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. Ind. Vol. 122.

[82]Sterling to Gage, Oct. 18, 1765, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. Ind. Vol. 122.

[83]Ibid.

[84]Ibid.

[85]Ibid. Sterling asserts that although Croghan claimed to have made a peace with all the Illinois chiefs, he is assured that not one was present at the peace conference in Ouiatanon, and that his own sudden appearance at the village was the real cause of his success. Sir William Johnson, in a letter to Croghan, Feb. 21, 1766, (Johnson MSS, Vol. XII, No. 60.) casts doubt upon the representation of Sterling. He says that it is easy to account for his motives, and that he has written Gen. Gage fully upon the subject. The letter referred to has probably been destroyed; at any rate it is not in any of the large collections.

[86]Sterling to Gage, Oct. 18, 1765, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. Ind., Vol. 122. Eidington to ——, Oct. 17, 1765, Catham Papers, Vol. 97, Pub. Rec. Office. Gage to Johnson, Dec. 30, 1765, MS letter in Pa. Hist. Soc. Lib. Gage to Barrington, Jan. 8, 1766, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. Ind., Vol. 122. Gage to Conway, Jan. 16, 1766, Ibid. Johnson to Lords of Trade, Jan. 31, 1766,N. Y. Col. Docs.., X, 1161 ff. Capt. Sterling relates in his letter to Gage that he had considerable difficulty in persuading St. Ange to surrender his ammunition and artillery stores. The latter claimed he had positive orders to surrender only the fort and a few pieces of artillery.As to the time of Sterling's arrival, Parkman, II, 314, says he arrived in the early part of winter, while Nicollet, in his sketch of St. Louis, states that the fort was reached in mid-summer. From the above references, there can be no doubt as to the exact date.

As to the time of Sterling's arrival, Parkman, II, 314, says he arrived in the early part of winter, while Nicollet, in his sketch of St. Louis, states that the fort was reached in mid-summer. From the above references, there can be no doubt as to the exact date.

[87]Text of the Proclamation inCan. Arch. Report, 1906, pp 119-123. For discussion as to the origin of the various clauses, see Alvord,Genesis of the Proclamation of 1763, inMich. Pion. & Hist. Coll.

[88]Egremont to Lords of Trade, July 14, 1763.Can. Arch. Report, 1906, p 108.

[89]Egremont to Lords of Trade, Aug. 5, 1763, C. A. Rep., 1906, pp 110-111.

[90]"We would humbly propose, that a Commission under the Great Seal, for the Government of this Country, should be given to the Commander-in-chief of Your Majesty's Troops for the time being adapted to the Protection of the Indians and the Fur Trade of Your Majesty's subjects." Ibid., p 111.

[91]They could not have been ignorant of the existence of such colonies in the ceded territory, for Sir William Johnson, who was familiar with western conditions, was in constant correspondence with the ministry, and such works as theHistoire de Louisianaby Du Pratz, published in 1758, were doubtless familiar to English statesmen.

[92]See post Ch. V.

[93]Dartmouth to Cramahé, Can. Arch. Ser. Q., Vol. IX, p 157.

[94]See post Ch. V.

[95]It is very curious that no reference occurs in Art. XV of the Plan, which dealt with civil matters. "That for the maintaining peace and good Order in the Indian Country, and bringing Offenders in criminal Cases to due Punishment, the said Agents or Superintendents, as also the Commissaries at each Post, and in the Country belonging to each Tribe, be empowered to act as Justices of the Peace in their respective Districts and Departments, with all powers and privileges vested in such Officers in any of the Colonies; and also full power of Committing Offenders in Capital Cases, in order that such Offenders may be prosecuted for the same; And that, for deciding all civil actions, the Commissaries be empowered to try and determine in a Summary way all such Actions, as well between the Indians and Traders, as between one Trader and another, to the amount of Ten Pound Sterling, with the Liberty of Appeal to the Chief Agent or Superintendant, or his Deputy, who shall be empowered upon such appeal to give Judgement thereon; which Judgement shall be final, and process issued upon it, in like manner as on the Judgement of any Court of Common Pleas established in any of the Colonies."

[96]Brown,Hist. of Ill., 212-213. See post Ch. VII.

[97]Gage to Sec. Conway, March 28, 1766. B. T. Papers, Vol. XX, Pa. Hist. Soc. Lib.

[98]Gage to Johnson, Jan. 24, 1767, Johnson MSS, XIV, No. 28.

[99]See post Ch. IV.

[100]Review of the Trade and Affairs of the Indians in the Northern District of America,N. Y. Col. Docs., Vol. VII, 964.

[101]Gage to Hillsborough, Aug. 6, 1771, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. I., Vol. 128. Two years before he had written: "Two persons are confined in Fort Chartres for murther, and the Colonel (Wilkins) proposes to send them to Philadelphia, about fifteen hundred miles, to take their Tryall." Gage to Hillsborough, Oct. 7, 1769, Pub. Rec. Office, A. W. I., Vol. 125.

[102]Hillsborough to Gage, Dec. 9, 1769, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. I., Vol. 124.

[103]"The situation and particular circumstances of the Ilinois (sic) Country, and the use, if that Country is maintained, if guarding the Ohio and Ilinois Rivers at or near their junctions with the Mississippi has been set forth to your Lordship in my letter of the 22d of Feb. last. It is upon that plan the Regiment is posted in the Disposition in the Ilinois Country." Gage to Shelburne, April 3, 1767, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. I., Vol. 123.

[104]Blackstone,Commentaries, (3d ed., Cooley)Introduction, sec. 4, 107.

[105]Text of the decision inCan. Arch. Report, 1906, pp 366-370.

[106]Other important leading cases, such as Calvin's case in 1607 and the case of Blanckard vs Galdy in the 18th century, involving the status of Jamaica, have the same bearing. See Sioussat, English Statutes in Maryland, J. H. U. Studies, XXI, 481-487.

[107]Can. Arch. Report, 1906, 120-121.

[108]Franklin's Works, (Sparks Ed.) IV, 303-323. "I conceive that to procure all the commerce it will afford and at as little expense to ourselves as we can is the only object we should have in view in the interior Country for a century to come." Gage to Hillsborough, Nov. 10, 1770, Pub. Rec. Office, A. & W. I., Vol. 126. It may be noted, however, that some members of the government had serious doubts as to this policy. Such men as Shelburne favored an early opening of the country to colonization.

[109]Alvord,Gen. of the Proc. of 1763,Mich. Pion. & Hist. Coll., Vol.

[110]Alvord,Gen. of Proc. of 1763,Mich. Pion. & Hist. Coll.

[111]Can. Arch. Report, 1906, p 122.

[112]See supra ch. III.

[113]Can. Arch. Report, 1904, pp 242-246. The plan is here presented in full.

[114]Franklin's Works, V, 38. Coffin,Quebec Act and the American Revolution, p 415, quoting from Knox,Justice and Policy of the Quebec Act, London, 1774.

[115]The failure to successfully carry out this plan would of course leave the country a dead weight on the empire.

[116]Johnson MSS, Vol. X, No. 190.

[117]Morgan notes something more than mere mention, since he plays an important role in the affairs of the Illinois country from 1765-1771. He was born in Philadelphia in 1741 and was educated at Princeton college. Through the influence of his father-in-law, James Baynton, he was admitted to the firm of Baynton and Wharton and in 1765 became the western representative of the firm. After his experiences in Illinois, Morgan served the Revolutionary cause in the capacity of Indian agent. He died in 1810. SeeBiography of Col. George Morgan, by Julia Morgan Harding, in theWashington (Pa.) Observer, May 21, 1904.

Back to Index Next