Читать книгу History of the settlement of Upper Canada (Ontario,) with special reference to the Bay Quinté - William Canniff - Страница 40

This once powerful Confederacy styled themselves Kan-ye-a-ke; also, they sometimes called themselves Aganuschioni or Agnanuschioni, which signifies united people. The French designated them Iroquois, from a peculiar sound of their speech. The English knew them as the Five Nations, and Six Nations, more generally by the latter term. The original five tribes that formed the Confederacy, were the Mohawks, Oneidas, Cayugas, Onondagas, and Senecas. Subsequently in 1712, the Tuscaroras came from the south, North Carolina, and made the sixth nation. But according to some authority, there were six nations before the Tuscaroras joined them. However, we learn from several sources, that up to 1712, the English, in speaking of them, referred to only five nations. The Oneidas seem, at one time, to have been omitted, and the Aucguagas inserted in their stead. The oldest members of the confederation were the Mohawks, Onondagas, and Senecas. The union of those three tribes took place prior to the occupation of America by the Europeans. The time at which the confederation of the five nations was formed is uncertain, but it is supposed to have been in the early part of the sixteenth century. The league binding them together was rather of a democratic nature.

Each tribe was represented in the great council of the nation by one principal sachem, with a number of associates.

They were always deliberate in their councils, considerate in their decisions, never infringing upon the rights of a minority, and dignified in their utterances. They were noted, not only as warriors, but as well for their agriculture, their laws, and their oratorical ability.

Each tribe was subdivided into classes, and each of these had a device or “totem,” namely, the tortoise, the bear, the wolf, the beaver, the deer, the falcon, the plover, and the crane.

They were for hundreds of years the terror of the various Indian tribes peopling North America, and most of the time could at will, roam the wide expanse between the Hudson Bay and the Carolinas. Other tribes, too weak to oppose them, were from time to time completely exterminated. Of these was the Erie tribe, which had entirely disappeared by the year 1653. Of those who stubbornly resisted the Six Nations, were the Hurons, the Adirondacks, of the north, the Delawares, the Cherokees, and the Mohicans.

Smith, an historian of New York, says that in 1756 “Our Indians universally concur in the claim of all the lands not sold to the English, from the mouth of Sorel River, on the south side of Lakes Erie and Ontario, on both sides of the Ohio, till it falls into the Mississippi; and on the north side of those lakes, that whole territory between the Outaouais River, and the Lake Huron, and even beyond the straits between that and Lake Erie.”

“When the Dutch began the settlement of New York, all the Indians on Long Island, and the northern shore of the Sound, on the banks of the Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, and Susquehanna rivers, were in subjection to the Five Nations,” and in 1756, “a little tribe, settled at the Sugar-loaf Mountain, in Orange County, made a yearly payment of about £20 to the Mohawks.”

Among the traditions of this people is one that they had a supernatural origin from the heart of a mountain, that they then migrated to the west, where they lived for a time by the sea shore. Then, in time returned to the country of the lakes. A country now passed into the hands of the white man, who paid no just price. But the names of many places yet indicate the history of the ancient owners of the soil.

Among the Mohawks, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, was a chief known as Old King Hendrick, or Soi-euga-rah-ta, renowned for eloquence, bravery, and integrity. He was intimate with Sir William Johnson, and it was between them that the amusing contention of dreams occurred, that has been narrated.

In 1755, a battle was fought at Lake George, between the French, under Baron Dieskau, and the English, under Johnson, resulting in the defeat of the French. The French and English were supported by their respective allies. At this engagement Old King Hendrick, then seventy years old, but still full of energy and courage, was killed. Strangely enough it was at this battle that Brant, then only thirteen years old, first took part with his tribe in the contest. The mantle of Soieugarahta fell upon the youthful Thayendinagea.

Thayendinagea, or Joseph Brant, was born upon the banks of the Ohio, in the year 1742, while his tribe was on a visit to that region. According to Stone, his biographer, he was the son of “Tehowaghwengaraghkwin a full-blooded Mohawk, of the Wolf tribe.”

After the battle at Lake George, Brant continued with his people under Johnson till the close of that bloody war. At its close, about 1760, Brant, with several other young Indians, was placed by Johnson at Moor School, Lebanon, Connecticut. After acquiring some knowledge of the rudiments of literature, he left the school to engage in active warfare with the Pontiacs and Ottawas. In 1765, we find him married and settled in his own house at the Mohawk Valley. It is said he was not married, except in the Indian mode, until the winter of 1779, when at Niagara, seeing a Miss Moore, a captive, married, he was also thus married by Colonel John Butler, to a half-breed, the daughter of Colonel Croghan, by an Indian woman. Here he spent a quiet and peaceful life for some years, acting as interpreter in negotiations between his people and the whites, and lending his aid to the efforts of the missionaries who were engaged in the work of teaching and converting the Indians.

“Those who visited his house, spoke in high terms of his kindness and hospitality.” Sir William Johnson died in 1774, and was succeeded by his son-in-law, Colonel George Johnson, as Indian agent, who appointed Brant his Secretary. The same year Johnson had to flee from the Mohawk, westward, to escape being captured by a band of rebels. He was accompanied by Brant and the principal warriors of the tribe. The rebels vainly tried to win the Indians to their side; but excepting a few Senecas, they preferred their long tried friends. The regular successor of Old King Hendrick, was “little Abraham.” It is said he was well disposed to the Americans, probably through jealousy of Brant. At all events, Brant, by universal consent became the principal chief. He proceeded with the other chiefs, and a large body of Indian warriors to Montreal, where he was commissioned as a captain in the British army. “In the fall of 1775, he sailed for England to hold personal conference with the officers of government. He was an object of much curiosity at London, and attracted the attention of persons of high rank and great celebrity.” Brant returned to America in the spring following, landed near New York, and made his way through his enemy’s country to Canada. He placed himself at the head of his warriors, and led them on to many a victory. The first of which was at the battle of “the Cedars.”

But the rebels did not cease endeavoring to seduce Brant to their cause. In June, 1777, General Herkimer of the rebel militia approached Brant’s head-quarters with a large force, ostensibly to treat on terms of equality. Brant had reason to suspect treachery, and consequently would not, for some time, meet Herkimer. After a week, however, he arranged to see General Herkimer, but every precaution was taken against treachery, and it appears that not without cause. Brant and Herkimer were old, and had been intimate friends. Brant took with him a guard of about forty warriors. It would seem that Herkimer’s intention was to try and persuade Brant to come over to the rebels, and failing in this to have Brant assassinated as he was retiring. Says an American writer, Brownell, “We are sorry to record an instance of such unpardonable treachery as Herkimer is said to have planned at this juncture. One of his men, Joseph Waggoner, affirmed that the General privately exhorted him to arrange matters so that Brant and his three principal associates might be assassinated.” Well does it become the Americans to talk about savage barbarity. Brant thwarted the intentions of his old friend by keeping his forty warriors within call. During all of the repeated attempts to get the Mohawks they never swerved, but reminded the rebels of their old treaties with England, and the ill-treatment their people had sustained at the hands of the colonists.

The head-quarters of Brant was at Oghkwaga, Owego, upon the Susquehanna. During the summer of 1777 while Burgoyne was advancing, the Mohawks under Brant rendered important service. In the attempt to capture Fort Stanwix, they took a prominent part. In the summer of 1778 the Indians, with Butler’s Rangers were engaged principally in border warfare. It was during this season that the affair at Wyoming took place, which event has been so extravagantly made use of to blacken the character of the Indians and vilify the “tories.” That Brant was not inhuman, but that he was noble, let recent American writers testify. Brownell says: “many an instance is recorded of his interference, even in the heat of conflict, to stay the hand uplifted against the feeble and helpless.”

It was in the latter part of June that a descent was planned upon the settlements of Wyoming. Of this event, again we will let Brownell speak:—​“It has been a commonly received opinion that Brant was the Chief under whom the Indian portion of the army was mustered, but it is now believed that he had as little share in this campaign as in many other scenes of blood long coupled with his name. There was no proof that he was present at any of the scenes that we are about to relate.”

“No portion of the whole history of the revolution has been so distorted in the narration as that connected with the laying waste of the valley of Wyoming. No two accounts seem to agree, and historians have striven to out-do each other in the violence of their expressions of indignation, at cruelties and horrors which existed only in their imaginations, or which came to them embellished with all the exaggeration incident to reports arising amid scenes of excitement and bloodshed.

Wyoming had, for many years, been the scene of the bitterest hostility between the settlers under the Connecticut grant, and those from Pennsylvania. Although these warlike operations were upon a small scale, they were conducted with great vindictiveness and treachery. Blood was frequently shed, and as either party obtained the ascendency, small favor was shown to their opponents, who were generally driven from their homes in hopeless destitution. We cannot go into a history of these early transactions, and only mention them as explanatory of the feelings of savage animosity which were exhibited between neighbors, and even members of the same family, who had espoused opposite interests in the revolutionary contest.” Such, be it noted, was the character of the inhabitants of Wyoming valley, who have been so long held up as innocent victims of Indian barbarity. By the above, we learn that prior to this, there had been contentions between the loyalists and rebels. The party who entered Wyoming to attack the Fort, were under Colonel John Butler, and were composed of some 300 British regulars and refugees, and 500 Indians. Now, it would seem that the depredation which was committed after Colonel Zebulon Butler, the rebel leader, had been defeated, and the Fort had capitulated, was to a great extent due to retaliatory steps taken by the loyalists who previously had been forced away, and had seen their homes committed to the flames. Such was the border warfare of those days. It was not Indian savagery, it was a species of fighting introduced by the “Sons of Liberty.” And if we condemn such mode of fighting, let our condemnation rest first, and mainly upon those who initiated it. Not upon the Indians, for they were led by white men—​not upon Brant, for he was not there—​not so much upon the loyalists, for they had been driven away from their homes; but let it be upon those who introduced it.

The rebels were not slow to seek retribution for their losses at Wyoming. Aided by a party of Oneidas who lent themselves to the rebels, “Colonel Wm. Butler with a Pennsylvania regiment, entered the towns of Unadilla and Oghkwaga, and burned and destroyed the buildings, together with large stores of provisions intended for winter use.” In turn, Walter Butler led a party of 700, a large number being Indians under Brant, to attack a fort at Cherry Valley which was “garrisoned by troops under Colonel Ichabod Alden.” It will be seen that the Indians and loyalists did not enter an unprotected place to burn and destroy. They attacked a garrison of troops. But the Indians exasperated by the cruel procedure at Oghkwaga, became ungovernable, and about fifty men, women and children fell by the tomahawk. This was the retaliation which the Indian had been taught to regard as justifiable for the wrongs which had been inflicted upon his own tribe—​his little ones; yet be it remembered, and later American writers admit it, that the commanders, Butler and Brant, did all they could to restrain the terrible doings of the exasperated men. “Specific instances are reported in which the Mohawk Chief interfered, and successfully, to avert the murderous tomahawk.”

And now begins the bloody revenge which the rebels determined to inflict upon the Indians, without respect to tribes. In April, 1779, Colonel Van Schaick was despatched with a sufficient force for the purpose, with instructions “to lay waste the whole of their towns, to destroy all their cattle and property.” “The Colonel obeyed his orders to the letter, and left nothing but blackened ruins behind him.” It was merely a march of destruction, for the Indians were not there to oppose their steps. The villages and property that were destroyed belonged to the Onondagas, although they had not taken a decided stand with the loyalist party. It was enough that they were Indians, and would not join the rebels. But this was merely a prelude to what was preparing, in pursuance of a resolution of the rebel congress. The infamous duty of commanding this army of destruction, town destroyers the Indians called them, was entrusted to General Sullivan, whose nature was adequate to the requirements of the command.

On the 22nd August, 1779, five thousand men were concentrated at Tioga, upon the Susquehanna. The men were prepared for their uncivilized duty by promises of the territory over which they were about to sow blood and fire. The Indians had no adequate force to oppose their march westward over the Six Nations territory. Brant with his warriors, with the Butlers and Johnsons made a gallant resistance upon the banks of the Chemung, near the present town of Elmira. But, after suffering considerable loss, the vastly superior force compelled them to flee, and there remained nothing to arrest the devastating rebel army, and during the whole month of September they continued the work of despoliation.

It has been the custom of almost all American historians to give the Indians attributes of the most debasing character. At peace, unworthy the advantages of civilization; at war, treacherous and ferociously cruel. For this persistent and ungenerous procedure it is impossible to conceive any cause, unless to supply an excuse for the steady course of double-dealing the Americans have pursued toward the original owners of the soil, and provide a covering for the oft-repeated treachery practised toward the credulous Indian by the over-reaching New Englander. To the Mohawk Nation particularly, since they proved true allies of the British, have American writers found it agreeable to bestow a character noted for blood and rapine. Nothing can be more untrue than the character thus gratuitously portrayed, nothing more at variance with the essential nature of the Indian, when free from European intrigues, and the cursed fire-water. The aboriginal races of North America are not by nature, blood-thirsty above Europeans. That they are honest, just and true, capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, with a due appreciation of well-kept faith, is well attested by the conduct which has ever been observed by them toward, not alone the Pennsylvanians, but every man found to be a Quaker. No instance can be found recorded throughout the long bloody wars of the Indians, where a hair of the head of a single man, woman or child of that denomination was injured by the Indian; and thus because the upright Penn never defrauded them. The Americans, while British colonists, with the exception alluded to, made themselves obnoxious to almost all Indian tribes. They never secured that hearty and faithful alliance that the French did. There seemed to be something in the air, especially of the New England States, which in a few generations blinded the eye, by which the golden rule is to be observed.

The Americans, who have ever set themselves up as the champions, par excellence, of liberty, to whom the “down-trodden of the old world” could look for sympathy, if not direct support, have signally failed to observe those lofty principles at home toward the natives of the soil, while they continued for eighty years to keep in chains the sable sons of Africa. They have found it convenient and plausible to prate about the political “tyranny of European despots;” but no nation of northern Europe has shown such disregard for the rights of their people as the United States have exhibited toward the original owners of the soil. Avarice has quite outgrown every principle of liberty that germinated ere they came to America. The frontier men, the land-jobber, the New England merchant, as well as the Southern Planter, have alike ignored true liberty in defrauding the Indian, in sending out slavers, and in cruel treatment of the slave. Then can we wonder that the noble-minded Indian, naturally true to his faith, should, when cheated, wronged—​cruelly wronged, with the ferocity natural to his race, visit the faithless with terrible retribution?

The unbiassed records of the past, speak in tones that cannot be hushed, of the more noble conduct of the natives, than of those who have sought to exterminate them. The Mohawks, although brave warriors, fought not for the mere love of it. They even at times strove to mediate between the French and New Englanders.

To the Mohawks, the American writer has especially bestowed a name bloody and ignoble. And all because they listened not to their wily attempts to seduce them to join the rebels, but preferred to ally themselves with the British. No doubt the Indian had long before discriminated between the rule of British officers, and the selfish policy of local governments. And hence, we find, in every scrap of paper relating to the Mohawks, unfounded accounts of savage doings. But taking, as true, the darkest pages written by the Americans against the Six Nations, they present no parallel to the deeds of brutal vengeance enacted by the American army under Sullivan, when he traversed the fruitful country, so long the home of the Iroquois. Says an American writer: “When the army reached the Genesee Valley, all were surprised at the cultivation exhibited, by wide fields of corn, gardens well stocked, their cattle, houses, and other buildings, showing good design, with mechanical skill, and every kind of vegetable that could be conceived. Beautiful as was the scene in the eyes of the army, a few days changed it to utter desolation; neither house, nor garden, grain, fruit tree, or vegetable, was left unscathed.”

Says Stone: “Forty Indian towns were destroyed. Corn gathered and ungathered, to the amount of 160,000 bushels, shared the same fate; their fruit trees were cut down; and the Indians were hunted like wild beasts, till neither house, nor fruit tree, nor field of corn, nor inhabitant, remained in the whole country.” And the poor Indian women, and children, and old men, were thus left at the approaching winter to seek support at the British garrisons. Truly the rebels of ’76 were brave and civilized!