Where Did They Store Gunpowder at Fort Amanda?

Where did they store the gunpowder at Fort Amanda

During the War of 1812, the men at Fort Amanda spent most of their when not shipping materials, or building boats, they spent a large amount of time making cartridges (bullets).



Cartridges were, as the picture above shows, basically a paper tube with a lead ball on one end and the other end of the tube filled with gunpowder. They were torn open, the powder dumped down the barrel of a musket, the ball inserted in the barrel and pushed down with a ramrod (the paper served as wadding)

Because most of the frontier forts in 1812 where cartridges were made, had a gunpowder storage area called a "magazine."

They generally were built underground or at least partially underground and protected by large log walls and roof to contain blast damage in the even of an accidental explosion. At Fort Meigs powder was stored in a heavily timbered blockhouse; a frequent target of British artillerymen. Others were built totally underground with stairways leading down to the powder.

Fort York (Toronto) Steps leading down to a powder storage room

The vast numbers of cartridges assembled at Fort Amanda suggests that there must have been a powder magazine constructed somewhere in the general area. But the question is where?

Below is a map of the general area of the Fort Amanda site


It's likely the gunpowder was stored fairly close to the fort too far for obvious reasons; soldiers needed easy access to it plus my assumption is it needed to be easily visible so sentries could see if it was threatened.

Back in the 1970s I noticed a ground feature on the property south of the fort near the property line that looked very much like the outline of a structure of some kind. I'd always thought perhaps it was an old farm building but now I wonder could be the outline of a building associated with the fort, even (I realize this is a stretch) the long lost powder magazine? The feature in the circle is an exact scaled tracing of the ground feature. Look closely at the feature to the right you can clearly see it is in the form of a rectangle.

I'd be very interested in your thoughts.

Email me at: djohnson43@att.net

Amanda Goes To College - 1817

Amanda Goes To College

Transylvania University (1817)

Transylvania University (2018)

The year was 1817. Amanda had just turned 16 and the family decided it was time for her to further her education. The school they chose was Transylvania University, a private school located in Lexington, Kentucky, 70 miles away.

The University

Transylvania was founded in 1780 and was the first University in Kentucky. It is the Alma mater of two U.S. vice presidents, two U.S. Supreme Court justices, 50 U.S. senators, 101 U.S. representatives, 36 U.S. governors, one Confederate President, and 34 U.S. ambassadors, making it a large producer of U.S. statesmen. Actor Ned Beatty is also an alumni.

An Offer to Help His Sister

Twenty three year-old William Pogue, Amanda’s oldest brother, was living in Lexington, Kentucky at the time. On Nov. 7, 1817 he sent the following letter to his mother offering to help his sister as she prepared to start school. The letter reads:

“If Amanda wishes to go to Lexington to school, I desire you, or some of the family to inform me when she is ready to come, that I might make arrangements with Mr. Blythe for her schooling and also know where she will board or where she would desire to board and find out when the next quarter will commence that she might know when to prepare, and when she is ready, I will go down for her when she is ready as I promised.”

 William, a bachelor at the time, had already graduated from Transylvania University with a law degree. He was probably working in Lexington at the time.

What Did Amanda Study

I contacted Transylvania University to see what degrees or fields of study were offered around the year 1817. They said that Medicine, Law and the Liberal Arts were the primary fields. Because of the limited opportunities for women at the time in the fields of medicine and law, my thought is Amanda probably studied several liberal arts subjects as well as the classics.

The Cost of Higher Education

The tuition cost for Amanda at Transylvania University was approximately $125 per year. The cost included room and board, firewood, use of the library and fire in the recitation room (study hall). The cost for students living off campus, was considerably lower ($30 per year). That figure included tuition, laundry service and mendings. Those students had to furnish their own bedding, firewood and candles.
To put things into perspective, in 1817, the average household income was $122. The cost of Amanda’s education at Transylvania University was $125 a year.  

After Graduation

Amanda met and fell in love with her future husband, Dr. James Ephram McDowell, often described by others as a “handsome, graceful man.” Dr. McDowell was the son of the famed Dr. James McDowell; a world renowned surgeon known as the “father of abdominal medicine.”

On September 9, 1822, 21 year-old Amanda and 25 year-old McDowell married in Flemingsburg, Kentucky. Dr. McDowell maintained his medical practice there. Whether the couple had children is yet to be determined.

Amanda's Professor - Dr. James Blythe

Dr. James Blythe

(1765 - 1842)

The “Mr. Blythe,” William referred to in his letter of Nov.7, 1817 was 42 year-old Dr. James Blythe, President and instructor at Transylvania University. Dr. Blythe taught Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Astronomy and Geography from 1798 until 1831 when retired as chair of the Chemistry dept.

Ironic Coincidence

During the War of 1812, just five years earlier, Amanda’s father Lt. Col. Robert Pogue along with Col. Joshua Barbee and Col. William Jennings led regiments into northwest Ohio to protect the frontier against a possible British invasion and to build a chain of forts along the Auglaize River. Barbee built Ft. St. Marys, Jennings built Fort Jennings and Pogue built Fort Amanda (named after his 11 year-old daughter at the time;  Amanda).

Dr. Blythe was adamantly opposed to the war and despite his objections, his 18 year-old son joined one of the Kentucky regiments called to service.

Kentucky regiments heading north usually passed by Fort Amanda on their way north because it was 12 miles or a days march from St. Marys. When they arrived at the fort they camped in what was called "the Commons," an open area located on the north side of Deep Cut road and adjacent to the river.

This of course means that its likely Dr. Blythe's son camped in the "commons" at fort Amanda on his way. Sadly, he along with dozens of others were killed January 18, 1813 at the bloody massacre called the “Battle of the River Raisin” (Monroe, Michigan).

Crossing Paths

I find it interesting that five years earlier (1812), Dr. Blythe's son had camped at the fort built by the father of one of his students (Amanda Pogue). Whether the Amanda and Dr. Blythe ever discussed the coincidence is unknown however it does make an interesting story.

Ending of the Story

Amanda (Pogue) McDowell

It’s thought that Amanda contacted either Cholera or Yellow Fever the latter part of December 1826. She was living in There is speculation that by that time and the family thought it best that she be taken to her parents house in Mayslick where she could receive better care. Sadly her condition worsened and she passed away on New Years day in 1827. She was just 26 year sold. Four months later Amanda’s sister, 24 year-old Jane Isabella Mackey, died of that Yellow Fever. Dr. McDowell remained friends with Amanda’s family for the rest of his life. He re-married, a woman named Caroline Feemster on April 9, 1829.

Whatever became of Dr. James Blythe

In 1832 Blythe, Amanda teacher, was asked to become the president Hanover college in Indiana. However, a few years into his tenure his ability to lead the college was diminished by poor health. He persevered until he could no longer continue, so he resigned in 1836. His disease, dropsy, took its course resulting in his passing away on May 20, 1842. He is buried in Hanover Cemetery in Indiana. His wife, Margaret McElroy, predeceased him January 28, 1835. She had been on a ministry of mercy visiting a poor woman in town when she suddenly collapsed and died in the middle of the street on her way home. Margaret and James had a total of twelve children—five sons and seven daughters.


End of Blog


COMING SOON: Years ago I did a transcription of William Schillinger's journal. It took me nearly 4 months. I'm currently working on a book containing actual photographs of Schillinger's journal. It will contain pictures of the actual pages and a transcription exactly as written. Also included will be maps, clarification notes and short biographies of the men mentioned in the journal.





*******************************************************************************************



My book "Fort Amanda -A Historical Redress is a 8" x 10" softcover book with 360 pages of information I've gathered about the fort over a 40 year period. In addition to historical data about the fort, its construction and expansion, it includes 60 pages of biographical / genealogical information of more than 100 men who served there.
.If you'd like a signed or personalized copy, send $20 for the book and $4 for shipping ($24 total) to me at:
David Johnson
1100 Little Bear Loop
Lewis Center, Ohio 43035

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at djohnson43@att.net

Copies are also available at the following locations.

1. Amazon.com

2. Hallmarks stores in Lima, Oh

3. Casa Chic in Wapakoneta, Oh

4. Allen County Museum, Lima, Oh



 

Deserters

DESERTERS

Saturday May 15th edition of “The Western Spy” newspaper Vol. III No. 141
“Capt. McHenry reports two deserters, Adam Merrill (a substitute in the place of Job Hayhurst, a noted fiddler and shoemaker and John Staunton (from Dayton, a substitute for Uriah Teahowe.*
(* Teahowe was a misspelling of Tebow. Uriah Tebow Tim Tebow's 6th ggrandfather) McHenry's company was stationed at Fort Jennings.

Explanation: My postings are often very detailed, sometimes with so many details readers probably think, “why does he include all that stuff.” I think the following example of an incident at Fort Amanda and recorded in Ensign Schillinger’s journal on May 5, 1813 demonstrates why “details” are so important.

Schillinger wrote that a soldier named Burrows had deserted his post and paid a couple men who were working on boats for 2 horses to take him home. The obvious conclusion for a modern-day reader would be that Burrows was not a nice person and was in fact a coward. On the surface that seems innocent enough conclusion but a closer look at the “details” gives us a totally different story. Now let’s look at the man in question.

First of all, the man’s name was Burris, not Burrows and a search of records shows that Burris had received a Grand Jury summons a few days earlier, so more than likely he was given permission to go home and Schillinger simply was not made aware of it before entering this in his journal. The point here is that if history judged John Burris based on Schillinger’s writing, he would probably be looked upon as a coward, but by researching him further, it provided us with those “dreaded details” that he was actually very patriotic. A further explanation is found at the end of this blog. This is why details are so important. Now to today’s blog.

Hang em’ or Jail em’?

One of the problems that plagued Generals Harmar, Wayne and St. Clair during their campaigns (1791-94) was desertions. All three generals resorted to hanging deserters thinking it serve as a deterrent to others. Apparently, the threat of death at the hands of the Indians was greater than the thought of death by hanging because during St. Clair’s 47-day march from Cincinnati to what later became Fort Recovery, 366 of his men had either died or deserted, an average of 8 per day with the majority of those being desertions. At Fort Hamilton St. Clair hanged three for that offense and two more at Fort Jennings. Why such harsh punishment?

When St. Clair left Cincinnati, his army numbered 2,200. By late September 1791, illness, deaths and desertions had reduced the size of his army from 2,200 to 1,486 and by the time he reached the Wabash River (Fort Recovery, Oh), that number had been reduced to only 1120 and of that number, only 920 were soldiers, the other 200 were contractors and camp followers. Put into perspective, St. Clair had lost over half of his command during his 47-day march; an average of 27 per day with many of those being desertions. We all know how that situation turned out.

Why didn’t they hang deserters at forts on the Auglaize?

Simply put, an army on the move into enemy territory can’t afford losses of any kind. Replacements, health care and dangers were much more prevalent on an army in motion compared to soldiers at forts, particularly those forts distant from “the front” where the dangers were often less, healthcare often more readily available and manpower replacements easier to get. Not to diminish the hardship of life in frontier forts along the Auglaize, but apparently the thought was it was better to jail deserters than hang them.

Those Pesky Boys from Preble County.

Desertions and sleeping on guard duty re reoccurring problems at Forts Amanda, St. Marys, Jennings and Winchester. One example took place in June of 1813. Two men in Capt. David Hendrick’s company stationed at St. Marys were accused of desertion and ordered to stand trial. The two were Henry Bristow and Charles Nugent of Preble County.

Henry Bristow was a 34-year-old farmer living in Preble County with his wife Margaret “Peggy” (Patterson) and their four children; Polly (9), William (7), Amelia (4), Jane (3). Henry’s older brother 35-year-old brother Payton served in the same company but was not complicit in the incident.

Charles Nugent was shown in the 1820 census as being between 26 and 44 years old. He was living with his wife (same age) their nine children, three boys and three girls under the age of 10 and two boys and a girl between the ages of 10 and 15. Nugent and Bristow were neighbors.

The Scenario

We may never know exactly how this story unfolded but based on several factors, here are my thoughts.

Henry Bristow and his older brother Payton were stationed at St. Marys. For whatever reason Henry decided to desert while on guard duty the night of June 19, 1813. Whether Payton knew about his brother’s plan is unknown but being older (and apparently wiser) he apparently decided it was not a good idea.

The day (probably night) Bristow deserted at St. Marys, he would have passed through Fort Loramie 14 miles to the south on his way home. If it was night time, the moon phase on that date was a Waning Gibbous with 71% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated (example below) so there would have been enough light for him to travel by and the trip probably took him between 4 and 5 hours.

When he arrived at Fort Loramie, he may have tried to convince his neighbor Charles Nugent to go with him. Whether Nugent went with him for a short time then returned is yet to be determined

A question that bothered me was if Henry Bristow and Charles Nugent were in the same company, why did one desert at St. Marys and the other, allegedly, at Fort Loramies? Taking a closer look at a sentence in the transcript that reads; “Charge - Deserting from detachment from said Company (stationed at fort Loramies in the state of Ohio),” the word “detachment” answered my question. Nugent was apparently part of a group of men “detached” from the main company at St. Marys and had been sent to Fort Loramie, for any number of reasons. In other words, Nugent was at Fort Loramie on a temporary assignment.

The Charges

Henry Bristow was charged with desertion while on guard duty at St. Marys on June 19, 1813. Charles Nugent was charged with deserting his company at Fort Loramies the following day, June 20). Ten days after deserting his post, Bristow returned to St. Marys and turned himself in to authorities. Unlike the penalty for sleeping on guard duty which normally meant a few days in jail, desertion was considered a far more serious crime and required a formal trial.

Preparations for a trial were far more involved and time consuming so it’s possible Nugent was jailed immediately and while they were preparing for trial, Bristow turned himself in, hence the reason both were being tried at the same proceeding.

Bristow would have had ample time to return home during the 9 days he was gone so one must wonder if his family and/or friends encouraged him to return and turn himself in. Another possibility is that when Bristow heard the news that his friend and neighbor (Nugent) had been arrested, he thought it best to turn himself in and stand trial with him rather than looking like he, “ran out on a friend and left him holding the bag.” After all, regardless of the outcome, Bristow knew that someday he was going to have come face-to-face with his neighbor.

Did Nugent Actually Desert?

The charge against Bristow was very specific; he left on the 19th and returned 9 days later and there was a witness; Lieutenant Richard Leason. The charge against Nugent, on the other hand, states only that he deserted the company at Fort Loramie on the 20th of June and that there were no witnesses. We don’t know how many days, or even hours Nugent was absent but apparently it was enough for them to declare he had deserted and wasn’t simply missing. At the end of the day it didn’t really make any difference. No one saw him leave so they couldn’t prove he deserted and in fact could have been on another assignment.

The Trial – June 29, 1813

The following is a transcript of the court martial proceeding for Bristow and Nugent. The three officers who led the proceedings were; Captain Daniel Hosbrook and Ensign William Schiller (Fort Amanda), and Ensign Jonothan Markland from Captain McHenry’s company (Fort Jennings).

Captain Hosbrook had been sick for a couple days and not feeling well the day of the trial. He would remain sick for the next week, so this was not a very pleasant time for him.

The witness for the prosecution was Lieutenant Richard L. Leason of Hendrick’s company at St Marys. Bristow was asked if he had any objections to the officers officiating at his trial and he answered in the negative.

It was a very short trial. It began on June 29th and the following day General John Wingate; Brigade Commander reviewed the findings of the panel and approved their recommendations.

Garrison Orders

Fort St. Mary June the 29^th 1813

A Garrison court martial will assemble on Wednesday the 30 Inst, at the room of Capt. D. E. Hendricks at 10, o’clock A.M. for the trial of such prisoners as may be brought before it.

                                      Capt. Dan’l Hosbrook, Prest.

                                      Ensign Schillinger   } members

                                      Ensign Markland    

                                      John Wingate, Brig. Gen. Commandant

June 30^th 1813

The court met pursuant to the above order - Present

                                      Capt. Hosbrook Prest.

                                      Ensign Schillinger  } members

                                      Ensign Markland

The court being duly sworn in Presence of the Prisoners, Proceed to the trial of Henry Bristow 3rd Corp of Capt. David E. Hendricks Company of the 1^st Reg of 3^rd Det. O. M. who being previously asked if he had any objections to the members named in the general order, & replying in the negative, was arraigned on the following charge prepared against him by Capt. D. E. Hendrick  Charge - For deserting from his post on guard on the 19th Inst to which the Prisoner pleaded not guilty  Lieut. Richard L. Leason a witness for the prosecution on being duly sworn, says that the Prisoner did leave his post on the 19^th Inst. & further that He the prisoner did on the 28^th Inst return to his Company voluntarily & appeared willing to do his Duty in any situation as far as he was capable.  The evidence for the prosecution being closed, and the prisoner having no witness on his part, the court being ordered to be cleared the whole of the proceedings being read over to the court by the recorder (Judge Advocate) the following sentence was pronounced  - I ___ Sentence  The court after mature Deliberation on the testimony addressed, found the Prisoner Henry Bristow guilty of the charge against him, & sentence him to be reduced to the station of A private sentinel, & to undergo such monthly stoppages of half his pay will amount to one month’s pay

The Court proceeded to the trial of Charles Nugent A private in Capt. D. E. Hendricks Company of the 1st Reg. 3^rd Det O. M. on the following Charge being prepared against him by Capt. D.E. Hendricks.  Charge - Deserting from detachment from said Company  (stationed at fort Loramies in the state of Ohio) on the 20^th of June 1813.  To which the prisoner pleaded not guilty - No evidence being adjudicated for the prosecution the prisoner was acquitted - The court adjourned

                                                                   {Daniel Hosbrook, Capt.

                                                                   1st Reg. 3^rd Det O. M.                                                                                     Ensign Wm. Schillinger

                                                                   Recorder}

I approve of the foregoing sentences and order them to be carried into effect - The Garrison court martial of which Capt. Daniel Hosbrook was president is hereby adjourned

                             John Wingate Brig. Gen. Comdt.

                            St. Mary’s the 30^th of June 1813

Verdict – Henry Bristow: GUILTY

Henry Bristow was A.W.O.L. (absent without leave) for 9 days. The fact that he turned himself in may have been a factor in his light sentencing. He was found guilty of leaving his post and reduced in rank (from whatever it was) to a “Private Sentinel.” I don’t know what “Private Sentinel” meant but more than likely part of his punishment was to perform more guard duty. Army privates at the time made $8.00 a month. Bristow forfeited half a mon
th’s pay ($4) for 2 pay periods meaning he forfeited $8.00.
Forfeiting a month’s pay ($8.00) may not seem like a lot of money but when you consider the average household income in 1813 was only $122, losing a month pay today with an average household income of $59,055, would be equivalent to means a month’s pay today or $4,921. All things considered, Henry Bristow, paid a pretty stiff price for his desertion.

Verdict - Charles Nugent: Charges Dropped

Nugent was found not guilty because the prosecution could not find anyone to testify against him. Whether he actually left for few hours or even days, made no difference, without a cooperating witness he could not be charged.

After the War

Henry Bristow

In 1820 Henry and Payton Bristow were both still living in Dixon Township in Preble County. Between 1813 and 1820 Henry and Peggy (Patterson) Bristow added 5 more children to their family: Henry, Catherine, Samuel and Huldah. Between 1820 and 1830 the family moved to Fountain County, Indiana where Henry died at the age of 51. It is thought that his wife Margaret (Peggy) and here large family moved to Shelby County, Kentucky where she lived out her life and dying between 1840 and 1850.

Payton Bristow

Henry's sister-in-law

Bristow's son

 

Mary (Price) Bristow

Payton Bristow

Payton and his family eventually moved to Marion County, Indiana, where he purchased a farm. He died there on February 10, 1869 at the age of 91. Payton and wife Mary are buried in Bell Cemetery in Indianapolis, Twp, Marion Co., Indiana. (N39°41'09.08”,W86°11'32.28”)

Charles Nugent

What Nugent did prior to the war is unknown, however he did serve as a Justice of the Peace in Preble County and performed marriages there as early as 1818. In 1820, he and his wife and nine children were living in Washington Township in Preble County and by 1827, the family had moved to Gasper Township in Preble County, Ohio. Between 1827 and 1835, the family had moved to Vermillion County, Indiana where daughter Eliza was married that year.

John Burris

John Burris was 50 years old when he served at Fort Amanda. Friends described the 6’5” tall Burris as "Given to poetry, confining his wit & genius to satire of local characters. These he would sing to very appreciative audiences.”

Burris was honorably discharged from Hosbrook’s Company and on August 6th and three weeks later, on Aug. 31, he joined Captain George Richardson’s company.

Burris was born in Virginia in 1763. He married a woman named Elizabeth McMechen and together they had five sons. Elizabeth died in 1831, and was buried in Beavertown cemetery, Washington County, Ohio. On July 13, 1841, Burris married 62-year-old Eleanor (Ellen) Smith. John died on July 9, 1850 and Eleanor sometime before 1860. John is buried beside his second wife Eleanor in the Murdock Cemetery, Washington County, Ohio. (N39°26'47.21”,W81°08'46.88”).

Private Burris……you have been exonerated.

  😊

******************************************************************************************* 

My book "Fort Amanda -A Historical Redress is an 8" x 10" softcover book with 360 pages of information I've gathered about the fort over a 40 year period. In addition to historical data about the fort, its construction and expansion, it includes 60 pages of biographical / genealogical information of more than 100 men who served there.
.If you'd like a signed or personalized copy, send $20 for the book and $4 for shipping ($24 total) to me at:
David Johnson

1100 Little Bear Loop

Lewis Center, Ohio 43035

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at djohnson43@att.net

Copies are also available at the following locations.

1. Amazon.com

2. Hallmarks stores in Lima, Oh

3. Casa Chic in Wapakoneta, Oh

4. Allen County Museum, Lima, Oh

5. http://Createspace.com/6889603

"History Doesn't Repeat Itself, Historians Repeat one another."

"History doesn't repeat itself, the historians repeat one another". - Max Beerbohm

If you follow my blog or read my books, you'll find that many of the things written about Fort Amanda prior for almost 200 years were based on information that was either incorrect, based on folklore or simply myths. The problem is writers and story tellers kept repeating the same stories over and over until they eventually came to accepted as truth. 

As you read this post, I ask that you please don't shoot the messenger. I am not a fan of Blue Jacket or of Tecumseh nor do I necessarily view the Indians in Ohio as savages and/or innocent victims or the whites as invaders and/or victims. I say with all sincerity that it is not my intent to sully or besmirch the works or reputations of any of the individuals mentioned in this post (dead or alive). These are my perceptions of individuals and situations, and I'll be the first to admit if those perceptions are proven flawed. All I ask is that you read this post , keep an open mind and judge for yourself.  I'll address those issues at another time. For now I want to focus on 3 issues: 

1) Was Blue Jacket a White Man?
2) Simon Girty, villain or hero?
3) The Tecumseh / Rebecca Galloway Romance.

Myth #1 - Blue Jacket Was a White Man?

When it comes to reading about history, particularly Ohio and American history, I tend to take what I read with a grain of salt. It all began in college where I learned that some of the things I'd been taught in high school about Ohio and American history were either false, myths and/or were just plain silly. Even today as I do my Fort Amanda research I remind myself that just because someone wrote something in a journal in 1775 doesn't mean it was actually true. After all, writers in 1775 often embellished stories the same as they do in 2022 and why I have never taken the story about Blue Jacket being a white man seriously.

Was Blue Jacket a White Man

No.  This story itself first appeared in a newspaper in 1877 and resurfaced in 1969 in a book written by an author well known for his books on frontier Ohio. According to tradition, a 17-year-old white boy named Marmaduke Van Sweringen was hunting in the woods of West Virginia in 1771 when he was taken prisoner by a group of Shawnee Indians. Sweringen willingly joined the tribe. His name was changed to Blue Jacket because he was wearing a blue coat at the time he was captured. While the story is interesting, apparently its only a myth.

Mystery Solved

  http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/06/26/loc_blue_jacket_wasnt.html

Descendants of celebrated Shawnee war chief Blue Jacket for years have fought the story that he really was a white man who started life as Marmaduke Van Swearingen. Now, they have ammunition that could prove more powerful than genealogy charts or historical documents. A Wright State biologist studying DNA from the Blue Jacket and Van Swearingen families has shown that Blue Jacket and Marmaduke Van Swearingen were not the same person.  Blue Jacket descendants herald the news as a breakthrough. They want the chief, who in the 1790s led the Shawnee against Army forces trying to crush Indian resistance in Ohio, to be remembered as an American Indian. They also want their own legacies restored.

“The white man has always relished the idea that the great chief Blue Jacket was actually their white chief,” said Robert Denton Blue Jacket, a Tulsa, Okla., descendant who provided DNA samples. “Being an Indian is not a matter of your blood, it's a matter of your heart — it's your cultural identity, and that's what was so sad about this whole myth. It has robbed so many people of not only their blood, but their cultural identity.”
Mr. Blue Jacket and other descendants plan on using the new DNA evidence to try to force changes in works that perpetuate the Blue Jacket-as-white-man story. One target is the outdoor Blue Jacket theatrical production performed each summer in Xenia. It recently was included in the Library of Congress' Local Legacies program.

DNA Research

The new DNA research raises questions about that theory.

Wright State biologist Dan Krane tested DNA samples from five descendants of Blue Jacket and five descendants of Mr. Van Swearingen. Preliminary results suggest the two men were not the same. The DNA also suggests that Blue Jacket was American Indian, Mr. Krane said, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that he was white. Mr. Krane received the DNA samples from Robert Van Trees, who is not relat ed to Blue Jacket or Mr. Van Swearingen but grew interested in the story while researching his own family tree.

Mr. Van Trees, of Fairborn, Ohio, traveled the nation last summer gathering saliva samples from direct male descendants of both families. The method of DNA testing used by Mr. Krane is reliable, said Carl Huether, a University of Cincinnati biology professor. But to help answer the question of Blue Jacket's ethnicity, researchers also should compare DNA of his descendants with that of descendants from his Shawnee tribe, Mr. Huether said.  The author of the 1969 book mentioned above, who lives in Bellefontaine, was traveling and unavailable for comment.  

Historical accounts of a mighty Indian chief really being white don't surprise Miami University history professor Andrew Cayton. “Especially in the 1800s, historians had to deal with people like Tecumseh and Blue Jacket, and they found much to be admired in these men that conflicted with their general sense that the Indians were racially inferior,” he said. “One way you can deal with that is if you have these Indian leaders who are sterling examples of leadership and intelligence, you say that somewhere, they must have had white blood in them.”

Until now, Mr. Van Trees has used birth dates and other documentation that he claims show Blue Jacket couldn't have been Marmaduke Van Swearingen. He said he has found no record of Mr. Van Swearingen, although he did uncover a Marmaduke Swearingen, born in 1763 in western Pennsylvania. He disappeared, and his family never saw him again.  

  Myth #2 - Simon Girty Tried to Stop Crawford's Burning?

The Burning of Col. William Crawford - 1782

     

                   Simon Girty                                          Col. William Crawford

                  1741- 1818                                                      1722- 1782

William Crawford was an American soldier and surveyor who worked as a western land agent for George Washington. Crawford fought in the French and Indian War and the American Revolutionary War. He was tortured and burned at the stake on June 11, 1782 by American Indians in retaliation for the murder of 96 Christian Delaware Indians at the Gnadenhutten settlement on March 8 of the same year. Crawford suffered the most horrendous tortures for nearly two hours before he finally died. Executed with him was a nephew and son-in-law.

Although details of Crawford's execution are well documented by eye witnesses, what was actually said during the ordeal is only speculation. The most widely accepted claim is that Crawford begged Simon Girty to kill him to end his agony but the Indians threatened to kill him (Girty) if he intervene. I recently read an account that claims Girty actually pleaded for Crawford's life. Sounds reasonable enough. After all, wouldn't a man with even an ounce of compassion have tried to intervene? A descendent of Simon Girty wrote this about his ancestors involvement:

“He had offered the Indians his prized white horse, his rifle, money and liquor. The Indians finally told him that if he didn't shut up, they were going to burn him, too,"  

He went on to say:

“Simon Girty Jr. also saved his good friend, Simon Kenton, from being burned at the stake by Indians. "I think he was great. I have a whole list of people who were actually saved by him.

This certainly suggests that Simon Girty was a compassionate man. After all, according to his descendant, not only did Girty attempt to save Crawford's life, he actually saved Simon Kenton's life. Plus, the man reportedly has "list of other people whose lives Girty saved." Really?  Again, remember, no one took notes at Crawford's execution so we have to rely on hearsay or tradition. But what if there was an actual witnesses?

An Eye Witness

There was an eye witness to the event, a soldier who was captured at the same time as Crawford. His account of the story is a little different from the others. According to him, not only did Girty not plead for Crawford, he actually laughed while Crawford was dying. Was Girty that heartless? I found this description on the net:

Girty’s name became synonymous with savagery and monstrosity by the turn of the century.

Whether that's a fair assessment of the man or not, all I can say is of everything I've ever read about Simon Girty, very few are flattering

   

Myth #3 - The Tecumseh /Rebecca Galloway Romance

Back in the 70s, I went to see the outdoor drama, "Tecumseh." I'd read several accounts of the mans life and what life was like on the frontier so I went there with a certain number of expectations, one of them being authenticity. The fight scenes, explosions, canons, costumes, etc. were very entertaining but I distinctly remember during one scene where I had to force myself to keep from laughing out loud. It was the scene with Tecumseh falling love with a young white girl named Rebecca Galloway. I won't go into the whole story of the Galloway family and their association with Tecumseh, those are available on the internet,

So What's the Problem?

The truth is, there isn't one shred of evidence that supports the claim that Tecumseh married or even fell in love with a white girl named Rebecca Galloway. How or why that story originated is unknown. The problem with this story is it gives Tecumseh a personality. The reality is we have no idea what his personality was really like and if people form an impression of the man based on the stories about a Tecumseh/Galloway romance, or from the Tecumseh play, they'll probably perceive him as a kind and gentle man. I on the other hand have a different impression of him which I won't go into here.

Simon Girty

As for Simon Girty, you can't pick up a book or read an article about the Ohio frontier without seeing the name Simon Girty. Most of what I've read about him focus primarily on his trading post at St. Marys and his dealings with the Indians and the British. In reality, Girty was a brutal, opportunist who as we read in the soldiers account at Crawford's burning, a sadistic and a particularly nasty individual.

Blue Jacket

Blue Jacket on the other hand, is a victim of circumstance. In 1877, someone for whatever reason invented the story of an young innocent white boy who was adopted into the Shawnee tribe. I've even read stories of where Blue Jacket supposedly killed his white brother at battle know as St. Clair's defeat. The author even went so far as to describe how Blue Jacket kneeled down and whispered parting words to his dying brother. Seriously?

 I have 2 books in my library made up of interviews of early Ohio pioneers including some where they describe how viciousness and brutal Blue Jacket was. According to them, he was a horse thief, a plunderer and a murderer.

Keep in mind, not all Indians went into battle to fight for God and country. In fact I'm sure many did it for less honorable reasons. In fact, there are cases where they arrived at the battle site, found out there wasn't enough booty to plunder, i.e. camp kettles, clothing, guns, gunpowder, pots, pans, etc. so they turned around and went home. I guess a new camp kettle and a few pots and pans weren't enough to die for.

But Can We Handle the Truth?

If there's one thing I know about Ohioans, it's they love, cherish and are very protective of their history and given the opportunity, they'll talk with you for hours about it. They're very much aware of how dangerous and brutal the early Ohio frontier was so when they read, watch or talk about history, particularly their local history, they want it raw, unedited and factual and they don't want it sugar coated.

The fact that Blue Jacket was not a white man, Simon Girty was a rather shady and viscious character and the story of Tecumseh in love with a white woman probably never happened but doesn't change the fact that their lives and their actions were driven by events of the day and what by they believed was right. Regardless of whether we call them villains or hero's also doesn't really matter because as the old Indian saying goes, "Never judge a man until you've walked in his moccasins" and I seriously doubt any of us today would want to go back to the days when these men made history. Besides, truth be told, we are all heroes to some people and like it or not, we're probably a villain to others.

If you'd like a signed or personalized copy of my book, "Fort Amanda - A Historical Redress," send me your mailing address along with $20 for the book and $4 for shipping ($24 total) and I'll have it in the mail next day.
The book is 360 pages with lots of pictures and maps. Included is "Biography" section with genealogy information about the men and women associated with the fort's history.


Copies are also available at the following locations.
1. Amazon.com
2. Hallmarks stores in Lima, Oh
3. Casa Chic in Wapakoneta, Oh
4. Allen County Museum, Lima, Oh
5. http://Createspace.com/6889603