"History doesn't repeat itself, the historians repeat one another". -
Max Beerbohm
As you read this post, I ask that you don't shoot the messenger. I am not a fan of Blue Jacket, Tecumseh and certainly not Simon Girth nor do I necessarily view the Indians in Ohio as savages and/or innocent victims or the whites as invaders and/or victims.
It is not the purpose of this blog 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) Is the story of a Tecumseh / Rebecca Galloway Romance true.
2) Is the story of a Tecumseh / Rebecca Galloway Romance true.
3) Was Simon Girty a villain or hero?
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 modern day 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.KILELD HIS OWN BROTHER?
I've read stories of where Blue Jacket supposedly killed his white brother at the battle known 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.
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.
Mystery Solved
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.
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 related 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.
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?
DNA Evidence
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 related 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 - 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. Myth #3 - Simon Girty Tried to Stop Crawford's Burning?
 |
The Burning of Col. William Crawford - 1782 |
  |
Simon Girty Col. William Crawford 1741- 1818 1722- 1782 |
You can't pick up a book or read an article about the Ohio frontier without seeing the name Simon Girty. While the 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 tend to creates the perception that he was just a simple businessman on the frontier. When I read an eye witness account of the gruesome torture and burning deayh of Col. William Crawford in 1782 my perception changed..
The Burning
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 intervened. 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:
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 intervened. 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 Actual 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.
So at the end of the day it all comes down to who we believe; a modern day descendant of Girty OR the account from eye witness who was actually at the event. I know who I'd believe. All I can say is my perception of Girty is not a good one. Yes, he had to adapt to the Indians and the British, however, everything I've ever read about Simon Girty, very few are flattering. My perception of Girty was he was a brutal, opportunist who as we read in the soldiers account at Crawford's burning, a sadistic and a particularly nasty individual.
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, the story of Tecumseh in love with a white woman probably never happened and Simon Girty was just a frontier businessman 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 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.
Like family genealogists, we are the "storytellers" and if we want future generations to appreciate our history as much as we do we owe it to them to tell the stories as accurately as we can and if some were "good guys" and some were "bad guys" well, it is what it is.