Title: Biographical Data
From:
To:

Information on the persons mentioned by GW during his stay on the island is in most instances scant. What follows is data obtained both from standard biographical references and from documents in the Barbados Department of Archives at Black Rock. The archives have suffered much from the ravages of time and climate, and identifications are made more difficult by GW’s customary use of surnames only and by his phonetic spelling of those names. BARWICK, WILLIAM (d. 1756). A member of the colonial council and owner of Pine Plantation in St. Michaels Parish.

   Barbados Department of Archives, hereafter Bb-Ar, RB6/35:180.

 CARTER, JAMES (d. 1753), of St. Thomas Parish.

   Bb-Ar, RB6/22:309.

 Member of the council in the 1740s and chief justice of grand sessions, appointed 1749. CHARNOCK, BENJAMIN (1698–1783), of St. James Parish—a tentative identification. At his death he left what remained of his “oppulent fortune” to a friend, Dowding Thornhill.

   Bb-Ar, RB6/38:20.

 There is no surviving record of the criminal proceedings against him for “committing a rape on his servant maid.” CLARKE, GEDNEY (1711–1764). Member of the council, collector of customs at Barbados, merchant, and planter with holdings in America—including 3,000 acres on Goose Creek in northern Virginia. Clarke’s sister Deborah was William Fairfax’s wife and his connection with the Fairfaxes. Because of this link not only did

GW and Lawrence depend much upon the Clarkes, but Bryan Fairfax, son of William and a lifelong friend of GW, also spent time with the Clarkes in 1752–54. In his will, recorded 4 Sept. 1764, Clarke left property to his wife, his niece Hannah Fairfax, and his sons, Peter, Francis, and Gedney Jr. The bulk of the estate went to Gedney, including the Goose Creek lands.

   Bb-Ar, RB6/17:195.

 During the 1750s Clarke dealt extensively with Henry Laurens, of South Carolina, purchasing slaves for resale in America by Laurens. Many of his letters appear in Laurens’s letterbooks (ScHi), where his name is always entered as “Gidney” Clarke. CLARKE, MARY. Gedney Clarke’s wife. CROFTAN (Crofton), CAPT. ———. The officer commanding James Fort who rented a house to the Washingtons. GW wrote his name “Crawford” twice, then corrected it. He was probably a militia officer. Although the Thirty-eighth Foot was the regiment assigned to the Leewards at this time, there are no extant records associating this unit with service on Barbados; no Captain Croftan or Crofton appears on the manuscript or printed army lists of the period in the Public Record Office, London. FINLAY, THOMAS. A native of Scotland whose will was recorded in Barbados 27 May 1762, after his return to his Scottish estate called Balkirsty. He served as clerk of the General Assembly of Barbados in 1743–44.

   Bb-Ar, RB6/30:440, and Jl. of Barbados Museum and Hist. Soc., 13 (1946), 86.

 GASKIN, JOHN (d. 1779), of St. Michaels Parish.

   Bb-Ar, RB6/23:210.

 At his death he owned the schooner Success, apparently not the vessel which may have transported GW to Barbados. GRAEME, GEORGE (d. 1755), a judge and member of the General Assembly representing Christ Church Parish.

   Bb-Ar, RL1/21:127.

 Brother of John Graeme. GRAEME, JOHN (d. 1755). Onetime professor of natural philosophy and mathematics at the College of William and Mary, succeeding Joshua Fry. He had come from England in 1725 to take over the ironworks and plantation of Alexander Spotswood, an assignment in which he was not very successful. Spotswood complained that he should have known better than to commit such a venture to a mathematician. Graeme joined the college faculty Aug. 1737. Although not an experienced surveyor, he apparently

was in charge of the licensing of surveyors in Virginia, a privilege assigned to the college by the crown. There is nothing in the scant record to connect him with GW before their meeting in Barbados, although GW had been surveying for Lord Fairfax and others.

   “Journal of the Meetings of the President and Masters of William and Mary College,” WMQ 1 (1892–93), 132; BYRDLouis B. Wright, ed. The Prose Works of William Byrd of Westover: Narratives of a Colonial Virginian. Cambridge, Mass., 1966., 358. For Graeme’s burial in Christ Church Parish, see Bb-Ar, RL1/21:125. For the deeds to two plantations near Germanna, which Spotswood gave Graeme to induce him to move to Virginia, see Spotsylvania County Records, Deed Book A, abstracted in CROZIER [2]William Armstrong Crozier, ed. Spotsylvania County, 1721–1800: Being Transcriptions, from the Original Files at the County Court House, of Wills, Deeds, Administrators’ and Guardians’ Bonds, Marriage Licenses, and Lists of Revolutionary Pensioners. New York, 1905., 97–98.

 GRENVILLE, HENRY (1717–1784), governor of Barbados 1746–56. HILLARY, DR. WILLIAM (1697–1763), a physician trained at Leyden and newly arrived in Barbados. He became Lawrence’s doctor. HAGGATT, OTHNIEL (d. 1761). Probably the man mentioned by GW, although Nathaniel Haggatt was living at the same time. One of the plantations on Barbados is called Haggatt Hall. HOLBURNE, COMMODORE FRANCIS (1704–1771). Arrived in the Leewards about Sept. 1748 aboard the Tavistock, “a worn-out 50–gun ship,” as commodore and commander in chief. He returned to England in 1752, then went to Halifax as vice admiral, July 1757, to attempt the reduction of French-held Louisbourg. French reinforcements and bad weather thwarted the plan.

   DNBLeslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds. The Dictionary of National Biography: From the Earliest Times to 1900. 22 vols. 1885–1901. Reprint. Oxford, England, 1973.; VA. EXEC. JLS.H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 6 vols. Richmond, 1925–66., 6:61, 77.

 JENKINS, EDMUND. No new information except his first name, supplied from Bb-Ar records. LANAHAN, DR. JOHN (1699–1762). A physician and third-generation resident of Barbados. It is not clear why he was called to attend GW during his illness with smallpox while Lawrence was being treated by Dr. Hillary, unless it was because he was a friend of the Clarkes. Gedney was executor of his estate when he died in 1769.

   SHILSTONEE. M. Shilstone. “The Washingtons and Their Doctors in Barbados.” Journal of the Barbados Museum and Historical Society 20 (1943): 71-80., 3–10.

 MAYNARD, WILLIAM. Member of the General Assembly for many years, from St. Thomas Parish, and owner of Black Rock Plantation. PATTERSON, WILLIAM. Surveyor general of customs whom Gedney Clarke succeeded in 1759. PETRIE, CAPT. ———. Commander of Charles Fort, frequently called Needham’s Fort, on the southern point of the entrance to Carlisle Bay and Bridgetown. The many forts on the west coast of Barbados were garrisoned largely by the militia.

   Therefore, this Barbados captain may have been a militia officer, perhaps George John Petrie, who gave a power of attorney to Jonas and John Maynard 9 June 1753 and died in Middlesex, Eng., the same year.

   Bb-Ar, RB7/10:51.

 PURCELL, JOHN. Lieutenant governor of the British Virgin Islands with headquarters in Tortola. ROBERTS, ELIZABETH. Mary Clarke’s niece, who by 1787 was the widow of Thomas Beard, according to the will of her brother William.

   Bb-Ar, RB6/33:164.

 ROBERTSON, CORNELIUS. Master of the Fredericksburg. SANDARS, JOHN. Master of the Industry. STEVENSON, THOMAS & SONS. Thomas Stevenson (d. 1763) owned Pool Plantation in St. Johns Parish and engaged in mercantile activities with his sons on other islands of the Leeward group. WARREN, ROBERT. Onetime clerk of the General Assembly.


Title: The Washingtons in Barbados
From:
To:

The arrival at Bridgetown, on Carlisle Bay, is not well documented because pages are missing from the diary at this point. There are no collateral data such as newspaper listings of shipping arrivals, for not a single copy of the Barbados Gazette for 1751 is known to exist. The first two diary entries after the Washingtons disembarked are supplied by Jared Sparks, who obviously saw them while he was preparing his edition of GW’s papers. He may indeed be responsible for the fact that the originals are missing, considering his penchant for distributing sample pages from GW manuscripts. After dining with the Clarkes and taking up temporary lodging with James Carter, the travelers confronted the matter of prime importance—Lawrence’s physical condition. Then, assured by Dr. Hillary that the disease was “not so fixed but that a cure might be effectually made,” they looked for a place to live. Although they thought it extravagant at £15 a month, they chose a house owned by Captain Croftan, or Crofton, overlooking Carlisle Bay. The little house which Barbadian taxi drivers now show to tourists as the Washington home is merely the object of

a legend. Located on Bay Street at Chelsea Road not far from St. Ann’s Garrison, it bears no resemblance to the architecture of the mid–1700s. Even if it had been standing in GW’s time, it could not have survived the devastating hurricanes of 1780 and 1831, which nearly destroyed Bridgetown and brought havoc to the entire island. Some credence was given the legend when an official historic sites committee in 1910 referred to the building as Crofton’s House and associated it with GW. Tourist literature still designates the place “the Washington House,” but the question of its authenticity has been disposed of by local historians.

   For example, [Neville Connell], “Historic Sites Re-Visited: Crofton’s House,” Jl. of Barbados Museum and Hist. Soc., 12 (1945), 208–11.

 The brothers had a busy social life, and those who entertained

them were prominent in commercial, political, and military circles. GW delighted in the novelty of his surroundings. He developed a taste for the “avagado pair,” the “Pine Apple,” and other tropical fruits. He indulged his emerging taste for the theater by attending a performance of George Lillo’s The London Merchant, or the History of George Barnwell, which was also playing in Drury Lane that season. Lillo’s play may have been the first stage production which GW had ever seen, other than amateur performances. While Lawrence’s health was still failing, illness struck GW. On 16 Nov. he developed smallpox and Dr. Lanahan was sent for. It may have been fortunate for GW that smallpox caught up with him in Barbados rather than in Virginia. The practice of inoculation—not vaccination—was common in Barbados but frowned upon in Virginia.

   HENINGWilliam Waller Hening, ed. The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619. 13 vols. 1819–23. Reprint. Charlottesville, Va., 1969., 8:371–74.

 Rev. Griffith Hughes reported that although the island was seldom free of the disease, the practice of inoculation had lowered the death rate to a very small percentage.

   HUGHESGriffith Hughes. The Natural History of Barbados in Ten Books. London, 1750., 39.

 It is conceivable that GW had been inoculated sometime before his trip to Barbados, causing his attack to be a relatively mild one. The practice of vaccination with cowpox vaccine did not begin until the end of the century. That a kind of ennui was affecting the two brothers, as well as apprehension about Lawrence’s pulmonary condition, is shown in a letter that Lawrence wrote to his father-in-law, William Fairfax: “This climate has not afforded the relief I expected from it, so that I have almost determined to try the Bermudas on my return, and, if it does not do, the dry air of Frederic. This is the finest island of the West Indies, but I own no place can please me without a change of seasons. We soon tire of the same prospect. Our bodies are too much relaxed. . . . We have no kind of bodily diversions but dancing. . . . I am obliged to ride out by the first dawn of the day, for by the time the sun is half an hour high, it is as hot as at any time of the day. The gentlemen are very polite and hospitable.”

   SPARKSJared Sparks, ed. The Writings of George Washington; Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private, Selected and Published from the Original Manuscripts. 12 vols. Boston, 1833–37., 2:422.

 It was decided that Lawrence would try Bermuda and that GW would return to Virginia. Lawrence wrote a friend from Bermuda 6 April 1752, despairing over his health and expressing the wish

that his wife Anne would come to him—accompanied by GW.

   SPARKSJared Sparks, ed. The Writings of George Washington; Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private, Selected and Published from the Original Manuscripts. 12 vols. Boston, 1833–37., 2:422–23. Sparks dates the first letter “a few weeks after his arrival in Barbadoes” and says it is addressed to Lord Fairfax. William Fairfax seems a much likelier addressee. Sparks does not identify the recipient of the April letter; neither manuscript has been located.

 As his condition worsened, however, he returned hastily to Mount Vernon and died there 26 July. By 19 Dec. 1751 GW had booked passage out of Barbados on the Industry. He spent Christmas at sea, dining on beef and “Irish Goose,” and settled down to an uneventful though frequently stormy homeward voyage, content to maintain a terse diary rather than a ship’s log. At the end of January the Industry cleared the Virginia Capes and made a landfall in the lower York River. Proceeding by land to Williamsburg. GW paid a call on Gov. Robert Dinwiddie, gave him some letters, and was invited to dine. It may have been a crucial moment in GW’s career, providing Dinwiddie an opportunity to evaluate the young man. The governor, only recently appointed, had lived in America for several years and may already have known the Washingtons; certainly he knew the Fairfaxes. He was no stranger to Barbados, either, having investigated customs affairs there as early as 1738 while serving as surveyor general of customs for the Southern District of America. He must have queried GW about the Gedney Clarkes and mentioned the occasions upon which he had been a guest in their home.

   Writing to William Fairfax 13 July 1739, Dinwiddie mentioned frequent visits to the Clarke household, where they drank Fairfax’s health (CSmH: Brock Collection).

 Within a few years, disquieting differences would arise to mar GW’s relationship with Dinwiddie, but the young man’s immediate prospects brightened after his dinner with the governor. Later in 1752, when the colony was divided into four military districts, Dinwiddie appointed him one of the district adjutants; and in 1753, upon dispatching GW with a message to the French on the Ohio River, Dinwiddie would refer to him as “a person of distinction.”


Title: [Diary entry: 5 November 1751]
From: Washington, George
To:

5th.—Early this morning came Dr. Hilary, an eminent physician recommended by Major Clarke, to pass his opinion on my brother’s disorder, which he did in a favorable light, giving great assurances that it was not so fixed but that a cure might be effectually made. In the cool of the evening we rode out accompanied by Mr. Carter to seek lodgings in the country, as the Doctor advised, and were perfectly enraptured with the beautiful prospects, which every side presented to our view,—the fields of cane, corn, fruit-trees, &c. in a delightful green. We returned without accomplishing our intentions.


Title: Editorial Note
From:
To:

In the two years between his return from Barbados and the outbreak of the French and Indian War, GW steadily advanced his position in the Virginia community. He already owned some two thousand acres of land in the Shenandoah Valley, with additional holdings at Ferry Farm and Deep Run. His half brother Lawrence’s death in July 1752 brought expectations of more property.

   Under the terms of Lawrence Washington’s will, his wife Ann received a life interest in Mount Vernon and half of his slaves, with the remainder of his estate left to his infant daughter Sarah. After Ann’s death, Mount Vernon and other Fairfax County property would go to GW. If Sarah died childless, part of the estate would descend to her mother and part of her lands were to be divided between Augustine Washington and GW (FORD [2]Worthington Chauncey Ford, ed. The Writings of George Washington. 14 vols. New York, 1889–93., 14:423–27).

 In Feb. 1753, at the age of twenty-one, he was appointed adjutant of the Southern District of Virginia with the rank of major by Gov. Robert Dinwiddie.

   GW’s commission is dated 13 Dec. 1752, “to be Major and Adjutant of the Militia, Horse and Foot, in the counties of Princes Anne, Norfolk, Nansemond, Isle of Wight, Southampton, Surrey, Brunswick, Prince George, Dinwiddie, Chesterfield, Amelia, and Cumberland.” He took the oath 10 Feb. 1753 (CROZIER [2]William Armstrong Crozier, ed. Spotsylvania County, 1721–1800: Being Transcriptions, from the Original Files at the County Court House, of Wills, Deeds, Administrators’ and Guardians’ Bonds, Marriage Licenses, and Lists of Revolutionary Pensioners. New York, 1905., 516).

   Robert Dinwiddie (1693–1770) was born in Scotland and, after a brief career as a merchant, was made admiralty agent for Bermuda in 1721 and collector of the customs for the island in 1727. In 1738 he was appointed surveyor general for the southern part of America. His appointment as lieutenant governor of Virginia came in July 1751 and he arrived in the colony in November to take up his duties. Although the titular governor of Virginia at this time was William Anne Keppel, earl of Albemarle, who remained in England, the colony’s executive duties were carried out by the resident lieutenant governor, a situation which also existed in several other colonies. Dinwiddie served as Virginia’s governor from 1751 to Jan. 1758, when he was succeeded by Francis Fauquier. In spite of numerous conflicts with the House of Burgesses, Dinwiddie was successful in raising funds and military support for the defense of the colony during the French and Indian War. He was a strong advocate of intercolonial cooperation in matters of defense. A friend and advocate of the Ohio Company, he lent the weight of his office to expansion of the Virginia frontier into the Ohio country.

 His military duties were light, leaving him ample time to pursue his flourishing career as a surveyor.  Lawrence Washington’s marriage into the Fairfax family had introduced his young brother to the most influential segment of Virginia society. He was well on his way to becoming a respected member of Virginia’s ruling class, and his attention was turning increasingly to public affairs. It was natural, therefore, that he should offer his services to Gov. Robert Dinwiddie when, in the fall of 1753, it became apparent that French forces from Canada were moving into the Ohio Valley and posing a threat to Virginia’s ambitions in the area. The Ohio country had attracted both British and French explorers and traders during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The ownership of the region, however, was not seriously contested until the middle years of the eighteenth century. By the 1730s and 1740s the British coastal colonies had discovered the profits to be made from a vigorous trade with the Indians and the area’s potential as a gateway to the West. The expeditions of the baron de Longueuil in 1739 and Pierre Joseph Céloron de Blainville in 1749 had proved to the French the strategic importance of the Ohio as a link between Canada and the Mississippi. Possession of the Ohio Valley became crucial to both powers. If the British colonies were to expand beyond the eastern seaboard, they must control the gateway to the West. If they did, France was almost certain to lose its control over Louisiana. And both coveted the immensely lucrative fur trade. Before the early 1750s the contest between England and France

in America had been chiefly over control of the Indians in the region. The French claimed the Ohio Valley largely on the basis of La Salle’s explorations in 1669–70. The British contended that the territory had been included in the original Virginia grant of 1609 and that their traders had established a firm foothold in the area. Furthermore, they rested their claims heavily on the concessions wrung from the Iroquois in the Treaty of Lancaster in 1744, when Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania met with the chiefs of the Six Nations at Lancaster, Pa., and signed a treaty in which the Iroquois surrendered much of their land in present-day Virginia and recognized British control in the Ohio country. The Indians almost immediately disputed the treaty, however, claiming they had by no means intended to relinquish claim to so large a portion of their Virginia lands.

   The Virginians contended that the Treaty of Lancaster ceded settlement rights for the area east of the Allegheny Mountains and south of the Potomac River. The Iroquois interpreted the treaty to provide for a western boundary at the Blue Ridge Mountains. For a discussion of the treaty, see MULKEARNLois Mulkearn, ed. George Mercer Papers Relating to the Ohio Company of Virginia. Pittsburgh, 1954., 400–403. The minutes of the council and the text of the treaty are in FRANKLINJulian P. Boyd, ed. Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736–1762. Philadelphia, 1938., 41–79.

 Settlement beyond the mountains would clearly benefit British ambitions in the Ohio country. As a result the Privy Council regarded favorably a petition to the king by the newly organized Ohio Company of Virginia for a grant of more than a half-million acres in the vicinity of the Ohio Valley. The company offered the inducement of providing an impetus to the fur trade and instituting a lucrative trade with the Indians; in return the members petitioned that “two hundred Thousand Acres . . . may be granted immediately without Rights on Condition of Your Petitioners Seating at their proper expence a hundred Familys upon the Land in Seven Years the Lands to be Granted Free of Quit Rent for Ten Years on Condition of their Erecting a Fort and Maintaining a Garrison for protection of the Settlement for that time.”

   “Petition of John Hanbury,” 11 Jan. 1749, P.R.O., C.O.5./1327, ff. 26–28. The petition was presented on behalf of the company by John Hanbury and is printed in MULKEARNLois Mulkearn, ed. George Mercer Papers Relating to the Ohio Company of Virginia. Pittsburgh, 1954., 246–48. The original members of the Ohio Company included John, Capel, and Osgood Hanbury, London merchants, Thomas Cresap, William Thornton, John Carlyle, Nathaniel Chapman, Richard Lee, Thomas Lee, George William Fairfax, and Lawrence and Augustine Washington. Soon such prominent figures as Robert Dinwiddie, Robert Carter, George Mason, and Philip Ludwell Lee became members.

 In Mar. 1749 the Privy Council recommended

that a grant be made on terms most favorable to the company, and Gov. William Gooch was instructed to transfer to the company “Two hundred Thousand Acres of Land lying betwixt Ramanettos and Buffalo’s Creek on the South Side of the River Alligane otherwise the Ohio, and betwixt the two Creeks and the Yellow Creek on the North Side of the River, to the Westward of the great Mountains within the Colony of Virginia.” The grant was made by Gooch on 12 July 1749.

   Minutes of Council Meeting, 16 Mar. 1748/49, P.R.O., C.O.5/1327, ff. 43–44; VA. EXEC. JLS.H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 6 vols. Richmond, 1925–66., 5:295–96.

 The Ohio Company moved quickly to fulfill the terms of its grant. Wills Creek, near the present site of Cumberland, Md., was selected as the company’s headquarters on the frontier, and in the winter of 1749–50 a storehouse was built on the Virginia side. In 1750 the company sent out Thomas Cresap, Hugh Parker, and other traders to locate tentative sites for settlement and commissioned Christopher Gist to make a complete survey of the area. On 11 Sept. 1750 Gist signed a contract with the company to arrange for the settlement of some one hundred fifty families on the company’s Ohio lands. Gist made a second survey of the area in 1751–52.

   The agreement is printed in MULKEARNLois Mulkearn, ed. George Mercer Papers Relating to the Ohio Company of Virginia. Pittsburgh, 1954., 172–73. For Gist’s account of his activities on behalf of the Ohio Company, see GISTWilliam M. Darlington, ed. Christopher Gist’s Journals with Historical, Geographical and Ethnological Notes and Biographies of his Contemporaries. Pittsburgh, 1893., 32–79.

 In 1752 the Ohio Company erected a second store on the right bank of Red Stone Creek, soon known as Red Stone Old Fort. Led by Governor Dinwiddie, the colony of Virginia gave vigorous support to the company’s efforts. From 1 through 13 June 1752 Virginia commissioners held meetings with chiefs from the Ohio tribes at Logstown, and in return for a promise of cheaper trading goods and protection against the French, they obtained Indian consent to construction of a fort at the Forks of the Ohio and the Monongahela rivers.

   The commissioners appointed by Dinwiddie were Joshua Fry, Lunsford Lomax, and James Patton. See LOGSTOWN“The Treaty of Logg’s Town, 1752.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 13 (1905–6): 143–74.; BAILEY [3]Kenneth P. Bailey. The Ohio Company of Virginia and the Westward Movement, 1748–1792: A Chapter in the History of the Colonial Frontier. Glendale, Calif., 1939., 132–38. For minutes of the council, see MULKEARNLois Mulkearn, ed. George Mercer Papers Relating to the Ohio Company of Virginia. Pittsburgh, 1954., 273–84.

 The French government in Canada was by no means indifferent to British advances. Since the 1720s judicious observers had been urging the establishment of French settlements on the Ohio frontier as a barrier to British encroachment.

   See “Memoir on the French Colonies in America,” N.Y. COL. DOCS.E. B. O’Callaghan and Berthold Fernow, eds. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York. 15 vols. Albany, 1853–87., 10:220.

 As a countermove to the Treaty of Lancaster, the French in 1748 held a council with

the Iroquois at the Castle of Saint Louis of Quebec, warning them against becoming English “vassals.” The Indians claimed that although “the English had continually solicited them to take up the hatchet against the French, which they constantly refused to do,” they had “not ceded to anyone their lands, which they hold only of Heaven.” On the strength of this assurance the French proceeded to move south into the Ohio country.

   N.Y. COL. DOCS.E. B. O’Callaghan and Berthold Fernow, eds. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York. 15 vols. Albany, 1853–87., 10:186–88.

 In June 1749 the comte de La Galissonnière, governor of New France, commissioned Céloron de Blainville to undertake an exploratory expedition down the Ohio to the Miami River and thence north to Quebec, warning Indians and English traders along the way that the French would not tolerate further British advances into the Ohio country. Céloron buried at intervals along his route a series of lead plates reiterating the claim of the French to the territory. Within the next few years a trading post was established at Logstown on the Ohio to serve as a center for the increasing number of French traders operating in the area; after the arrival of the marquis Duquesne, the new governor, in the summer of 1752, a vigorous policy of fort building was undertaken. Early in 1753 Duquesne developed a plan to send a force of some two thousand men under the command of Pierre Paul de La Malgue, sieur de Marin, to establish an effective occupation of the Ohio frontier. An advance party, led by Charles Deschamps de Boishébert, left Montreal 1 Feb. 1753. By early May Boishébert had constructed a fort at Presque Isle portage, and by the end of the month Marin’s force was ready to move south from Niagara. Using Presque Isle as a base, the French constructed a road south to a new post at Le Boeuf. By midsummer of 1753 an effective French army was operating at various sites in the Ohio country.

   For a discussion of the French expedition, see KENTDonald H. Kent. The French Invasion of Western Pennsylvania, 1753. Harrisburg, Pa., 1954., 24–26.

 The French had thus far been plagued with bad weather, labor troubles with their Indian workmen, lack of supplies, and dissension among the officers. They had not as yet met any opposition from the British or the Indians in the Ohio Valley. As they moved farther south, however, they confronted the pro-English Seneca chief, the Half-King, who warned them at a council at

Presque Isle in September that the Iroquois tribes were in treaty with the English, who had agreed not to occupy the valley. “With this belt we . . . ask you to have them cease setting up the establishments you want to make. All the tribes have always called upon us not to allow it. We have told our brothers the English to withdraw. They have done so, too.” Marin dismissed the Half-King’s claims contemptuously, retorting, with some truth, that he was not speaking for all the Iroquois.

   Quoted in KENTDonald H. Kent. The French Invasion of Western Pennsylvania, 1753. Harrisburg, Pa., 1954., 49.

 The Indians were clearly impressed by the French advance. English traders on the frontier had even more reason to be apprehensive. The warning delivered by one Ohio Company trader to Governor Dinwiddie was typical: “The French have already built a Fort on Lake Erie, and another is partly finished. . . . By the last account I can get the French Army consists of about fifteen hundred Souldiers besides Battoe Men. The French told the Indians their Army when collected will make up 15,000 Men, that that Part of their Army which is on their way from Mississippi have built two Forts down the Ohio, that the Country belongs to them & that they will build when they like. Now is our Time, if we manage well all the Indians may be brought to join against the French, otherwise they will join the French against the English.”

   William Trent to Dinwiddie, 11 Aug. 1753 (PHi: Ohio Company Papers, Etting Collection). As early as 1749 Céloron had ordered the English traders “to retire to their country with all their employees” (Darlington, Fort PittMary Carson Darlington, ed. Fort Pitt and Letters from the Frontier. Pittsburgh, 1892., 35). He complained to Gov. James Hamilton of Pennsylvania that he had been “much surprised to find traders belonging to your government in a country to which England never had any pretension. . . . Those whom I have just encountered . . . I have treated with all possible courtesy, though I had a right to regard them as interlopers and vagabonds” (Céloron to Hamilton, 6 Aug. 1749, STEVENS [2]Sylvester K. Stevens and Donald H. Kent, eds. Wilderness Chronicles of Northwestern Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, Pa., 1941., 25–26).

 During the winter and spring of 1752–53, Dinwiddie and the other colonial governors were in constant correspondence concerning the French threat. In May 1753 Dinwiddie informed James Glen, governor of South Carolina, that the French from Canada had marched out a large force of regular troops and Indians to the Ohio to prevent British settlement and “to take Possession of these Lands, & to build Forts on that river, a Step not precedented in the Time of confirm’d peace.”

   Dinwiddie to Glen, 23 May 1753, P.R.O., C.O.5/1327, ff. 304–5. See also Hamilton to Dinwiddie, 6 May 1753, PA. ARCH. COL. REC.Colonial Records of Pennsylvania. 16 vols. Harrisburg, 1840–53., 5:628–30.

 On 22 May he

wrote to James Hamilton, governor of Pennsylvania, concerning “the French Designs to settle the Ohio. I have sometime ago heard of their Robberies & Murders, & if they are allow’d a peaceable Settlemt. on the Ohio, I think the Consequence will be attend’d with the Ruin of our Trade with the Indians & also in Time will be Destruction to all our Settlemts. on the Continent . . . And We further think it wou’d be absolutely necessary, for all the Colonies to join together, in raising a proper Force to prevent the French settling on the Lands of the Ohio.”

   Dinwiddie to Hamilton, 22 May 1753, P.R.O., C.O.5/1327, ff. 306–7.

 On 16 June 1753 Dinwiddie wrote to the Board of Trade transmitting reports received by the colonial governors of French encroachments on the frontier. “I hope you will think it necessary to prevent the French taking Possession of the Lands on the Ohio, so Contiguous to Our Settlements, or indeed in my private Opinion they ought to be prevented making any Settlements to the Westward of Our present Possessions.”

   P.R.O., C.O.5/1327, ff. 292–94.

 Dinwiddie’s letter was received by the Board of Trade 11 Aug. 1753. On 18 Aug. the information was sent to the king, and on 28 Aug. the earl of Holderness, secretary of state, wrote to Dinwiddie, transmitting the crown’s instructions to verify the rumors of the French invasion and, “if You shall find, that any Number of Persons, whether Indians, or Europeans, shall presume to erect any Fort or Forts within the Limits of Our Province of Virginia, . . . You are to require of Them peaceably to depart, and not to persist in such unlawfull Proceedings, & if, notwithstanding Your Admonitions, They do still endeavour to carry on any such unlawfull and unjustifiable Designs, We do herby strictly charge, & command You, to drive them off by Force of Arms.” Dinwiddie received the instructions in mid-November and on 17 Nov. informed the Board of Trade that he had “sent one of the Adjutants of the Militia here, out to the Commander of the French Forces, to know their Intentions, & by what Authority they presume to invade His Majesty’s Dominions in the Time of tranquil Peace; when he returns I shall transmit you an Account of his Proceedings, & the French Commander’s answer.”

   Holderness to Dinwiddie, 28 Aug. 1753, P.R.O., C.O.5/211, ff. 21–40; Dinwiddie to Board of Trade, 17 Nov. 1753, P.R.O., C.O.5/1328, ff. 8–9.

 The adjutant sent by Dinwiddie was, of course, GW. An entry

for 27 Oct. 1753 in the journals of the council reads: “The Governor acquainted the Board that George Washington Esqr. Adjutant General for the Southern District, had offered himself to go properly commissioned to the Commandant of the French Forces, to learn by what Authority he presumes to make Incroachments on his Majesty’s Lands on the Ohio.” The council approved the appointment, and a committee of the council prepared a letter to be taken to the French commandant.

   VA. EXEC. JLS.H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 6 vols. Richmond, 1925–66., 5:444–45.

   The letter from Dinwiddie to the French commandant, 30 Oct. 1753, reads as follows:

   “The Lands upon the River Ohio, in the Western Parts of the Colony of Virginia, are so notoriously known to be the Property of the Crown of Great Britain, that it is a Matter of equal Concern & Surprize to me, to hear that a Body of French Forces are erecting Fortresses, & making Settlements upon that River within His Majesty’s Dominions.

   “The many & repeated Complaints I have receiv’d of these Acts of Hostilities, lay me under the Necessity of sending, in the Name of the King my Master, the Bearer hereof, George Washington Esqr. one of the Adjutants General of the Forces of this Dominion; to complain to you of the Encroachments thus made, & of the Injuries done to the Subjects of Great Britain, in open Violation to the Laws of Nations, & the Treaties now subsisting between the two Crowns.

   “If these Facts are true, & You still think fit to justify Your Proceedings; I must desire You to acquaint me by whose Authority & Instructions, You have lately marcht from Canada with an arm’d Force, & invaded the King of Great Britain’s Territories, in the Manner complain’d of; That according to the Purport & Resolution of Your Answer, I may act agreeable to the Commission I am honour’d with from the King my Master.

   “However Sir, in Obedience to my Instructions it becomes my Duty to require Your peacable Departure, & that You wou’d forbear prosecuting a Purpose so interruptive of the Harmony & good Understanding which His Majesty is desirous to continue & cultivate with the most Christian King.

   “I perswade myself You will receive & entertain Major Washington with the Candour & Politeness natural to Your Nation; & it will give me the greatest Satisfaction, if You return him with an Answer suitable to my Wishes, for a very long & lasting Peace between Us” (P.R.O., C.O.5/1328, ff. 45–46).

 The instructions drawn up by the committee and presented to GW by Dinwiddie read:

Whereas I have receiv’d Information of a Body of French Forces being assembled in an hostile Manner on the River Ohio, intending by force of Arms to erect certain Forts on the said River, within this Territory, & contrary to the Peace & Dignity of our Sovereign the King of Great Britain.
These are therefore to require & direct You, the said George Washington, Esqr., forthwith to repair to the Logstown on the said River

Ohio; & having there inform’d Your Self where the said French Forces have posted themselves, thereupon to proceed to such Place, & being there arriv’d to present Your Credentials, together with my Letter, to the chief commanding Officer, & in the Name of His Britanic Majesty, to demand an Answer from him thereto.
On Your Arrival at the Logstown, You are to address Yourself to the Half King, to Monacatoocha & [the] other . . . Sachems of the Six Nations; acquainting them with Your Orders to visit & deliver my Letter to the French commanding Officer; & desiring the said Chiefs to appoint You a sufficient Number of their Warriors to be Your Safeguard, as near the French as You may desire, & to wait Your further Direction.
You are diligently to enquire into the Numbers & Force of the French on the Ohio, & the adjacent Country; how they are like to be assisted from Canada; & what are the Difficulties & Conveniencies of that Comunication, & the Time requir’d for it.
You are to take care to be truly inform’d what Forts the French have erected, & where; How they are Garrison’d & appointed, & what is their Distance from each other, & from Logstown: And from the best Intelligence You can procure, You are to learn what gave Occasion to this Expedition of the French: How they are like to be supported, & what their Pretentions are.
When the French Commandant has given You the requir’d & necessary Dispatches, You are to desire of him that, agreeable to the Law of Nations, he wou’d grant You a proper Guard, to protect You as far on Your return, as You may judge for Your Safety, against any stragling Indians, or Hunters, that may be ignorant of Yr. Character, & molest You.

   P.R.O., C.O.5/1328, f. 47.

 Dinwiddie also issued the following commission to GW: “I reposing especial Trust & Confidence in the Ability, Conduct, & Fidelity, of You the said George Washington have appointed You my express Messenger; and You are hereby authoriz’d & impowered to proceed hence with all convenient & possible Dispatch, to that Part, or Place, on the River Ohio, where the French have lately erected a Fort, or Forts, or where the Commandant of the French Forces resides, in order to deliver my Letter & Message to Him; & after waiting not exceeding one Week for an Answer, You are to take Your Leave & return immediately back.”

   P.R.O., C.O.5/1328, f. 48.

 At the same time the following passport was issued to GW by Dinwiddie:
Whereas I have appointed George Washington Esqr., by Commission under the Great Seal, My express Messenger to the Commandant of the French Forces on the River Ohio, & as he is charg’d with Business of great Importance to his Majesty & this Dominion.
I do hereby Command all His Majesty’s Subjects, & particularly require ALL IN ALLIANCE AND AMITY WITH THE CROWN OF GREAT BRITAIN, & all OTHERS to whom this PASSPORT may come, agreeable to the Law of Nations, to be aiding & assisting as a Safeguard to the said George Washington & his Attendants . . . in his present [passage] . . . to & from the River Ohio as aforesaid.

   P.R.O., C.O.5/1328, f. 60

 On 31 Oct. 1753 GW set out for Fredericksburg on the first stage of his journey. The text for this diary has been taken from a copy in P.R.O., C.O. 5/1328, ff. 51–58.


Title: Editorial Note
From:
To:

In the weeks after GW’s return from his journey to the French commandant, reports of further French infiltration into the Ohio Valley continued to reach Williamsburg and Gov. Robert Dinwiddie made preparations to resist. He appealed to other colonial governors for aid in repelling the French.

   DINWIDDIER. Alonzo Brock, ed. The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Virginia, 1751–1758. 2 vols. Richmond, 1883–84., 1:61–71.

 Capt. William Trent

   Dinwiddie to Trent, [Jan. 1754], DINWIDDIER. Alonzo Brock, ed. The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Virginia, 1751–1758. 2 vols. Richmond, 1883–84., 1:55–57. William Trent (1715–1787) was a native of Lancaster, Pa. His military experience dated from the 1746 campaign against Canada, when he was appointed captain of one of the four companies raised in Pennsylvania. After the campaign he returned to Pennsylvania and served as justice of the court of common pleas for Cumberland County. Trent was an experienced frontiersman who had acted for the Pennsylvania Assembly in carrying messages and gifts to the Indians. In the 1740s he had built up a considerable Indian trade and formed a partnership with George Croghan. He was an agent for the Ohio Company in the construction of storehouses and a fort. During the French and Indian War he served with both the Pennsylvania and Virginia forces, attended the Indian council at Easton in 1757, and took part in the Forbes campaign against Fort Duquesne in 1758. He lost much of his holdings during Pontiac’s rebellion in 1763 and became a leader of the “Suffering Traders,” who perennially requested restitution of their losses from the crown.

 was ordered to raise a force of 100 men and march them to the Ohio to construct a fort at the Forks. Dinwiddie had already sent ten cannon and a supply of ammunition to Alexandria for transportation to the Ohio.

   DINWIDDIER. Alonzo Brock, ed. The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Virginia, 1751–1758. 2 vols. Richmond, 1883–84., 1:73–79.

 GW, now adjutant of the Northern Neck, was instructed to raise 50 men from Frederick County and 50 men from Augusta County, then “Having all Things in readiness You are to use all Expedition in proceeding to the Fork of Ohio with the Men under Com’d and there you are to finish and compleat in the best Manner and as soon as You possibly can, the Fort w’ch I expect is there already begun by the Ohio Comp’a. You are to act on the Defensive, but in Case any Attempts are made to obstruct the Works or interrupt our Settlem’ts by any Persons whatsoever You are to

restrain all such Offenders, and in Case of resistance to make Prisoners of or kill and destroy them.” However, neither Augusta nor Frederick complied with the request for men, and in mid-February GW returned to Williamsburg.

   DINWIDDIER. Alonzo Brock, ed. The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Virginia, 1751–1758. 2 vols. Richmond, 1883–84., 1:59, 82; VA. EXEC. JLS.H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 6 vols. Richmond, 1925–66., 5:460.

 To encourage enlistments Dinwiddie issued a proclamation on 19 Feb. promising that a grant of 200,000 acres on the east side of the Ohio would be distributed among those who volunteered for service in the army.

   The proclamation is in VA. EXEC. JLS.H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 6 vols. Richmond, 1925–66., 5:499–500.

 When the House of Burgesses met in February, Dinwiddie immediately informed it of the French threat. The burgesses proved less cooperative than Dinwiddie had hoped. An inadequate grant of £10,000 for protecting the frontier was hedged with restrictions as to the terms under which the money could be spent.

   Dinwiddie’s relations with the House of Burgesses had been exacerbated by the recent conflict over the pistole fee (see GREENE [1]Jack P. Greene, ed. “The Case of the Pistole Fee: The Report of a Hearing on the Pistole Fee Dispute Before the Privy Council, June 18, 1754.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 66 (1958): 399–422.). However, some of the reluctance on the part of Virginia and the other colonies to support Dinwiddie’s plans stemmed from the widespread suspicion that these military activities were to be used to further the schemes of the Ohio Company and to protect its interests on the frontier. GW noted that even after he had returned from his journey to the French commandant with evidence that the French were infiltrating the Ohio Valley, “it was yet thought a Fiction; and Scheme to promote the Interest of a private Company (by many Gentlemen that had a share in Government. . . . These unfavourable Surmises caus’d great delays in Raiseing the first Men and Money” (GW to the earl of Loudoun, 10 Jan. 1757. CSmH). “An Act for the encouragement and protection of the settlers upon the waters of the Mississippi” voted the sum of £10,000 for defense but appointed a committee of prominent Virginians who should “with the consent and approbation of the governor or commander in chief . . . direct and appoint how the said money shall be applied, towards the protecting and defending his majesty’s subjects” (HENINGWilliam Waller Hening, ed. The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619. 13 vols. 1819–23. Reprint. Charlottesville, Va., 1969., 6:418). Although a similar committee had existed in the administration of Gov. William Gooch, the council maintained “many Things in the said Bill to be unconstitutional.” However, the need for money to meet the French emergency compelled the governor to give his assent (VA. EXEC. JLS.H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 6 vols. Richmond, 1925–66., 5:462–63).

 By

this time Dinwiddie realized the futility of relying on the counties to raise enough militia for the campaign and decided to use the funds voted by the Assembly to raise a force of six companies composed of 50 men each. “I am in hopes they will soon meet at Alexandria . . . and that they will be on their March to the Ohio the latter End of this Mo. or early in April.”

   Dinwiddie to James De Lancey, 1 Mar. 1754 (DINWIDDIER. Alonzo Brock, ed. The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Virginia, 1751–1758. 2 vols. Richmond, 1883–84., 1:83–85).

 Both New York and South Carolina were to send independent companies of regular troops, and it was hoped that contributions would be forthcoming from the other colonies. GW was definitely interested in a command for the campaign against the French. In a letter to Richard Corbin, a member of the Council, he stated: “In a conversation with you at Green Spring, you gave me some room to hope for a commission above that of major, and to be ranked among the chief officers of this expedition. The command of the whole forces is what I neither look for, expect, nor desire; for I must be impartial enough to confess, it is a charge too great for my youth and inexperience to be entrusted with. . . . But if I could entertain hopes, that you thought me worthy of the post of lieutenant-colonel, and would favor me so far as to mention it at the appointment of officers, I could not but entertain a true sense of the kindness.” Corbin, and probably others, apparently spoke for GW, since he did indeed receive the appointment he sought—forwarded to him by Corbin. General command of the Virginia forces was given to Joshua Fry, who was ordered to march first to Alexandria and then on to Wills Creek to aid in construction of a fort at the Forks of the Ohio.

   GW’s letter to Corbin is in WRITINGSJohn C. Fitzpatrick, ed. The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745–1799. 39 vols. Washington, D.C., 1931–44., 1:34–35. Joshua Fry (c.1700–1754) was born in Crewkerne, Somerset, Eng., and educated at Oxford. He emigrated to Virginia some time before 1720. In 1729 he became master of the grammar school at the College of William and Mary and in 1731 professor of mathematics and natural philosophy. After the formation of Albemarle County in 1744, he filled a variety of posts, including county surveyor and justice of the peace. He represented Albemarle County in the House of Burgesses from 1745 until his death. He collaborated with Peter Jefferson in 1751 to produce the “Map of the Inhabited Parts of Virginia,” one of the most famous of colonial maps. In 1745 he was appointed county lieutenant for Albemarle County. He received a commission as colonel of the Virginia Regiment in 1754 and was put in command of the campaign to drive the French from the Ohio. On his way to Wills Creek, Fry fell from his horse and died of his injuries 31 May, leaving the command of the regiment to devolve on GW. Fry’s instructions are in DINWIDDIER. Alonzo Brock, ed. The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Virginia, 1751–1758. 2 vols. Richmond, 1883–84., 1:88–90.

  Even before the receipt of his commission as lieutenant colonel, GW had established headquarters at Alexandria and was actively engaged in recruiting and preparations for the campaign. Dinwiddie wrote GW on 15 Mar. that the French were moving down

the Ohio more rapidly than expected, “w’ch, I think, makes it necessary for You to march what Soldiers You have enlisted, imediately to the Ohio, and escort some Waggons with the necessary Provisions. Colo. Fry to march w’th the others as soon as possible.”

   ViHi.

 GW’s diary of the campaign begins 31 Mar. 1754 and includes the march from Alexandria to the frontier, the defeat of a party of French troops under the command of Joseph Coulon de Villiers, sieur de Jumonville, and the construction of Fort Necessity in the Great Meadows. The last entry is for 27 June 1754, with GW’s force planning to move to erect a fort on Red Stone Creek. On 28 June word was received from Chief Monacatoocha that the French at the Forks were preparing to send out “800 of their own men & 400 Indians” under the command of Louis Coulon de Villiers.

   HAMILTON [1]Stanislaus Murray Hamilton, ed. Letters to Washington and Accompanying Papers. 5 vols. Boston and New York, 1898–1902., 1:17.

 It was clear that the Indians with GW’s troops would leave unless he returned to Great Meadows. Accordingly, the retreat was ordered, and after a backbreaking march over a mountainous terrain, the Virginia troops and Capt. James Mackay’s Independent Company of regulars arrived at little Fort Necessity on Great Meadows 1 July. There they found almost no provisions—but the exhausted men were in no condition to retreat farther. GW ordered them to dig in. Their Indian allies quietly disappeared. On 1 July scouts informed GW that the French had advanced as far as Red Stone, and about 11:00 A.M. on 3 July the French command approached the fort. After a day of fighting, faced by a greatly superior force, GW was compelled to surrender. On 3 July he and Captain Mackay signed the articles of capitulation including the controversial admission that they had “assassinated” Jumonville. The diary was among the papers lost by GW at the surrender of Fort Necessity. Retrieved by the French, it became part of a pamphlet published in Paris in 1756 under the title Mémoire contenant le précis des faits, avec leurs pièces justificatives pour servir de réponse aux observations envoyées par les ministres d’Angleterre, dans les cours de l’Europe. In addition to GW’s journal which appeared as document No. VIII in the first part of the pamphlet, numerous other letters and journals were included with editorial notes justifying French activities in the Ohio Valley. In 1757 a copy of the pamphlet was

captured on board a French ship taken as a prize, and was translated and published by Hugh Gaine in New York under the title A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts with Their Authorities, in Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. This translation is hereafter referred to as MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757. and has been used in this volume as the source for the text of the 1754 diary. Two additional printings, one by J. Parker in New York and one by James Chattin in Philadelphia, appeared also in 1757. Two English editions were published.

   The Conduct of the Late Ministry; or Memorial Containing a Summary of Facts, with Their Vouchers, in Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe (London, 1757). Upon the pamphlet’s publication the Monthly Review commented: “We are probably obliged to certain restless spirits among us, for this unnatural importation. We cannot, indeed, blame our open enemies for publishing whatever they may have to allege against us, and in support of their own cause; but what business have we to strengthen their efforts, and extend the circulation of their sophistry, by the additional aid of our own language?” (16 [1757], 468). In 1759 a second English edition appeared: The Mystery Reveal’d; or, Truth Brought to Light. Being a Discovery of Some Facts, in Relation to the Conduct of the Late M——Y, Which However Extraordinary They May Appear, Are Yet Supported by Such Testimonies of Authentik Papers and Memoirs As Neither Confidence, Can, Outbrave; nor Cunning Invalidate. By a Patriot. Monstrum Horrendum! (London: W. Carter, 1759).

  As the original of GW’s journal has not been found, the accuracy of the version published in the MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757. must remain questionable. The authenticity of at least one of the documents in the MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757. was disputed in England in 1756 before an English translation appeared in print. Document No. XII of the first part of the MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757. is a letter, purportedly from Col. Robert Napier to Gen. Edward Braddock, 25 Nov. 1754, containing the duke of Cumberland’s orders for the 1755 campaign against the French in the Ohio country. In 1756 a pamphlet, Reasons Humbly Offered, to Prove, That the Letter Printed at the End of the French Memorial of Justification, Is a French Forgery, and Falsely Ascribed to His R——l H——s, was published in London, challenging the authenticity of the letter on the basis of its content.

   See also Monthly Review, 15 (1756), 302–4.

 GW expressed reservations concerning the accuracy of the

MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757. in a letter used by Jared Sparks in his edition of GW’s writings:
I am really sorry, that I have it not in my power to answer your request in a more satisfactory manner. If you had favored me with the journal a few days sooner, I would have examined it carefully, and endeavoured to point out such errors as might conduce to your use, my advantage, and the public satisfaction; but now it is out of my power.
I had no time to make any remarks upon that piece, which is called my journal. The enclosed are observations on the French notes. They are of no use to me separated, nor will they, I believe, be of any to you; yet I send them unconnected and incoherent as they were taken, for I have no opportunity to correct them.
In regard to the journal, I can only observe in general, that I kept no regular one during that expedition; rough minutes of occurrences I certainly took, and find them as certainly and strangely metamorphosed; some parts left out, which I remember were entered, and many things added that never were thought of; the names of men and things egregiously miscalled; and the whole of what I saw Englished is very incorrect and nonsensical; yet, I will not pretend to say that the little body, who brought it to me, has not made a literal translation, and a good one.
Short as my time is, I cannot help remarking on Villiers’ account of the battle of, and transactions at, the Meadows, as it is very extraordinary, and not less erroneous than inconsistent.

   Document No. IX of the MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757. was “Journal of M. de Villiers.” Louis Coulon de Villiers (1710–1757), Jumonville’s brother, had been given command of the forces sent out against the English force on the Ohio. The portions of Villiers’s journal to which GW objected in this letter concern the French attack on Fort Necessity and the capitulation of the fort: “As we had no Knowledge of the Place, we presented our Flank to the Fort, when they began to fire upon us, and almost at the same Time, I perceived the English on the Right, in order of Battle, and coming towards us. . . . Towards Six at Night, the Fire of the Enemy increased with more Vigour than ever, and lasted until Eight. We briskly returned their Fire. We took particular Care to secure our Posts, to keep the English fast up in their Fort all Night; and after having fixed ourselves in the best Position we could, we let the English know, that if they would speak to us, we would stop firing. They accepted the Proposal. There came a Captain to the Place where I was: I sent M. le Mercier to receive him, and I went to the Meadow, where I told him, that as we were not at war, we were very willing to save them from the Cruelties to which they exposed themselves, on Account of the Indians. . . . We considered, that nothing could be more advantageous than this Capitulation, as it was not proper to make Prisoners in a Time of Peace. We made the English consent to sign, that they had assassinated my Brother in his own Camp. We had Hostages for the Security of the French who were in their Power; we made them abandon the King’s Country; we obliged them to leave us their Cannon, consisting of nine Pieces; we destroyed all their Horses and Cattle, and made them to sign that the Favour we granted them was only to prove, how desirous we were to use them as Friends. . . . The 4th, at Break of Day, I sent a Detachment, to take Possession of the Fort; the Garrison filed off, and the Number of their Dead and Wounded, moved me to Pity, notwithstanding my Resentment for their having in such a Manner, taken away my Brother’s Life. The Indians, who had obeyed my Orders in every Thing, claimed a right to the Plunder; but I opposed it: However, the English being frightened, fled and left their Tents, and one of their Colours” (MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757., 101). A more complete version than that printed in the MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757. is in PAPIERS CONTRECOEURFernand Grenier, ed. Papiers Contrecœur et autres documents concernant le conflit anglo-français sur l’Ohio de 1745 à 1756. Quebec, 1952., 196–202.

 He says the French

received the first fire. It is well known, that we received it at six hundred paces’ distance. He also says, our fears obliged us to retreat in a most disorderly manner after the capitulation. How is this consistent with his other account? He acknowledges, that we sustained the attack warmly from ten in the morning until dark, and that he called first to parley, which strongly indicates that we were not totally absorbed in fear. If the gentleman in his account had adhered to the truth, he must have confessed, that we looked upon his offer to parley as an artifice to get into and examine our trenches, and refused on this account, until they desired an officer might be sent to them, and gave their parole for his safe return. He might also, if he had been as great a lover of the truth as he was of vainglory, have said, that we absolutely refused their first and second proposals, and would consent to capitulate on no other terms than such as we obtained. That we were wilfully, or ignorantly, deceived by our interpreter in regard to the word assassination, I do aver, and will to my dying moment; so will every officer that was present. The interpreter was a Dutchman,

   The translation of the articles of capitulation was made by Jacob Van Braam. The surrender of Fort Necessity and the articles of capitulation will be fully treated in vol. 1 of the Papers. See also FREEMANDouglas Southall Freeman. George Washington: A Biography. 7 vols. New York, 1948–57., 1:402–11, 546–49.

 little acquainted with the English tongue, therefore might not advert to the tone and meaning of the word in English; but, whatever his motives were for so doing, certain it is, he called it the death, or the loss, of the Sieur Jumonville. So we received and so we understood it, until, to our great surprise and mortification, we found it otherwise in a literal translation.
That we left our baggage and horses at the Meadows is certain; that there was not even a possibility to bring them away is equally certain, as we had every horse belonging to the camp killed or taken away during the action; so that it was impracticable to bring any thing off, that our shoulders were not able to bear; and to wait there was impossible,

for we had scarce three days’ provisions, and were seventy miles from a supply; yet, to say we came off precipitately is absolutely false; notwithstanding they did, contrary to articles, suffer their Indians to pillage our baggage, and commit all kinds of irregularity, we were with them until ten o’clock the next day; we destroyed our powder and other stores, nay, even our private baggage, to prevent its falling into their hands, as we could not bring it off. When we had got about a mile from the place of action, we missed two or three of the wounded, and sent a party back to bring them up; this is the party he speaks of. We brought them all safe off, and encamped within three miles of the Meadows. These are circumstances, I think, that make it evidently clear, that we were not very apprehensive of danger. The colors he speaks of as left were a large flag of immense size and weight; our regimental colors were brought off and are now in my possession. Their gasconades, and boasted clemency, must appear in the most ludicrous light to every considerate person, who reads Villiers’ journal; such preparations for an attack, such vigor and intrepidity as he pretends to have conducted his march with, such revenge as by his own account appeared in his attack, considered, it will hardly be thought that compassion was his motive for calling a parley. But to sum up the whole, Mr. Villiers pays himself no great compliment in saying, we were struck with a panic when matters were adjusted. We surely could not be afraid without cause, and if we had cause after capitulation, it was a reflection upon himself.
I do not doubt, but your good nature will excuse the badness of my paper, and the incoherence of my writing; think you see me in a public house in a crowd, surrounded with noise, and you hit my case. You do me particular honor in offering your friendship; I wish I may be so happy as always to merit it, and deserve your correspondence, which I should be glad to cultivate.

   SPARKSJared Sparks, ed. The Writings of George Washington; Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private, Selected and Published from the Original Manuscripts. 12 vols. Boston, 1833–37., 2:463–65. The original of this letter has not been located and the version published by Sparks is undated and unaddressed. It is possible, however, that the letter was sent to the historian William Smith (1727–1803), of Philadelphia. On 10 Nov. 1757 Smith wrote GW: “I have not been unmindful of the Papers you sent relating to the French Memorial, & you would have seen proper use made ⟨of⟩ them before now, if they had not been designed to be inter⟨ ⟩ in the general History of the present War” (DLC:GW).

 Discovery of a contemporary copy of GW’s diary in the Contrecoeur Papers, Archives du Seminaire de Québec, Université Laval, indicates that the amount of deliberate French “editing” of the journal was probably less than historians have believed

and was probably confined to critical annotation and comments. Duquesne sent this copy of the journal to his subordinate, the sieur de Contrecoeur, on 8 Sept. 1754:
I attach hereto the extract of the journal of Colonel Washington who commanded the 500 Englishmen whom we fought. You will see that he is the most impertinent of all men, but that he has wit only in the degree that he is cunning with credulous savages. For the rest, he lies very much to justify the assassination of sieur de Jumonville, which has turned on him, and which he had the stupidity to confess in his capitulation!

   PAPIERS CONTRECOEURFernand Grenier, ed. Papiers Contrecœur et autres documents concernant le conflit anglo-français sur l’Ohio de 1745 à 1756. Quebec, 1952., 133–81, contains a side-by-side comparison of the Contrecoeur copy of the diary with the version printed in the MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757.. For a complete discussion of the Contrecoeur copy, see CONTRECOEUR DIARYDonald H. Kent, ed. Contrecoeur’s Copy of George Washington’s Journal for 1754. Harrisburg, Pa., 1952..

This piece which the baron de Longueuil has transmitted to me is extraordinary. The hypocrisy of the Englishman is unmasked. That of the Five Nations is no less uncovered, but after all, the Englishman is their dupe, because after so many pretty promises they abandoned him at the moment when he had the most need of them. On the other hand, you will see that the Englishman, wishing to make them believe that he would march only at the solicitation of the Five Nations, marched. The blunderer, thinking that with this strong assistance he could not fail to defeat us, and then become the peaceful possessor of La Belle Rivière [the Ohio River]! What has struck me in this journal, is that they came in wagons as far as the place where Sr. de Villiers found them, but that captain doubts all the same that they were able to cross the high mountains which they would have had to climb in order to go to the English camp. . . .
What desertion! What difficulties in the provinces where Washington has passed! What discord in these troops from different provinces who pretend to independence! It is that which makes me believe that we shall always be fighting a troop as poorly composed as they are poor warriors.
I beg you to comment on this journal in order to improve, if it can be done, upon my ideas and the precautions on which your safety depends, for they certainly are sensible that only treason can destroy our establishments.
There is nothing more unworthy and lower, and even blacker, than the sentiments and the way of thinking of this Washington. It would have been a pleasure to read his outrageous journal under his very nose.

   PAPIERS CONTRECOEURFernand Grenier, ed. Papiers Contrecœur et autres documents concernant le conflit anglo-français sur l’Ohio de 1745 à 1756. Quebec, 1952., 249–53 (translation).

  It is evident that Duquesne did not regard the journal as a fabrication; a comparison of the version in the Contrecoeur Papers with the version in the MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757. reveals only minor differences in wording, although there are several entries in the Contrecoeur copy which do not appear in the MEMOIR[Jacob Nicolas Moreau]. A Memorial Containing a Summary View of Facts, with Their Authorities. In Answer to the Observations Sent by the English Ministry to the Courts of Europe. Translated from the French. New York, 1757.. Aside from variations in spelling of places and proper names, the French translator probably closely followed GW’s original diary.