In so doing, I hit upon an article - which I recall reading many years ago in my Colonial History Adjunct days - with a catchy, historically compelling, title entitled:
"Manufactured History": Re-Fighting the Battle of Point Pleasant West Virginia History Volume 56 (1997), pp. 76-87
The article basically tells the interwoven story of the debunking of the “First Battle of the Revolution” claim long-ago advocated by Newspaper owner, editor, DAR member, and historical "crusader" Livia Nye Simpson Poffenbarger.
The article relates:
“...Poffenbarger's thesis is based, in part, on the claims of some settlers that Dunmore and the Shawnee were in collusion. After the Revolutionary War began and Lord Dunmore was no longer Virginia's colonial governor, even Andrew Lewis expressed the notion that Dunmore had never intended to join the southern forces, setting them up for annihilation. [Andrew] Lewis felt that Dunmore, anticipating the Revolution, intended to weaken the citizen militia.4…”
"In The Battle of Point Pleasant: A Battle of the Revolution October 10, 1774, published in 1909, Poffenbarger again contended Point Pleasant was the first battle of the American Revolution. She quoted a number of historians, including Theodore Roosevelt, who noted the significance of the battle in relation to the Revolution. However, none of the historians stated Point Pleasant was part of the Revolution.”
The unattributed/anonymous writer - I could find no name - relates further:
"In The Battle of Point Pleasant: A Battle of the Revolution October 10, 1774, published in 1909, Poffenbarger again contended Point Pleasant was the first battle of the American Revolution. She quoted a number of historians, including Theodore Roosevelt, who noted the significance of the battle in relation to the Revolution. However, none of the historians stated Point Pleasant was part of the Revolution.”
The unattributed/anonymous writer - I could find no name - relates further:
“...Poffenbarger also quoted an article by historian Virgil A. Lewis, published in the West Virginia Historical Magazine in April 1902. Like the historians referenced in Poffenbarger's 1909 book, Lewis pointed out the battle's significance but stopped short of calling it the first of the Revolution. Rather, he described Point Pleasant as the "connecting link between two of the greatest periods in all American history-closing, as it does the one [the colonial] and opening the other [the Revolutionary]....Lewis was incensed [RG-emphasis] at Poffenbarger's "perversion" of history and was adamant that Point Pleasant was not a battle of the Revolutionary War. His 1909 book, History of the Battle of Point Pleasant, discusses Point Pleasant's place in history but never states outright that it was not a battle of the Revolution.”
Next, Anonymous provides testimony of Lewis' ultimate interpretation of the battle's place and significance viz Colonial and Revolutionary history, by providing in full the text of an "unknown if delivered":
"...1909 speech found in Lewis' collected papers and believed to be his most forthright pronouncement on the subject." Wherein, Lewis also concludes that,"...no student of either Virginian or American Annals now questions the integrity of Lord Dunmore, or his faithfulness to the interest of the Colony of which he was the Executive head."
Curious to read just what Poffenbarger might have written and perhaps quoted from Lewis which raised his ire over a "perversion" of history; I searched for Poffenbarger’s book...and found it at the ever-appreciated archive.org website:
What I determined, however, from a thorough search of the 1909 book was that while Poffenbarger indeed, quotes at length from Lewis five times, in so doing she merely documents Lewis' evolutionary change in interpretation, with no substantive personal commentary.
On page 21, she first cites Lewis from an 1883 encyclopedia entry he crafted and then, secondly, on pages 23-24, from an 1889 book by Lewis on West Virginia History. (see below)
I was surprised to find that both lengthy passages are identical word for word. Further quotes by Lewis are cited from newspaper articles which appeared in 1901, and are found on pages 65, 115, and 116.(see below)
As to the identical passages, one initially wonders, if she did this for effect? More likely in my opinion, because it was published by her own newspaper, the State Gazette, and by following the rather random (alternating between history, genealogy, and social register content), repetitive, and somewhat anecdotal style and organization of the book, Poffenbarger merged multiple news feature articles, reports, and essays to amass the narrative and it went to press without rigorous independent editorial scrutiny.
The lengthy excerpts included below will enable focus on what Lewis specifically wrote in 1883, 1889, 1901, and 1902, as quoted by Poffenbarger.
The reader can thereby judge the extent to which Lewis' interpretation, at a given point in time, was for or against consideration of the Battle of Point Pleasant as connected to or as part of the Revolution the mother country.
In 1883 and 1889 he states forthrightly:
"...the battle of Point Pleasant, was the first in the series of the Revolution"
Does this depend on the meaning of "was" or "series" - Mr Clinton err I'm sorry Mr. Lewis?
Whatever might have been the reason, closer scrutiny does not bear out Anon’s claim that Lewis carefully avoided linking Point Pleasant to the Revolution - at least as cited in the years 1883, and 1889.
By 1901, Anon shows Lewis as more "proof" oriented, cautioning and questioning:
"...is it best to assert without reference to the proof that the battle of Point Pleasant is the first battle of the Revolution and then array against us the whole of New England where the people are jealous of the claims of Lexington...?" (see below)
In 1902, although date and year is not given, we see the phrase:
"...the battle is at it were the connecting link between two of the greatest periods in all American history-closing, as it does the one [the colonial] and opening the other [the Revolutionary..."
Indeed, Anon, acknowledged that Lewis, in 1902,
"never states outright that it was not a battle of the Revolution.” (see above)
But I must accept Anon that Lewis was, by then:
"...adamant that Point Pleasant was not a battle of the Revolutionary War." (see above)
Now, I don’t doubt that V.A. Lewis might have been “incensed” but what was the underlying reason or was it multiple reasons?
1 - Was it because Mrs. Poffenbarger somehow incorrectly or unfairly cited him?
2 - Was it because she used duplicate, identical lengthy passages from 6 years apart, from separate sources, thereby showing little original composition on
Lewis' part?
3 - Was it because he had changed his opinion on the battle's relationship to the Revolution from what he wrote in 1883, and also in 1889?
4 - Was it because she used his much older writings that initially scorched Lord Dunmore and of which he later disowned when, perhaps from other more noted historians, he formed a more evidential judgment on the motives of the last Royal Governor of the Colony of Virginia?
"It
is also well known that Lord Dunmore was an enemy of the colonists, by
his rigid adherence to the royal cause and his efforts to induce the
Indians to co-operate with the English, and thus assist in reducing
Virginia to subjection. It has been asserted that he intentionally
delayed the progress of the left wing of the army that the right might be destroyed at Point Pleasant."
versus
"...no student of either Virginian or American Annals now questions the integrity of Lord Dunmore, or his faithfulness to the interest of the Colony of which he was the Executive head."
Or was it all of the above?
"No" to number 1, "maybe" to 2 and 3, and "Yes" to number 4.
I am of the opinion that Lewis would have been most embarrassed and upset by Poffenbarger's inclusion of his faulty interpretation of Lord Dunmore from his earlier years.
I believe Anon failed to explore the implications of this pertinent issue as the real cause for Lewis', the pre-eminent West Virginia Historian of his day, concern, and also failed to clearly delineate and chronicle Lewis' about-face in historical interpretation over time. Anon merely provides us with a lengthy speech that was found in Lewis' collections - a "pronouncement" that was never known to have been presented in public.
What explains Lewis' interpretative change? Obviously, overlooked or new evidence once made known, could and should change an interpretation of any open-minded historian. Like anyone else, historians can and do "get it wrong" - how often this is so I will not guess at - but the dedicated historian will reconsider and revise. From his record of accomplishment, Lewis was nothing if not a dedicated historian.
Upon examination, Anonymous' defense of and use of Lewis eventual interpretative determination against Mrs. Poffenbarger's, is at best misleading and at worst condescending and prejudiced against the lady editor and history lover.
What ought we to conclude from this story of a largely regional vice national historical interest and its interpretative story? Perhaps very little on the merits of the historical dispute itself. Perhaps the pet Clio cliche which riffs on Tip O'Neill's famous saying - "Like politics, all history is local" - herein pertains.
Yet, in 1997, it was an Anonymous writer, penning a catchy title, and not the long-departed Mrs. Poffenbarger (1862-1937), who purposely "Manufactured" a strawman story of an alleged interpretative disagreement between two regional history buffs, and thereby making one protagonist seemingly and unnecessarily historically foolish while the other in the final analysis historically more enlightened. Most egregiously of all, Anon, either incompletely cited, or shoddily distorted and purposefully omitted, when, what and why they actually wrote what they did. This harsh verdict falls on Anon not Poffenbarger or Lewis.
In this minor case example, however, one can easily observe how the power of the open web and its ever growing abundance of source material (sometimes rare primary sources, but mostly dated and recent secondary sources (google previews etc.) - giga-byte years advanced since 1997 - enables amateur historians, such as myself, to realize the value of a judicious scrutiny of documents and to more expeditiously decipher for oneself the basis and merit of historical assertions or arguments.
Another connection?
Now, from my cursory immersion in the above mentioned and other related documents, it appears that neither Poffenbarger or Lewis ever mentioned or considered the "Fort Gower" Resolves in their interpretaions or arguments for or against a Revolutionary "connection" for the battle or its veterans.
Doing so could have aided their case in tying the officers and men of the Battle of Point Pleasant to the Revolution, if not through causative connection but at least in spiritual* connection to the Revolutionary cause. Consider:
Fort Gower, November 5, 1774
“Gentlemen: Having now concluded the campaign, by the assistance of Providence, with honour and advantage to the Colony and ourselves, it only remains that we should give our country the strongest assurance that we are ready, at all time, to the utmost of our power to maintain and defend her just rights and privileges. We have lived about three months in t.he woods without any intelligence from Boston, or from the Delegates at Philadelphia. It is possible, from the groundless reports of designing men, that our countrymen may be jealous of the use such a body would make of arms in their hands at this critical juncture. That we are a respectable body is certain, when it is considered that we can live weeks without bread or salt; that we can sleep in the open air without any covering but that of the canopy of Heaven; and that our men can march and shoot with any in the known world. Blessed with these talents, let us solemnly engage to one another, and our country in particular, that we will use them to no purpose but for the honour and advantage of America in general, and of Virginia in particular. It behooves us then, for the satisfaction of our country, that we should give them our real sentiments, by way of resolves, at this very alarming crisis....”
Fort Gower Address and Resolutions November 5, 1774
www.as.wvu.edu/wvhistory/documents/008.pdf
William A. Ganoe, who wrote the first comprehensive history of The United States Army in 1924 - although beginning in 1775 - asserts as do other American military historians since, that the rifle companies of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, manned by not just a few frontier-border and "Dunmore War" experienced veterans, were the backbone of the new United States Army...they formed the 1st Continental Regiment and, later, the Virginia and Maryland companies formed one of six Extra Continental Regiments of the Army of the United States..our first truly national regiments...
Indeed, it is purposed that these officers and men, battle-hardened veterans of the Battle of Point Pleasant, first demonstrated a "martial identity as Americans" at Fort Gower, in 1774.
Moreover, I prefer to think of the resolves as rather the "Riflemen Resolves" - in my opinion a more apt name - deriving meaning from an enduring species of military men and not a now obscure, largely forgotten, place.
Paraphrasing a favorite line from a favorite movie:
"They aren't forgotten because they haven't died. They're living, right out there..." - in the riflemen of today who guard a lonely outpost or patrol a border ridgeline in some far-off distant land.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or was it all of the above?
"No" to number 1, "maybe" to 2 and 3, and "Yes" to number 4.
I am of the opinion that Lewis would have been most embarrassed and upset by Poffenbarger's inclusion of his faulty interpretation of Lord Dunmore from his earlier years.
I believe Anon failed to explore the implications of this pertinent issue as the real cause for Lewis', the pre-eminent West Virginia Historian of his day, concern, and also failed to clearly delineate and chronicle Lewis' about-face in historical interpretation over time. Anon merely provides us with a lengthy speech that was found in Lewis' collections - a "pronouncement" that was never known to have been presented in public.
What explains Lewis' interpretative change? Obviously, overlooked or new evidence once made known, could and should change an interpretation of any open-minded historian. Like anyone else, historians can and do "get it wrong" - how often this is so I will not guess at - but the dedicated historian will reconsider and revise. From his record of accomplishment, Lewis was nothing if not a dedicated historian.
Upon examination, Anonymous' defense of and use of Lewis eventual interpretative determination against Mrs. Poffenbarger's, is at best misleading and at worst condescending and prejudiced against the lady editor and history lover.
What ought we to conclude from this story of a largely regional vice national historical interest and its interpretative story? Perhaps very little on the merits of the historical dispute itself. Perhaps the pet Clio cliche which riffs on Tip O'Neill's famous saying - "Like politics, all history is local" - herein pertains.
Yet, in 1997, it was an Anonymous writer, penning a catchy title, and not the long-departed Mrs. Poffenbarger (1862-1937), who purposely "Manufactured" a strawman story of an alleged interpretative disagreement between two regional history buffs, and thereby making one protagonist seemingly and unnecessarily historically foolish while the other in the final analysis historically more enlightened. Most egregiously of all, Anon, either incompletely cited, or shoddily distorted and purposefully omitted, when, what and why they actually wrote what they did. This harsh verdict falls on Anon not Poffenbarger or Lewis.
In this minor case example, however, one can easily observe how the power of the open web and its ever growing abundance of source material (sometimes rare primary sources, but mostly dated and recent secondary sources (google previews etc.) - giga-byte years advanced since 1997 - enables amateur historians, such as myself, to realize the value of a judicious scrutiny of documents and to more expeditiously decipher for oneself the basis and merit of historical assertions or arguments.
Another connection?
Now, from my cursory immersion in the above mentioned and other related documents, it appears that neither Poffenbarger or Lewis ever mentioned or considered the "Fort Gower" Resolves in their interpretaions or arguments for or against a Revolutionary "connection" for the battle or its veterans.
Doing so could have aided their case in tying the officers and men of the Battle of Point Pleasant to the Revolution, if not through causative connection but at least in spiritual* connection to the Revolutionary cause. Consider:
Fort Gower, November 5, 1774
“Gentlemen: Having now concluded the campaign, by the assistance of Providence, with honour and advantage to the Colony and ourselves, it only remains that we should give our country the strongest assurance that we are ready, at all time, to the utmost of our power to maintain and defend her just rights and privileges. We have lived about three months in t.he woods without any intelligence from Boston, or from the Delegates at Philadelphia. It is possible, from the groundless reports of designing men, that our countrymen may be jealous of the use such a body would make of arms in their hands at this critical juncture. That we are a respectable body is certain, when it is considered that we can live weeks without bread or salt; that we can sleep in the open air without any covering but that of the canopy of Heaven; and that our men can march and shoot with any in the known world. Blessed with these talents, let us solemnly engage to one another, and our country in particular, that we will use them to no purpose but for the honour and advantage of America in general, and of Virginia in particular. It behooves us then, for the satisfaction of our country, that we should give them our real sentiments, by way of resolves, at this very alarming crisis....”
Fort Gower Address and Resolutions November 5, 1774
www.as.wvu.edu/wvhistory/documents/008.pdf
William A. Ganoe, who wrote the first comprehensive history of The United States Army in 1924 - although beginning in 1775 - asserts as do other American military historians since, that the rifle companies of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, manned by not just a few frontier-border and "Dunmore War" experienced veterans, were the backbone of the new United States Army...they formed the 1st Continental Regiment and, later, the Virginia and Maryland companies formed one of six Extra Continental Regiments of the Army of the United States..our first truly national regiments...
Indeed, it is purposed that these officers and men, battle-hardened veterans of the Battle of Point Pleasant, first demonstrated a "martial identity as Americans" at Fort Gower, in 1774.
Moreover, I prefer to think of the resolves as rather the "Riflemen Resolves" - in my opinion a more apt name - deriving meaning from an enduring species of military men and not a now obscure, largely forgotten, place.
Paraphrasing a favorite line from a favorite movie:
"They aren't forgotten because they haven't died. They're living, right out there..." - in the riflemen of today who guard a lonely outpost or patrol a border ridgeline in some far-off distant land.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Lewis passage in red]
"The Status of the Battle of Point Pleasant.
While the Battle of Point Pleasant has always been conceded to have been the most terrific conflict ever waged between the white man and the Indian, its full significance has not been made the text of American history. We quote however, from a few of the American writers, showing their estimate of it. …
Roosevelt, in "The Winning- of the West," Vol. II, chap. 2, says: "Lord Dunmore's War, waged by Americans for the good of America, was the opening- act in the drama whereof the closing- scene was played at Yorktown. It made possible the two fold character of the Revolutionary War, wherein on the one hand the Americans won by conquest and colonization, new lands for their children, and on the other wrought out their national independence of the British King."
Kercheval's History of the Valley, p. 120, says: "Be it remembered, then, that this Indian war was but a portico to our revolutionary war, the fuel for which was then preparing, and which burst into a flame, the ensuing- year. Neither let us forget that the Earle of Dunmore was at this time governor of Virginia; and that he was acquainted with the views and designs of the British Cabinet, can scarcely be doubted. What then, suppose ye, would be the conduct of a man possessing his means, filling a high, official station, attached to the British government, and master of consumate diplomatic skill." p.4
It will thus be seen that when the colonists met in Congress in Philadelphia, September 4,1774, that all over Virginia it was believed, as Patrick Henry had so eloquently asserted, that the war was inevitable, and the people were ready to voice his sentiment, "Let it come." Considering all these facts, we can well credit Howe, the Virginia historian who says, "While Virginia was employed in animating her sister states to resistance, her governor was employed in the ignoble occupation of fomenting jealousies and feuds between the province, which it should have been his duty to protect from such a calamity, and Pennsylvania, by raising difficult questions of boundary, and exciting the inhabitants of the disputed territory to forswear allegiance to the latter province; hoping thus, by affording a more immediately exciting question, to draw off the attention of these too important provinces from the encroachments of Great Britain. This scheme, as contemptible as it was iniquitous, wholly failed, through the good sense and magnanimity of the Virginia council. Lord North, full of his feeble and futile schemes of cheating the colonies out of their rights, took off the obnoxious duties with the exception of three pence per pound on tea; and, with the ridiculous idea that he might fix the principle upon the colonies by a precedent, which should strip it of all that was odious, offered a draw-back equal
15
to the import duty. This induced the importation of tea into Boston harbor which, being thrown overboard by some of the citizens, called down upon their city all the rigor of the celebrated Boston port bill. Again, Kercheval says: "We now proceed to examine the question, how far facts and circumstances justify us in supposing the Earl of Dunmore himself was instrumental in producing the Indian war of 1774.
It has already been remarked that this Indian war was but the precursor to our revolutionary war of 1775 that Dunmore the then governor of Virginia, was one of the most inveterate and determined enemies to the revolution that he was a man of high talents, especially for intrigue and diplomatic skill that occupying the station of commander-in-chief of the large and respectable State of Virginia, he possessed means and power to do much to serve the views of Great Britain. And we have seen, from the preceding pages, how effectually he played his part among the inhabitants of the western country. " p.16….
Hon. V. A. Lewis who is the author of the History of the Virginias compiled in Hardesty's Historical and Geographical Encylopedian ot 1883 pays the following- tribute to the Battle of Point Pleasant:
"To the student of history no truth is more patent than this, that the battle of Point Pleasant, was the first in the series of the Revolution, the flames of which were being kindled by the oppression of the mother country and the resistance of the same by the feeble but determined colonies. It is a well known fact that the emisaries of Great Britain were then inciting the Indians to hostilities against the frontier for the purpose of distracting attention, and thus preventing the consumation of the Union which was then being formed to resist the tyranny of their armed oppression. It is also well known that Lord Dunmore was an enemy of the colonists, by his rigid adherence to the royal cause and his efforts to induce the Indians to co-operate with the English, and thus assist in reducing Virginia to subjection. It has been asserted that he intentionally delayed the progress of the left wing of the army that the right might be destroyed at Point Pleasant.
Then at the mouth of the Great Kanawha river on the 19th (10th) day of October, 1774, there went whiz/ing through the forrest the first volley of a struggle for liberty, which, in the granduer and importance of its results, stands without parallel in the history of the world. On that day the soil upon which Point Pleasant, now stands drank the first blood shed in defense of American liberty, and it was there decided that the decaying institutions of the Middle Ages should not prevail in America, but that just laws and priceless liberty should be planted forever in the domains of the New World.
Historians, becoming engrossed with the more stirring scenes of the Revolution, have failed to consider the sanguinay battle in its true import and bearing upon the destiny of our country, forgetting, that the Colonial army returned home only to enlist in the patriot army and on almost every battlefield of the Revolution were representatives of that little band who stood face to face with the savage allies of Great Britian at Point Pleasant." P. 21
[RG- Unable to cross-compare with WV History: found only part 2 of the 1885 version online which begins with 1776]
And, in conclusion, Kercheval says, at page 139, "I say, from all which it will appear that Dunmore had his views, and those views hostile to the liberties of America, in his proceedings with the Indians in the war of 1774, the circumstances of the times, in connection with his equivocal conduct, leads us almost natural!}' to infer that he knew pretty well what he was about, and among- other thing's, he knew that a war with the Indians at this time would materially subserve the views and interest of Great Britain, and consequently he perhaps might feel it a duty to promote said war, and if not, why betray such extreme solicitude to single out some conspicuous character, and make him the scape-goat, to bear all the blame of this war, that he and his friend Connolly might escape?"
Virgil A. Lewis, West Virginia State Historian and Archivest, says, in his History of West Virginia, published in 1889, at page 133,
"To the student of history no truth is more patent than this, that the battle of Point Pleasant was the first in the series of the Revolution, the flames of which were then being kindled by the oppression of the mother country, and the resistance of the same by the feeble but determined colonies. It is a well known fact that emissaries of Great Britain were then inciting the Indians to hostilities against the frontier for the purpose of distracting attention and thus preventing the consumation of the union which was then being formed to resist the tyranny of their armed oppressors. It is also well known that Lord Dunmore was an enemy to the colonists, by his rigid adherence to the royal cause and his efforts to induce the Indians to co-operate with the English, and thus assist in reducing Virginia to subjection. It has been assert- ed that he intentionally delayed the progress of the left wing of the army that the right might be destroyed at Point Pleasant.
Then, at the mouth of the Great Kanawha river, on the 10th day of October, 1774, there went whizzing through the forest the first volley of a struggle for liberty which, in the grandeur and importance of its results, stands without a parellel in the history of the world. On that day the soil on which Point Pleasant now stands drank the first blood, shed in defence of American liberty, and it was there decided that the decaying institutions of the Middle Ages should not prevail in America, but that just laws and priceless liberty should be plant ed forever in the domains of the New World. Historians, becoming- engrossed with the more stirring scenes of the Revolution, have failed to consider this sanguinary- battle in its true import and bearing upon the destiny of our country, forgetting that the colonial army returned home on ly to enlist in the patriot army, and on almost every battle-field of the Revolution represented that little band who stood face to face with the savage allies of Great Britain at Point Pleasant.' pp. 23-24
[RG- accurate cross compare with -
[RG- accurate cross compare with -
]
"Owing to the importance of the question, we have, at the risk of tiring the reader, given these many details of evidence that the Battle of Point Pleasant, while not a battle between the English and Colonial forces, nevertheless shed the first blood on American soil for national in- dependence. It can be plain ly seen that, though at this time these sturdy pioneers were fighting to protect their homes and firesides, the very foundation of national government, Great Britain, through her Tory Governor of Virginia, intended thus to destroy the flower of the Col onial army of Virginia. It was a stroke which, had it succeeded, would have averted the War of the Revolution many years. The army that Lewis gathered were not the unlettered men of the forest, they were from among the most highly educated men of the colony and it is said that, to this date, in no army of a similar number, has such a large percentage had a knowledgeedge of the Greek and Latin languages That they were men of education and influence will be seen by following the survivors of that battle, not only through the Revolution, where many of them distinguished themselves, but out into the civil life of the country, during, and subsequent to, the Revolution.
"Owing to the importance of the question, we have, at the risk of tiring the reader, given these many details of evidence that the Battle of Point Pleasant, while not a battle between the English and Colonial forces, nevertheless shed the first blood on American soil for national in- dependence. It can be plain ly seen that, though at this time these sturdy pioneers were fighting to protect their homes and firesides, the very foundation of national government, Great Britain, through her Tory Governor of Virginia, intended thus to destroy the flower of the Col onial army of Virginia. It was a stroke which, had it succeeded, would have averted the War of the Revolution many years. The army that Lewis gathered were not the unlettered men of the forest, they were from among the most highly educated men of the colony and it is said that, to this date, in no army of a similar number, has such a large percentage had a knowledgeedge of the Greek and Latin languages That they were men of education and influence will be seen by following the survivors of that battle, not only through the Revolution, where many of them distinguished themselves, but out into the civil life of the country, during, and subsequent to, the Revolution.
By the treaty that followed the battle of Point Pleasant, that of Camp Charlotte, the federation of the five great nations in control of that territory ceded it to Virginia, to hold inviolate, and which treaty lasted without interruption for three years, enabling the colonists not only to enter the Northwest Territory, but to colonize Kentucky and Tennessee. In Dunmore's army was the intrepid George Rodgers Clarke, a Virginian, the Hanibal of the West, who was present at the treaty of Camp Charlotte. The history of the colonization and civilization of this territory is the history of Geo. Rodgers Clarke, too well known here for extended comment. Suffice it to say that, in the struggle led by Clarke to drive the British from the North- west Territory, it was not the colonies, but Virginia, protecting her own territory, acquired by the battle of Point Pleasant, that furnished the army for Clark's expedition, Governor, Patrick Henry supplying Clarke from Virginia's funds, the sum of twelve hundred pounds, and supplies of boots and ammunition from Pittsburg, then in Virginia. Could any army have displayed more heroism, an army of one hundred and fifty, starting out to conquer such a wilderness, with no conveyance for their munitions of war, save their own robust and hardy bodies?
The" subjugation of this country was not only comparatively broad in its results, but was due alone to Virginia. Of course, such a vast territory opened up, as it thus was, to civilization and habitation, necessarily called for representation in the Congress of the infant nation, and justly so. Virginia would soon, by her great population, control the legislation of the nation. Such, how- ever, was not the purpose of Virginia. That ever generous mother state here had opportunity to be the most magnanimous of them all. She would not, if she could, dominate the policy of the country, and, without a dollar, she donated, actually gave away to the colonies in fee simple the entire North- west Territory, to be the territory of the colonists, and to be disposed of as they deemed best..."
"Quoting from the biography of his decendant, State Historian and Archivest Virgil Anson Lewis, in "Men of West Virginia" (1903) page 31, "'His paternal ancestors were among the first settlers of the Shenandoah Valley, where they were founders of the city of Staunton. They were active frontiersmen and participants in the Revolutionary and Indian Wars. His great grandfather, Benjamin Lewis, was wounded in the Battle of Point Pleasant and after the wars were over in 1792 settled in what is now Mason County, West Virginia, and is buried in Waggoner District, near the spot where he thus found a home."
The following from the War Department Adjutant General's Office, Washington, D. C., under date March 28, 1908, is authoritative that after the Battle of Point Pleasant, he continued to serve in the patriot army: p. 65"
"From the issue of August, 1901, of the Charleston Daily Mail's report of the Monument Commission, held at that place we glean the following: "Hon. V. A. Lewis reported that the Commission had about $11,000.00 in the treasury, but that the work, as planned would necessitate the expenditure of $25,000.- 00 more." Speaking of the Battle of Point Pleasant, the Daily Mail quotes Mr. Lewis as follows: "All careful painstaking thoughtful historians have regarded it as the first in the series of the Revolution which gave the continent to liberty. It was the chief event of Dunmore's War." p. 115
"Quoting from the biography of his decendant, State Historian and Archivest Virgil Anson Lewis, in "Men of West Virginia" (1903) page 31, "'His paternal ancestors were among the first settlers of the Shenandoah Valley, where they were founders of the city of Staunton. They were active frontiersmen and participants in the Revolutionary and Indian Wars. His great grandfather, Benjamin Lewis, was wounded in the Battle of Point Pleasant and after the wars were over in 1792 settled in what is now Mason County, West Virginia, and is buried in Waggoner District, near the spot where he thus found a home."
The following from the War Department Adjutant General's Office, Washington, D. C., under date March 28, 1908, is authoritative that after the Battle of Point Pleasant, he continued to serve in the patriot army: p. 65"
"From the issue of August, 1901, of the Charleston Daily Mail's report of the Monument Commission, held at that place we glean the following: "Hon. V. A. Lewis reported that the Commission had about $11,000.00 in the treasury, but that the work, as planned would necessitate the expenditure of $25,000.- 00 more." Speaking of the Battle of Point Pleasant, the Daily Mail quotes Mr. Lewis as follows: "All careful painstaking thoughtful historians have regarded it as the first in the series of the Revolution which gave the continent to liberty. It was the chief event of Dunmore's War." p. 115
"Virgil A. Lewis, in
an article published in the State
Gazette of that date[1901], said:
"After all, even though it be
here, is it best to assert without
reference to the proof that the
battle of Point Pleasant is the
first battle of the Revolution and
then array against us the whole
of New England where the people are jealous of the claims
of Lexington. It is easy to
make assertions, but to examine hundreds of volumes and obtain records from both Europe
and America in proof of the
same, is quite another thing.
Do not throw the burden of
proof of this matter on a committee before a Congressional
Committee."
p. 116
"State Historian V. A. Lewis again says, in the West Virginia Historical Magazine, of the battle." It is the greatest event in the colonial period and stands just at its close. With it the Revolutionary Period begins. Hence the battle is as it were the connecting link between two of the great periods in all American History. Closing as it does the one, and opening the other." p. 129
"State Historian V. A. Lewis again says, in the West Virginia Historical Magazine, of the battle." It is the greatest event in the colonial period and stands just at its close. With it the Revolutionary Period begins. Hence the battle is as it were the connecting link between two of the great periods in all American History. Closing as it does the one, and opening the other." p. 129
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Henry Lee to Arthur Lee Feby. 24th 1775
D. B.
All America has received with astonishment and concern the Speech to Parliament.1 The wicked violence of Ministry is so clearly expressed, as to leave no doubt of their fatal determination to ruin both Countries, unless a powerful and timely check is interposed by the Body of the people. A very small corrupted Junto in New York excepted, all N. America is now most firmly united and as firmly resolved to defend their Liberties ad infinitum against every power on Earth that may attempt to take them away. The most effectual measures are every where taking to secure a sacred observance of the Association. Manufactures go rapidly on, and the means of repelling force by force are universally adopting. The inclosed Address to the Virginia Delegates published a few days since in the Gazette will shew you the spirit of the Frontier Men. This one County of Fincastle can furnish 1000 Rifle Men that for their number make the most formidable light Infantry in the world. The six frontier Counties can produce 6000 of these Men who from their amazing hardihood, their method of living so long in the woods without carrying provisions with them, the exceeding quickness with which they can march to distant parts, and above all, the dexterity to which they have arrived in the use of the Rifle Gun. Their is not one of these Men who wish a distance less than 200 yards on a larger object than an Orange. Every shot is fatal. The Virginia Colony Congress meets the 20th of next month for the appointment of Delegates to the Continental Congress in May next, and for other purposes of public security. The Ministry who are both foolish and wicked, think by depriving us of Assemblies to take away the advantage that results from united and collected counsels. But they are grievously mistaken. In despight of all their machinations, public Councils will be held and public measures adopted for general security. Still we hope that the proceedings of the last Continental Congress when communicated to the people of England will rouse a spirit that proving fatal to an abandoned Ministry may save the whole Empire from Its impending destruction.
The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, Volume 1, By Richard Henry Lee, National Society of the Colonial Dames of America
http://leearchive.wlu.edu/papers/letters/transcripts-gw%20delegates/DIV0221.html
-
For a lively discussion of the Battle of Point Pleasant and its "rightful" place see:
For a lively discussion of the Battle of Point Pleasant and its "rightful" place see:
The Conservative History Journal : The first battle of the American Revolution
http://conservativehistory.blogspot.com/2006/04/first-battle-of-american-revolution.html
-
For more on riflemen in the early days of the Revolution in Virginia see:
REMINISCENCES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, No. III. BATTLE OF THE GREAT BRIDGE, VIRGINIA, The Military and Naval Magazine of the United States, Volume 5, no 5. July, 1835, pp. 321-333
http://books.google.com/books?id=6rxLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA321
From Lees' Memoirs or The Southern War. BRIGADIER GENERAL DANIEL MORGAN, The Military and Naval Magazine of the United States, Volume 5, no 5. July, 1835, pp. 441-447
http://books.google.com/books?id=6rxLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long sought for corrective to the dearth of scholarly articles on the Southern Riflemen see:
"The Role of the Riflemen in the Southern Campaigns of the American War of Independence, by James R., McIntyre"
see also:
3d SOUTH CAROLINA REGIMENT [Rangers], LINEAGE, [Wright, Continental Army, p. 307]
http://sciway3.net/proctor/marion/military/revwar/RevWarSC_regiments.html
"Authorized 6 June 1775 in the South Carolina State Troops as the South Carolina Regiment of Horse Rangers. Organized in summer 1775 at Ninety-Six Court House to consist of nine companies from western South Carolina. Redesignated 12 November 1775 as the 3d South Carolina Regiment. Adopted 24 July 1776 into the Continental Army and assigned to the Southern Department...The regiment was placed on the Continental Establishment in September 1776 as mounted riflemen, and in October its complement increased to 600 men in 12 companies, with the commanding officer, the major, and the senior captain all being promoted one grade. The regiment was recruited in the back country and on the frontiers, and normally served in multi-company detachments, one of which took over Fort Charlotte in July 1775. Another detachment was bloodied in the fighting at Ninety Six in November 1775 and in the "Snow Campaign" which followed. In June 1776, the whole regiment defended the eastern end of Sullivan's Island when the British attempted an amphibious assault duringthe naval attack on the fort, which was later named Fort Moultrie. "
The 5th Georgia Regiment of Horse Rangers was raised on January 1, 1776, at Savannah, Georgia for service with the Continental Army. The regiment saw action in Florida in 1777 at the Siege of Savannah and in 1778 at the Siege of Charleston. The regiment was captured along with the rest of the American southern army at Charleston, South Carolina on May 12, 1780, by the British Army.
http://www.lafayettesar.org/gamilitia.htm
http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/usa/regiments1776.html
Georgia Colonial Rangers
Davis, Robert S. "Georgia's Colonial Rangers." Historical Society of the Georgia National Guard Journal 8(3) (Spring/Summer, 2001): 11-14.
http://www.hsgng.org/pages/gacolonialrangers.htm
Elliott, Daniel T. Argyle, Colonial Fort on the Ogeechee (LAMAR Institute Publication Series Report 38). Published by US Dept. of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program. 1977.
http://www.stewart.army.mil/ima/sites/directorates/dpw/fscr/ftargyle.pdf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I understand that the battle is still celebrated locally as the "First Battle of the American Revolutionary War" but also that the rival Mothman attraction(s) is the kind of spiritual connection most folks seek these days!
-
-
-
-
-
http://conservativehistory.blogspot.com/2006/04/first-battle-of-american-revolution.html
-
For more on riflemen in the early days of the Revolution in Virginia see:
REMINISCENCES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, No. III. BATTLE OF THE GREAT BRIDGE, VIRGINIA, The Military and Naval Magazine of the United States, Volume 5, no 5. July, 1835, pp. 321-333
http://books.google.com/books?id=6rxLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA321
From Lees' Memoirs or The Southern War. BRIGADIER GENERAL DANIEL MORGAN, The Military and Naval Magazine of the United States, Volume 5, no 5. July, 1835, pp. 441-447
http://books.google.com/books?id=6rxLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long sought for corrective to the dearth of scholarly articles on the Southern Riflemen see:
"The Role of the Riflemen in the Southern Campaigns of the American War of Independence, by James R., McIntyre"
an older version is also found here; from a version of this paper was published in American Revolution magazine, Vol. 2, p.11-13.
see also:
3d SOUTH CAROLINA REGIMENT [Rangers], LINEAGE, [Wright, Continental Army, p. 307]
http://sciway3.net/proctor/marion/military/revwar/RevWarSC_regiments.html
"Authorized 6 June 1775 in the South Carolina State Troops as the South Carolina Regiment of Horse Rangers. Organized in summer 1775 at Ninety-Six Court House to consist of nine companies from western South Carolina. Redesignated 12 November 1775 as the 3d South Carolina Regiment. Adopted 24 July 1776 into the Continental Army and assigned to the Southern Department...The regiment was placed on the Continental Establishment in September 1776 as mounted riflemen, and in October its complement increased to 600 men in 12 companies, with the commanding officer, the major, and the senior captain all being promoted one grade. The regiment was recruited in the back country and on the frontiers, and normally served in multi-company detachments, one of which took over Fort Charlotte in July 1775. Another detachment was bloodied in the fighting at Ninety Six in November 1775 and in the "Snow Campaign" which followed. In June 1776, the whole regiment defended the eastern end of Sullivan's Island when the British attempted an amphibious assault duringthe naval attack on the fort, which was later named Fort Moultrie. "
The 5th Georgia Regiment of Horse Rangers was raised on January 1, 1776, at Savannah, Georgia for service with the Continental Army. The regiment saw action in Florida in 1777 at the Siege of Savannah and in 1778 at the Siege of Charleston. The regiment was captured along with the rest of the American southern army at Charleston, South Carolina on May 12, 1780, by the British Army.
http://www.lafayettesar.org/gamilitia.htm
http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/usa/regiments1776.html
Georgia Colonial Rangers
Davis, Robert S. "Georgia's Colonial Rangers." Historical Society of the Georgia National Guard Journal 8(3) (Spring/Summer, 2001): 11-14.
http://www.hsgng.org/pages/gacolonialrangers.htm
Elliott, Daniel T. Argyle, Colonial Fort on the Ogeechee (LAMAR Institute Publication Series Report 38). Published by US Dept. of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program. 1977.
http://www.stewart.army.mil/ima/sites/directorates/dpw/fscr/ftargyle.pdf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revolutionary Rangers, Riflemen and Light Infantry
Riflemen in the "back-country" - Longhunters - Piedmont men - Overmountain men - Long Knives
* I understand that the battle is still celebrated locally as the "First Battle of the American Revolutionary War" but also that the rival Mothman attraction(s) is the kind of spiritual connection most folks seek these days!
-
-
-
-
-
