----------------------------------------

Joseph Brant, whose name has so often been mentioned in the foregoing pages, was a Mohawk sachem, of great celebrity and influence in his tribe. The time of his birth I do not know. In July, 1761, he was sent, by Sir William Johnson, to the "Moor’s Charity School," at Lebanon, Connecticut, established by the Rev. Dr. Wheelock, which was afterward removed to Hanover, and became the foundation of Dartmouth College. The following mention of his is made in the memoirs of that gentleman:

"Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of Indian Affairs in North America, was very friendly to the design of Mr. Wheelock, and, at his request, sent to the school, at various times, several boys of the Mohawks to be instructed. One of them was the since celebrated Joseph Brant; who, after receiving his education, was particularly noticed by Sir William Johnson, and employed by him in public business. He has been very useful in advancing the civilization of his countrymen, and for a long time past has been a military officer of extensive influence among the Indians in Upper Canada."

In confirmation of one of the statements in the above notice, it may be added here, that in 1787 he translated the book of Mark into the Mohawk tongue; and, as is mentioned in the letter hereafter inserted, contemplated writing a history of the six nations.

The movements of Brant during the war have been detailed, at considerable length, in the foregoing historical sketch of Tryon County. Combining the natural sagacity of the Indian with the skill and science of the civilized man, he was a formidable foe. He was a dreadful terror to the frontiers. His passions were strong. In his intercourse he was affable and polite, and communicated freely relative to his conduct. He often said that during the war he had killed but one man in cold blood, and that act he ever after regretted. He said he had taken a man prisoner, and was examining him; the prisoner hesitated, and, as he thought, equivocated. Enraged at what he considered obstinacy, he struck him down. It turned out that the man’s apparent obstinacy arose from a natural hesitancy of speech.

The following is the account, given by an European traveller, Mr. Weld, which is alluded to in the letter of Thomas Campbell. "With a considerable body of his troops, he joined the forces under the command of Sir John Johnson. A skirmish took place with a body of American troops; the action was warm, and Brant was shot by a musket ball in his heel, but the Americans in the end were defeated, and an officer, with sixty men, were taken prisoners. The officer, after having delivered up his sword, had entered into a conversation with Sir John Johnson, who commanded the British troops, and they were talking together in the most friendly manner, when Brant, having stolen slily behind them, laid the American officer low with a blow of his tomahawk. The indignation of Sir John Johnson, as may be readily supposed, was roused by such an act of treachery, and he resented it in the warmest terms. Brant listened to him unconcernedly, and when he had finished, told him, that he was sorry for his displeasure, but that indeed his heel was extremely painful at the moment, and he could not help revenging himself on the only chief of the party that he saw taken. Since he had killed the officer, he added, his heel was much less painful to him than it had been before." There were doubtless some grounds for such statements as that above; though probably very much exaggerated. I have heard a story somewhat similar told of him, but it is said that the officer was killed to prevent his being retaken by the Americans, who were in pursuit of the Indians. In the retreat he would not keep up with them.

Brant stated, and it is believed to be true, that on the morning of the day on which Cherry Valley was destroyed, he left the main body of the enemy, and, by a different route, endeavored to arrive first at the house of Mr. Wells, for the purpose of protecting the family; but that he found on his route, and a little way from the house, a large ploughed field to cross, which hindered him, so that he did not arrive until it was too late.

In person, Brant was about the middling size, of a square, stout build, fitted rather for enduring hardships than for quick movements. His complexion was lighter than that of most Indians, which resulted, perhaps, from his less exposed manner of living. This circumstance, probably, gave rise to a statement, which has often been repeated, that he was of mixed origin. He was married in the winter of 1779 to a daughter of Col. Croghan by an Indian woman. The circumstances of his marriage are somewhat singular. He was present at the wedding of Miss Moore from Cherry Valley, who had been carried away a prisoner, and who married an officer of the garrison at Fort Niagara.

Brant had lived with his wife for some time previous, according to the Indian custom, without marriage; but now insisted that the marriage ceremony should be performed. This was accordingly done by Col. Butler, who was still considered a magistrate. After the war he removed, with his nation, to Canada. There he was employed in transacting important business for his tribe. He went out to England, after the war, and was honorably received there. He died about ten or fifteen years since, at Brantford, Haldiman County, Upper Canada, where his family now reside. One of his sons, a very intelligent man, has been returned to the Colonial Assembly. This son, a few years since, when in London, in company with Capt. Robert Carr, a grandson of Sir William Johnson, laid before Thomas Campbell written documents, which changed Mr. Campbell’s opinion of his father, and led to an exposé of his views, in a letter to him.

For the correct understanding of the following letter, by those who have not read that beautiful poem, "Gertrude of Wyoming," (if there are any such,) and who may not have a copy at hand, I will insert the objectionable stanzas – one of them has already been given in part. The speech is that of an Oneida chief, who is made to say, immediately preceding the battle or massacre at Wyoming:

--------------------

"London, January 20, 1822.

"SIR,

"Ten days ago I was not aware that such a person existed as the son of the Indian leader, Brant, who is mentioned in my poem, "Gertrude of Wyoming." Last week, however, Mr. S. Bannister, of Lincoln’s Inn, called to inform me of your being in London, and of your having documents in your possession which he believed would change my opinion of your father’s memory, and induce me to do it justice. Mr. Bannister distinctly assured me that no declaration of my sentiments on the subject was desired, but such as should spontaneously flow from my own judgment of the papers that were to be submitted to me.

"In short, I imbibed my conception of your father from accounts of him that were published when I was scarcely out of my cradle. And if there were any public, direct, and specific challenge to those accounts in England, ten years ago, I am yet to learn where they existed.

"I rose from perusing the papers you submitted to me, certainly with an altered impression of his character. I find that the unfavorable accounts of him were erroneous, even on points not immediately connected with his reputation. It turns out, for instance, that he was a Mohawk Indian, of unmixed parentage. This circumstance, however, ought not to be overlooked in estimating the merits of his attainments. He spoke and wrote our language with force and facility, and had enlarged views of the union and policy of the Indian tribes. A gentleman who had been in America and from whom I sought information respecting him in consequence of your interesting message, told me, that though he could not pretend to appreciate his character entirely, he had been struck by the naiveté and eloquence of his conversation. They had talked of music, and Brant said, ‘I like the harpsichord well, and the organ still better; but I like the drum and trumpet best of all, for they make my heart beat quick.’ This gentleman also described to me the enthusiasm with which he spoke of written records. Brant projected at that time to have written a history of the Six Nations. The genius of history should be rather partial to such a man.

"I find that when he came to England, after the peace of 1783, the most distinguished individuals of all parties and professions treated him with the utmost kindness. Among these were the late Bishop of London, the late Duke of Northumberland, and Charles Fox. Lord Rawdon, now Marquis of Hastings, gave him his picture. This circumstance argues recommendations from America founded in personal friendship. In Canada the memorials of his moral character represent it as naturally ingenuous and generous. The evidence afforded induces me to believe that he often strove to mitigate the cruelty of Indian warfare.

"Lastly, you affirm that he was not within many miles of the spot when the battle which decided the fate of Wyoming took place, and from your offer of reference to living witnesses, I cannot but admit the assertion. Had I learned all this of your father when I was writing my poem, he should not have figured in it as the hero of mischief. I cannot, indeed, answer by anticipation what the writers who have either to retract or defend what they may have said about him, may have to allege; I can only say that my own opinion about him is changed. I am now inclined exceedingly to doubt Mr. Weld’s anecdote, and for this reason: Brant was not only trusted, consulted, and distinguished by several eminent British officers in America, but personally beloved by them.

"Now I could conceive men in power, for defensible reasons of state politics, to have officially trusted, and even publicly distinguished at courts or levees, an active and sagacious Indian chief, of whose private character they might nevertheless still entertain a very indifferent opinion. But I cannot imagine high-minded and high-bred British officers, forming individual and fond friendship for a man of ferocious character. It comes within my express knowledge that the late Gen. Sir Charles Stuart, fourth son of the Earl of Bute, the father of our present ambassador at Paris, the officer who took Minorca and Calvi, and who commanded our army in Portugal, knew your father in America, often slept under the same tent with him, and had the warmest regard for him. It seems but charity to suppose the man who attracted the esteem of Lord Rawdon and Gen. Stuart, to have possessed amiable qualities, so that I believe you when you affirm that he was merciful as brave. And now I leave the world to judge whether the change of opinion, with which I am touched, arises from false delicacy and flexibility of mind, or from a sense of honor and justice.

"In another part of the Canadian newspapers, my theme has been regretted as dishonorable to England. Then it was, at all events, no fable. But how far was the truth dishonorable to England? American settlers, and not Englishmen, were chiefly the white men, calling themselves Christians, who were engaged in this affair. I shall be reminded, perhaps, that they also called themselves Loyalists. But for Heaven’s sake, let not English loyalty be dragged down to palliate atrocities, or English delicacy be invoked to conceal them. I may be told that England permitted the war, and was therefore responsible for its occurrences. Not surely, universally, nor directly. I should be unwilling to make even Lord North’s administration answerable for all the actions of Butler’s Rangers; and I should be still more sorry to make all England amenable either for Lord North’s administration or for Butler’s Rangers. Was the American war an unanimous and heartfelt war of the people? Were the best patriots and the brightest luminaries of our senate for, or against it? Chatham declared, that if America fell she would fall like a strong man – that she would embrace the pillars of our constitution, and perish beneath its ruins. Burke, Fox, and Barre kindled even the breasts of St. Stephen’s Chapel against it; and William Pitt pronounced it a war against the sacred cause of Liberty. If so, the loss of our colonies was a blessing, compared with the triumph of those principles that would have brought Washington home in chains. If Chatham and Pitt were our friends in denouncing the injustice of this war, then Washington was only nominally our foe in resisting it; and he was as much the enemy of the worst enemies of our constitution, as if he had fought against the return of the Stuarts on the banks of the Spey or the Thames. I say, therefore, with full and free charity to those who think differently, that the American war was disgraceful only to those who were its abettors, and that the honor of Englishmen is redeemed in proportion as they deprecate its principles and deplore its details. Had my theme even involved English characters more than it does, I could still defend it. If my Canadian critic alleges that a poet may not blame the actions of his country, I meet his allegation and deny it. No doubt a poet ought not forever to harp and carp upon the faults of his country, but he may be her moral censor, and he must not be her parasite. If an English poet under Edward III. Had only dared to leave one generous line of commiseration to the memory of Sir William Wallace, how much he would have raised our estimation of the moral character of the age! There is a present and a future in national character, as well as a past; and the character of the present age is best provided for by impartial and generous sentiments respecting the past. The twentieth century will not think the worse of the nineteenth for regretting the American war. I know the slender importance of my own works. I am contending, however, against a false principle of delicacy, that would degrade poetry itself if it were adopted; but it will never be adopted.

"I have been thus special in addressing you, from a wish to vindicate my own consistency, as well as to do justice to you in your present circumstances, which are peculiarly and publicly interesting. The chief of an aboriginal tribe now settled under the protection of our sovereign in Canada, you are anxious to lead on your people in a train of civilization that is already begun. It is impossible that the British community should not be touched with regard for an Indian stranger of respectable private character, possessing such useful and honorable views. Trusting that you will amply succeed in them, and long live to promote improvement and happiness amidst the residue of your ancient race,

----------------------------------------

Transcribed from the original text and html prepared by Bill Carr, last updated 8/19/99.