Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER XVII.

Edward Braddock, Generalissimo, Continued.

The reader has reached a point in the story of Braddock where some of the many personal characterizations of this singular man must have place. Despite the traditions of brutality and dissoluteness that have been handed down through the years, it will be seen that there was nevertheless, much good in him-much that appeals. In the language. of Sargent: "His faults were evidently considered by men of worth rather as foibles than vices; his intimacies were with persons of character and honor; in many respects he was worthy of their confidence, though his excesses must often have lost it."

Admitting that in private life Braddock was dissolute in disposition, "a very Iroquois," according to Walpole, "on the other hand it need not be forgotten that Braddock was for forty-three years in the service of the famed Coldstream Guards; that he probably conducted himself with courage in the Vigo expedition and in the Low Countries, and was a survivor of bloody Dettingen, Culloden, Fontenoy, and Bergenop-Zoom. In 1753 he was stationed at Gibraltar where "with all his brutality," writes Walpole, "he made himself adored, and where scarce any governor was endured before."1

But Braddock has had eulogists and some softened tones. can be heard. Washington said of him: "Thus died a man whose good and bad qualities were intimately blended. His attachments were warm and there was no disguise about him. He was brave even to a fault."

Washington, too, was as vexed as Braddock by the conduct of the Pennsylvania people and, excusing Braddock's intemperate counsels as expressed in Braddock's letters, Washington said: "A people who ought rather to be chastised for their insensibility to danger and disregard of their sovereign's expectations."2

Braddock, like John Forbes and James Grant, was a Scotchman, born in Perthshire, about 1695. He was, therefore, sixty years old at the time of his defeat. He entered the British service in the celebrated Coldstream Guards as an ensign, at the age of fifteen, and served in Flanders. Sargent says that it is not known where Braddock was born. ("Braddock's Expedition," p. 115). Nevertheless, all the Encyclopedias consulted for this work, including the "Brittanica," state that Braddock was born in Perthshire. In a note in a subsequent quotation Hulbert directly contradicts the Encyclopedias. Sargent thinks the name "Braddock" is Saxon, rather than Celtic or Erse, and its meaning is "Broad Oak."

If veracious historians are to be believed in their accounts of Braddock's lurid language on his expedition, he was one of that renowned

1"Walpole's Letters;" Vol. II, p. 461. London Edition, 1877.

2"Writings of Washington;" Sparks, Vol. I, p. 78. For Braddock's correspondence, see "Olden Time;" Vol. II, pp. 225-240.

[ocr errors]

army in Flanders that gave it its ever-memorable reputation for profanity. His private life was not above reproach but he was a brave man and a good soldier-in Europe. He was made a brigadier in 1746, hence had had a general command for nine years before coming to America. He was made a major-general in 1754. His appointment to this came through the Duke of Cumberland. We learn further of his career:3

He was a lieutenant-colonel of the line and a major of the Foot Guards, the choicest corps of the British army-a position which cost the holder no less than eighteen thousand dollars. He was born in Ireland but was not Irish, for neither Scotch, Irish, nor Papist could aspire to the meanest rank of the Foot Guards. He was as old as his century. His promotion in the army had been jointly due to the good name of his father, Edward Braddock, who was retired as major-general in 1715, to his passion for strict discipline, and to the favor of His Grace the Duke of Cumberland. Braddock's personal bravery was proverbial; it was said that his troops never faced a danger when their commander was not "greedy to lead."

Anecdotes of Braddock furnished by Walpole have been accorded insertion in Irving's "Life of Washington" and in Parkman's "Montcalm and Wolfe," to which reference may be had.4

Careful consideration must be given estimates of Braddock's character and many can be cited. Walpole sums up Braddock's character in these words, quoted by Sargent ("Expedition," p. 112): "Desperate in his fortunes, brutal in his behavior, obstinate in his sentiments, he was still intrepid and capable." In the opinion of Samuel Adams Drake, the estimation of Franklin, taken with that of Walpole's, "probably hits off Braddock quite accurately."

Drake is not quite sure, one may observe, and just how accurately Braddock was hit off has an equal measure of uncertainty.

One of the most incisive of the maligners (or shall we say acerb critics?) of Braddock is Julian Hawthorne:

Braddock was ready to advance in April, if only he had "horses and carriages," which by Franklin's exertions were supplied. The bits of dialogue and comment in which the grizzled nincompoop was an interlocutor, or of which he was the theme, are as amusing as a page from a comedy of Shakespeare. Braddock has been called brave, but the term is inappropriate; he could fly in a rage when his brutal or tyrannical instincts were questioned or thwarted, and become insensible for a time, even to physical danger. Ignorance, folly and self-conceit not seldom make a man seem fearless who is a poltroon at heart. Braddock's death was a better one than he deserved; he raged about the field like a dazed bull; fly he could not; he was incapable of adopting any intelligent measures to save his troops; on the contrary he kept reiterating conventional orders in a manner that showed his wits were gone. The bullet that dropped him did him good service, but his honor was so little sensitive that he felt no gratitude at being thus saved the consequences of one of the most disgraceful and wilfully incurred defeats that ever befell an English general.5

3"Braddock's Roads, etc.;" A. B. Hulbert, pp. 36-37. A most admirable little work. See also "Braddock's Expedition," etc.; Sargent, p. 123.

4Cf. "Memoirs of the Reign of King George the Second;" 1847, Vol. II, pp. 29-32. It is to be noted that later historians have usually followed Walpole in the characterization of Braddock.

5"United States from the Landing of Columbus to the Signing of the Protocol with Spain;" J. Hawthorne, Vol. I, p. 315.

From acerbity, Hawthorne passes in a moment to praise:

In that hell of explosions, smoke, yells and carnage, Washington was clear-headed and alert, and passed to and fro amid the rain of bullets as if his body were no more mortal than his soul. The contingent of Virginia troops-the "raw American militia” as Braddock had called them,-"who have little courage or good will, from whom I expect almost no military service, though I have employed the best officers to drill them;" these men did almost the only fighting that was done on the English side, but they were too few to avert the disaster.

Gentler far the remarks of Drake:

Braddock! He, poor general, died of his wounds after reaching the Great Meadows, there finding in a soldier's grave full and entire immunity from the reproaches that everywhere followed the mention of his name. Once only did he open his lips on the night of the battle to feebly articulate the words, so full of meaning for him: "Who would have thought it."6

There is great extenuation for the misguided, erring Braddock. More than a century and a half after the tragedy on the banks of our Monongahela, July 9, 1755, comes Arthur Granville Bradley and softens the aspersions upon the character of this slain soldier of Britain-in fact, endeavors to remove them, to show the general in a better, truer light. Sorry the lot of the soldier who fails, even though he fall. Braddock came to America in command of the first substantial force of British regulars that had ever landed on American soil up to that time. Bradley places Braddock in the newer, truer light especially for us of Pittsburgh and vicinity who have heard his name only in execration. It is well to ponder deeply on Bradley's words. He says:

Concerning Braddock, seeing that his name has been immortalized by the tragedy for which some hold him, in part, accountable, a word or two must be said. He was over sixty years of age, and was the choice of the Duke of Cumberland, then commander-in-chief. As he had neither wealth nor influence, American warfare not being in request by fortune's favorites, we may fairly suppose that he was selected on his merits. No name has been more irresponsibly played upon and few reputations perhaps more hardly used than Braddock's by most writers of history and nearly all writers of fiction. His personality, from its very contrast to the wild woods in which he died, has caught the fancy of innumerable pens and justice has been sadly sacrificed to picturesque effect. One is almost inclined to think that the mere fact of his name beginning with a letter which encourages a multiplication of strenuous epithets, has been against him. He is regarded as a typical red-coat of the Hanoverian period by all American writersburly, brutal, blundering, blasphemous, but happily always, and without a dissentient note-brave, indeed, as a lion. The familiar picture of our poor general as a corpulent, red-faced, blaspheming bull-dog, riding roughshod over colonial susceptibilities, tones down amazingly when one comes to hard facts. Legends of his former life are, with peculiar lack of generosity, quoted for what they are worth, and when examined they seem to be worth nothing. Walpole airs his wit in one or two doubtful aspersions, and a play of Fielding's7 is in little reason supposed to satirise the general's earlier years. What is really known about Braddock is in his favor. Vanquished in a duel, he had been too proud to ask his life. In command at Gibraltar, he was "adored by his men," and this, though he was notorious as a strict disciplinarian, a quality which Wolfe at this very time declares to be the most badly needed one in the British army. Braddock had been in the Guards, had enjoyed a private income of some £300 a year, which, it may be noted, since "spendthrift" is one of the epithets hurled at him, he slightly

6"Making of Ohio Valley States;" Drake, p. 71. 7"The Covent-Garden Tragedy."

increased during his lifetime. The night before he sailed he went with his two aides, Burton and Orme, to see Mrs. Bellamy, and left her his will drawn up in favor of her husband. He also produced a map and remarked with a touch of melancholy that he was "going forth to conquer whole worlds with a handful of men and to do so must cut his way through unknown woods." He was, in fact, the first British general to conduct a considerable campaign in a remote wilderness. He had neither precedents nor the experience of others to guide him, and he found little help in the Colonies, where he had been taught to look for much. He has been accused of disparaging the Colonial irregulars and neglecting to utilize the Indians. As to the first taunt, having regard to the appearance and discipline of the provincial troops that were paraded before Braddock, he would not as a soldier trained on European fields, have been human had he not refrained from open criticism; as to the second, we shall see that was untrue. Braddock had been given to understand that the transport and commissariat would be provided by Virginia and her neighbors, whereas he found that not only was nothing ready, but that there was no ground even for future expectations in that particular. If as an officer of the Cumberland regime he had used the vigorous language of that school, it would surely have been almost justified by circumstances; but there is no particular evidence that he did even so much. His accomplishments in this line are in all probability part of the more or less fancy dress in which writers have delighted to clothe him. Robert Orme, of the 35th Regiment, but recently of the Coldstreams, was one of the general's aides-de-camp, and has left us an invaluable journal of the expedition. Orme was highly thought of, both by regulars and provincials and regarded as a man of great sense and judgment, even by those who did not like Braddock and thought him, from their Colonial point of view, unconciliatory and overbearing. Orme in his private diary gives no hint that Braddock was the violent, foul-mouthed person of the magazine writer. He was as much disheartened as his chief by the appearance and seeming temper of the Colonial troops, and dwells on the trying conditions which Braddock had to meet and the energy and honesty with which he endeavored to do his duty.8

To the charge that Braddock refused or neglected to utilize the Indians who attached themselves to the expedition, he had an adequate and unassailable defense. These allies, of whom but forty or fifty were warriors, were awaiting Braddock at Wills Creek. Nine actually remained, including Monocatootha and his son, who was killed. These Indians were Iroquois and had their families with them, and they composed the hundred of whom Franklin speaks. There being no provisions for the entertainment of the Indian women and children while the braves were on the warpath, it was absolutely imperative that these non-combatants be sent to their homes. The chief reason for sending them away was a moral one. The presence of the Indian women in the neighborhood of the troops was more than indiscreet-it led to a state of licentiousness that was open and disgusting. Richard Peters, secretary of Pennsylvania, who was in the camps, stated that there were high quarrels among the Indians, and the great cause of discontent among them other than not being frequently consulted by the general, was the conduct of the royal officers towards the Indian women. Peters said that the officers were so scandalously fond of their swarthy lovers that the general was compelled to issue an order forbidding admission to the camps of any Indian women.9

Bradley has not heard of Shirley's letter (Braddock's secretary) to Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, from Fort Cumberland, May 23, 1755,

8"The Fight with France for North America;" A. G. Bradley, pp. 82-84. 9"Braddock's Expedition;" Sargent, p. 172, and the citations in footnote thereon, Croghan's statement.

and perhaps Bradley has not read Sargent's work entirely, for Sargent records that July 8th, when Braddock was at Crooked Run, William Shirley, the general's secretary, was out of all patience at the manner in which the expedition had been conducted, and was determined to go back to England the moment a campaign was brought to a close, the success of which he was more than doubtful. Poor Shirley, the son of Governor and Gen. William Shirley, fell on the fatal 9th of July, shot through the head. Six weeks before, he wrote Governor Morris a long letter in which he expressed his doubts of his general's ability and the success of the expedition. The Peters he mentioned was Richard Peters, then secretary of the Colony of Pennsylvania. In part Shirley

wrote:

I don't know what description Mr. Peters will give you of our camp and the principal persons in it, but as this goes into his pocket, I will give you mine, grounded upon the observations of several months. We have a G-1, most judiciously chosen for being disqualified for the service he is employed in, in almost every respect. He may be brave for what I know; and he is honest in pecuniary matters; but as the King said of a neighboring governor of yours, when proposed for the command of the American forces about a twelve-month ago, and recommended as a very honest man, though not remarkably able: "A little more ability and a little less honesty upon the present occasion might serve our Force better." If it is to happen that secondary officers can make amends for the defects of a first, the main spring must be the mover, others in many cases can do no more than follow and correct a little its motions. As to these I don't think we have much to boast; some are insolent and ignorant; others capable, but rather aiming at their own abilities than making a proper use of them. I have a very great love for my friend Orme, and think it uncommonly fortunate for our leader that he is under the influence of so honest and capable a man; but I wish for the sake of the public, he had more experience of business, particularly in America.

As to myself, I came out of England expecting that I might be taught the business of a military secretary, but I am already convinced of my mistake. I would willingly hope my time may not be quite lost to me. You will think me out of humor. I own I am so, I am greatly disgusted at seeing an expedition (as it is called) so ill concerted originally in England, and so ill appointed, so improperly conducted since in America, and so much fatigue and expense incurred for a purpose which, if attended with success, might better had been left alone. I speak with regard to our particular case; however, so much experience as I have had of the injudiciousness of public opinion, that I will have so little reputation when we return to England, of being received with great applause. I was likewise farther chagrined at seeing the prospect of affairs in America, while we were in Alexandria. I looked upon the very great and preventing causes through delays and disappointments, which might have been prevented till all is grown cloudy, and in danger of ending in little or nothing. I have hopes, however, that the attempt against Niagara will succeed, which is the principal thing-I don't know whether there are any more but yourself to whom I would have written some facts of his letter, or could have, at present, justified myself in doing it; but there is a pleasure in unburthening one's self to a friend. I shall be very happy to have reason to retract hereafter what I have here said, and submit to be censured as moody and apprehensive. I don't comprehend my Father's reasons for building the vessel which you mention. I hope, my dear Morris, to spend a tolerable winter with you. Pray take no notice of any fact of this letter to me in your answer, for fear of accidents. I refer you to Mr. Peter's for business.

Yours most sincerely,

W. SHIRLEY.10

10 See letter in "Colonial Records of Penna.;" Vol. VI, pp. 404-406, and in "History Western Penna., etc.;" Rupp, p. 106.

« PreviousContinue »