Chapter 14
Manor
Part 2
Col. Brodhead, in one of his letters to Gen. Washington, mentions Mahoning
as being “about fifteen miles above Fort Armstrong.” The distance
between the mouth of the Mahoning creek and the site of that fort is twelve
and nine-tenths miles. Its site was about ninety rods above Fort run, on the
lot now owned and occupied by P. F. McClarren, or about 280 rods below
Garrett’s run. A well was sunk, with an approach to it like a gangway, down
which the soldiers went safely for water. A brass cannon was said to have been
sunk in it, and a willow has grown over and in it, by which and other matter
it has been for many years filled up.After the removal of the troops from Forts Armstrong and Crawford, Col.
Lochry, the lieutenant of Westmoreland county, chided Col. Brodhead quite
severely for thus exposing the company to the incursions of the enemy. A brisk
paper war was for awhile waged between them. (9) Brodhead acted under the
authority of congress and the orders of the commander-in-chief of the
continental army, and Lochery under the control, mainly, of the president and
supreme executive council of Pennsylvania, so that it was but natural, though
not at all desirable by either, that there should be occasional clashing of
ideas as to their respective rights and duties. President Reed wrote to both
of them October 30, 1779, regretting the difference of opinion between them
respecting the destination of the corps of rangers, who, he stated, was a body
of men raised by congress by the express desire of the assembly of the state,
for the defence of the frontiers- the whole to be executed by the supreme
executive council, and as the members of council were not personally
acquainted with those stations where the rangers might be most useful, they
were put under the direction of the lieutenants of the counties in which it
was supposed they would be necessary.On December 13, 1779, Col. Lochery wrote from Hannastown to Col. Brodhead,
informing him that the president of this state had invested him (Lochery) with
authority to station Capt. Irwin;s and Capt. Campbell’s companies of rangers
where he might think their services would be most beneficial for covering
Westmoreland county and benefiting the distressed frontiers. In consequence of
the orders which he had thus received, he requested Col. Brodhead to send
those troops to Hannas town as soon as possible, where he would assign them to
stations, where he flattered himself their services would be more beneficial
to that county, in which the present territory of Manor was then included,
than they possibly could be at Fort Pitt. Col. Brodhead, in his reply, dated
at Pittsburgh, December 18, stated that President Reed had acquainted him,
just before Lochery’s had been received, with the latter’s authority for
stationing those companies, and the reasons for delegating that power to him,
and intimated that, as the officers had doubtless received his orders to march
at that point, where they would receive their further orders, he would not
prevent their paying the strictist obedience to them; that as he was vested
with the authority to station these troops, he would undoubtedly be able to
have them supplied with provisions by applying to the proper commissaries. It
was absolutely necessary that these poor, naked men should first be supplied
with some kind of clothing before being ordered our of their barracks; and as
they were then under his (Lochery’s) immediate discretion, except in cases of
offensive operations, he concluded his letter thus: “I request that you
will see that the articles I have furnished out of my regimental store be
returned. The officers can inform you what they are,” and with such other
courteous words as are usual.Another letter from Brodhead to Lochery, dated at Pittsburgh, December 29,
stated that the bearers, Capt. Clark and Ensign Cooper, with a recruiting
party, would proceed to Hannastown to recruit some men, and doubted not that
Lochery would give them every possible assistance; they took with them an
account of the various articles furnished to the different ranging companies
to be replaced by the articles sent by the state; the quantity of provisions
was much less than he had a right to expect. The ranging companies, as soon as
mustered and paid, which he expected would be done immediately, should be
discharged. The recruiting officers were ordered to send up such of the men of
the ranging companies, as soon as mustered and paid, which he expected would
be done immediately, should be discharged. The recruiting officers were
ordered to send up such of the men of the ranging companies as had been
recruited in to the eighth Pennsylvania regiment during the war, and asked
Lochery to impress upon the minds of the officers of these companies that they
could not then more essentially serve their country than by encouraging their
men to enlist during the war. Lochery, in his reply, December 31, intimated
that the captains’ own receipts were to be given for supplies sent there by
the state; he did not pretend to take charge of them; he doubted not the
stores furnished these companies from the continental magazine would be
replaced on the arrival of those furnished by the state; flattered himself
that when the defenseless state of this country should be represented, he and
those acting with him would have orders to re-enlist these companies; if the
magazine, ordered by the board of war to be “laid in” at Hannastown,
should not be, he was determined to represent that with every other slighty
and indifferent support given to this county since the war commenced; it would
be imprudent for him, as he was circumstanced, to order anything concerning
those of the eighth Pennsylvania regiment, or even to give an active
encouragement till he should hear from the council, who in that respect were
his superiors; and that it had ever had been and ever should be his principle
to give every assistance to every recruiting party. Brodhead replied January
2, 1870, stating: The president of the state (Joseph Reed) had written to him
that the ranging companies had been raised by order of congress, “but I
know of no power he is invested with to discharge or re-enlist the men;”
he would be much pleased to have them re-enlisted during the war, and provided
for as other continental troops, otherwise they could be of little service. If
there should not be a reinforcement by the next spring, it would be out of his
power to afford the frontier the protection which he wished; if the board of
war had ordered a magazine to be established at Hannastown, he had not been
acquainted with any orders concerning it; he did not know what Lochery meant
by “Slighty and indifferent support” given to that county, for he
was certain that it had had a much greater support since he had had command of
the western department than any other frontier county; the late expedition,
(10) to which that county had contributed a very small force, had evidently
been calculated for its protection, and in its effects contributed greatly to
the protection of Bedford and Northumberland counties; if some gentlemen could
find pleasure, even under full gratification, let them be indulged; if Lochery
apprehended there was an impropriety in giving the orders which he had
requested, he would direct Capt. Erwin to send up the men, and if he should
refuse to do son on the receipt of his orders, he requested Lochery to arrest
him and send him to Fort Pitt for trial; he had just received a very insolent
and impertinent letter from Capt. Thomas Campbell, whom he likewise requested
Lochery to arrest and send to Fort Pitt, where a general court-martial of the
line had already been ordered, that he might have an immediate trial; and
while the ranging companies were under his command, he took all possible care
to have them supplied, but he did not conceive it to be any part of his duty
to provide for troops who were under the immediate command of any other
gentlemen. Lochery, in his letter of January 9, 1780, to President Reed, a
portion of which is quoted in the general sketch of this county, stated that
the principle people in Westmoreland county and more particularly on the
frontier, were alarmed at Brodhead’s stripping that part entirely of troops;
he would not suffer “a magazine to be laid in” at Hannastown, and
refused to give the ranging companies any subsistence, so that “we are
obliged to billet them out in the country by fours and fives in a house, the
distressed inhabitants being willing to share the store laid in for their own
families rather that let the men be dispersed;” he had refused to send
the men of the ranging companies who had been recruited into continental
service before their times had expired, to Fort Pitt, as he could not see any
right they had to be tried, if any fault had been committed, by those who had
totally refused them even necessary subsistence; Capt. Moorhead’s independent
company, which had been raised for the protection of the county and stationed
on its frontiers for nearly the last three years, had been removed to Fort
Pitt and annexed to the 8th Pa. reg’t; if that company were to be filled,
which he thought would have soon been done, if proper officers had been
appointed, and a magazine to supply them had been established, and it had been
stationed with the ranging companies on the frontiers, the country would have
been better supported and more able to have given effective assistance to the
continental troops, if any offensive measures had been carried on against the
enemy. The next day, Capt. Joseph Erwin took the opportunity by Capt. Campbell
to inform President Reed “of a piece of conduct Col. Brodhead has been
pleased this day to adopt, which was a ticket dated Hannastown, January 10,
signed by John Clark, Capt. 8th Pa reg., then handed to him, namely: ” I
am ordered by Col. Daniel Brodhead to arrest you for detaining the rangers
that were re-enlisted into 8th Pa. Regiment during the war from joining said
regiment, and for disobedience of his orders.” Capt. Erwin flattered
himself that since he had taken command of the first ranging company, he had
done everything in his power for the benefit and advantage of the state, and
trusted his excellency and the council would take proper measures on that
occasion, as he had been arrested for strictly adhering to the instructions
given him, and the county lieutenant’s directions, by order of council.It will be borne in mind that Lochery and other Westmorelanders complained
of Brodhead for removing the troops from Forts Armstrong and Crawford, and
thus uncovering their county to the incursions of the enemy. His reasons for
so doing are given in his letter (11) to Gov. Reed. He wrote to Gen.
Washington, December 13, 1779: “This frontier is at present {in} a
perfect state of tranquillity, and many of the inhabitants who were driven
away by the savages are returned to their respective habitations;” and
April 27, 1780, to President Reed, “no damage has yet been done in
Westmoreland county.”Another clashing of opinion between him and Lochery was as to the length of
time for which men should be enlisted or re-enlisted. The former wrote to
President Reed, February 11, 1790 that if any troops should be raised for
Westmoreland county and other frontiers of this state, he trusted they would
be raised for a longer time than were those under Capts. Erwin and Campbell,
for they had been raised and subsisted at great expense, and their services
had been slight. In his reply, January 20, to an anonymous letter, of January
15, which, from its contents, he judged to have been written by Lochery, he
said, it would thereafter be discovered who had been the best guardian of the
frontiers; he would not allege any want of inclination in Lochery to protect
the frontier, but, by his own confession, he had generally if not constantly
lacked the power to give it any considerable protection even by his own
militia, and if he imagined his people would be benefited by another short
enlistment of troops, experience of what had already been done would argue
much against his seeming proposal and in favor of a durable engagement of such
as were or might be employed for protecting that and the other parts of the
frontier. The closing paragraph is in these words: “You have discovered
your knowledge of military matters by denying the propritey of my having any
continental officer arrested, who is not under my immediate command, and the
assertion that I have positively refused them (12) any subsistence is as
positively false, and I expect your superiors will candidly determine
thereon.”In that last-mentioned letter Brodhead also intimidated that he supposed
Capt. Campbell had been sent to Philadelphia to avoid a trial for his
insolence to him. President Reed, in his letter to Brodhead, dated “In
Council, Philadelphia, February 14th, 1780,” mentioned that Campbell had
attended the “Board with a representation of the affairs of his
company.” The above-mentioned correspondence between Brodhead and Lochery
had also been transmitted, and examined by the president and council. Reed’s
letter continued: “Your appointment to the present command was a most
desirable event to the authority of the state, as we consider your connection
with us and natural attachment to the state to afford the most substantial
grounds of harmony, and expectation that you would on all occasions promote
the interests and welfare of its inhabitants. These happy prospects we had
endeavored, on our part, to improve by a careful attention to the comforts and
interests of your command, of which we gave you the most substantial proofs in
the supplies and clothing forwarded to you from time to time. We cannot,
therefore, but lament this change of prospect, for without entering into any
discussion of the causes of dispute, it is easy to see that the friendship we
endeavored to cultivate between Fort Pitt and the county of Westmoreland is
most materially interrupted, and that unless some happy measure of
conciliation are adopted, there is little probability of that union of
sentiment and action so essential to the public welfare in time of great and
general danger. Such measures we have recommended to the inhabitants of that
county, and such we much recommend to you. We have, though much pressed,
declined taking any measures for restoring the men enlisted into the 8th Pa.
regt. out of the rangers’ companies before the expiration of the term of
service, but at the same time we think it our duty to acquaint you that we
cannot esteem the enlistment, under these circumstances, proper, for if they
might be taken from their officers one month before their discharge, they
might have been taken at any time, and the very design of their enlistment
frustrated. Still less can we approve the refusing of the companies
provisions, which must have, in a great measure, destroyed their usefulness
and made them a burthen; and we doubt not, on due reflection, you will admit
the measures to have been hasty, and, in their consequences, prejudicial to
the public. Your zeal to enlist them we highly commend, and had you engaged
them so that at the expiration of their term you could have turned them into
your regiment, we should have thought it the duty of the officers to have
promoted your men by any means in their power. We observe in your letter of
January 2 to Col. Lochery you express yourself to the effect that you do not
know of any powers the President has to discharge or re-enlist the men. If you
mean any powers vested in him as an individual, it is readily agreed no such
powers exist, nor was it attempted to exercise any but in conjunction with the
council. It was supposed he was fully authorized to discharge the men at any
time the public service would admit. Not being disposed to assume powers to
which we are not entitled, we hope the officers connected with the state will
not easily suppose such a case, much less suffer it to influence their
actions. But when they have reasonable doubts, we shall, on proper
application, endeavor to remove them.“We have carefully avoided expressing our sentiments with respect to
any of the above points to Col. Lochery or any of the gentlemen of
Westmoreland, for as we retain a great personal respect for your character and
services, we impute what has happened rather to inadvertency than
intervention, and therefore would by no means lessen your weight and influence
in your command or its neighborhood. On the other hand, we shall seek
occasions to show our attention and regard.”In his reply, dated at headquarters, Pittsburgh, April 20, 1780, Brodhead
said: “As it expresses a want of attention to my duty, and is doubtless
of record in the books of the supreme executive council of the state, whereof,
although at present a soldier, I glory in being a citizen, I feel the rebuke,
gentle and discreet as it may seem, very sensibly. It is, however, a small
consolation, that the honorable supreme executive council was not, perhaps, at
the time of writing this letter, fully acquainted with circumstances on this
side of the mountain, or with my instructions from his excellency the
commander-in-chief; and therefore I take the liberty here of mentioning that
it was by his instructions that I enlisted as many men from the different
corps, whose terms were nearly expired, as could be prevailed on to serve
during the war, and those of the ranging companies enlisted into my regiment,
being destitute of clothing, I immediately ordered them to be clothed by my
regimental clothier; and after having done this I felt an unwillingness to
have the men marched to places where, considering the inclement season of the
year, there was but little prospect of their answering any salutary purpose,
or even a probability of having them subsisted; and the more so, as their
movement appeared to be calculated only to favor the humor of a couple of
unmilitary men at the heads of the ranging companies, or to prevent me from
engaging them during the war into one of the regiments of the state, stationed
on its frontier. As to my refusing provisions, I conceive my letter to Col.
Lochery might have convinced the supreme executive council that I did not
refuse them to those companies, but as I had received no instructions
concerning them, and your letter assured me they were not under my command
until some offensive operations should take place, it appeared to me that I
had nothing more to do with their subsistence than with the other companies
raised at the same time for the defence of the frontier, and stationed below
the mountain, and therefore I thought it unnecessary to give any orders
respecting them, but left the matter between Col. Lochery and the deputy
commissary of issues. I have a great personal regard for Col. Lechery, and by
his late letters I am convinced that the harmony subsisting between us is
uninterrupted, but I conceive on account of his connection with Capts. Irwin
and Campbell he has been led to do things contrary to his own judgement. The
inhabitants of Westmoreland in general, I flatter myself, are ready at any
time to acknowledge my particular attention and protection. I appeal to the
wisdom of the supreme executive council whether, considering the inclemency of
the season, the scantiness of our provisions, and the necessity of preventing
every unnecessary expense to the public, the ranging companies ought not to
have been discharged agreeably to my recommendation to Col. Lochery, and
whether Capts. Irwin and Campbell ought not to have been tried by a general
court-martial of the line for their insolence and disobedience of orders. ***
I could wish, when other troops are to be sent to this district under its
particular command, the honorable executive council would be pleased to
communicate to me or any succeeding commanding officer the terms upon which
they are raised, and from what magazines they are to draw their provisions and
stores.”Reed subsequently replied to Lochery’s letter of January 9, in which, among
other things, he wrote, “We very much lament the misunderstanding which
has arisen between the commander at Fort Pitt and the principal inhabitants of
Westmoreland. We consider the appointment of a Pennsylvania officer to that
command as a very happy circumstance to the state, considering the state of
our affairs with Virginia, ans as it is highly probable that, in case of a
change, some person from that state would be appointed to that command,
policy, as well as prudence, makes it necessary to pass over transactions
which, at another time, ought to be more fully discussed. *** You will see the
propriety of keeping secret out sentiments with respect to the commander at
Fort Pitt, and doubt not, on consideration, you will see very powerful reasons
for avoiding any disgusting measures, and that you will also on such an
occasion make some sacrifice of private feelings to public necessities.”Lochery to Reed, June 1: “Col. Brodhead called me to Fort Pitt to
confer on measures for the protection of the frontiers. I am sorry to inform
your excellency that he is able to give very little assistance to our
settlements from the continental troops, although I am certain he will do
everything in his power.”The proceedings of a certain suit in trespass, instituted against Col.
Brodhead for appropriating the house occupied by Edward War and Thomas
Smallman, in the vicinity of Fort Pitt, to military use, in an expected
imminent emergency, in which 5,000 pounds damages were claimed, and of another
for taking the demised King’s garden for soldiers’ gardens, in which 40,000
pounds damages were claimed- these proceedings, at least in the first suit,
having been referred to congress, that body, April 18, 1780, passed the
following:
Resolved, That a copy of Col. Brodhead’s letter of the 27th February,
and the papers referred to in it, be sent to the governor and council of
Virginia, and to the supreme executive council of Pennsylvania.
Resolved, That Col. Brodhead shall be supported by congress in any acts
or orders which the nature of the service, and the discharging of his duty as
commanding officer at Fort Pitt, hath made or shall make necessary.The then president of congress, Samuel Huntington, in communication, to
President Reed, reiterating the substance of the last resolution, remarked,
“with which sentiment I doubt not the legislative and executive powers of
this commonwealth will fully concur, and, so far as appertains to them,
support him in every act that is necessary for a faithful discharge of his
duty as commanding officer at Fort Pitt.”That clashing of opinion between Brodhead and Lochery is given so much at
length because the keeping of a force at Fort Armstrong was affected by it.
Though the troops were removed therefrom, it was not intended by the commander
of the western department that it should be permanently vacant. On April 3,
1780, he wrote to Col. Lochery requesting him to order out from the militia of
Westmoreland county sixty able-bodied rank and file and a proportionate number
of commissioned and non-commissioned officers, one-third of whom were to be
detached to Fort Armstrong and the other two-thirds to Fort Crawford and to
the forks of Black Legs. They were to be drafted for two months, if not sooner
discharged. That body of men, with a number of regulars to support those
detached to Fort Armstrong, he hoped, would give sufficient countenance to the
inhabitants of that county. He wished Lochery “to inculcate a principle
of virtuous resistance against the common enemy.” He did not think that
that frontier, under the circumstances, need apprehend danger, but it might be
necessary for the inhabitants to be on their guard, and they might rest
assured of every possible protection in his power. On the 25th of the same
month he again wrote to Lochery that he had been disappointed beyond all
description in getting clothing for his troops, and, therefore, could not
until then send a detachment to Fort Armstrong, and sent an express with his
letter informing Lochery that Capt. Thomas Beall would start the next morning
with the party and provisions for Fort Crawford, where he was to leave a part,
if any troops were there, otherwise to move the whole to Fort Armstrong,
whence Lochery’s detachment was to be furnished. On the 29th Reed wrote to
Brodhead: The assembly at its last session, had voted that the four companies
be raised for the frontiers, but the deficient state of the treasury had
prevented its being carried into execution, “You will, therefore,”
wrote he, “render a very important and acceptable service to us, if you
can cover Westmoreland in any considerable degree. After many consultations
and much deliberation, we have concluded to offer a reward for scalps, and
hope it will serve as an inducement to the young fellows of the county and
others to turn out against the Indians.”As to the reward proposed to be offered for scalps, Brodhead expressed his
apprehension, in his reply of May 18, that it would be construed into a
license to take off the scalps of some of the friendly Delawares, and produce
a general Indian war. He was not ignorant of the influence of the Delaware
councils over nearly twenty different nations, and for that reason much notice
had been taken of them. Their councils had been steady, and their young men
serviceable. Goods, paint and trinkets- a small assortment of them- he thought
would be more efficacious in keeping them so than paper money without these
articles, which they could not be taught to regard as a proper reward.On the 6th of May, Brodhead wrote to Beall that he had been informed of the
discovery of a number of Indians opposite Fort Crawford; that Beall had sent a
man by the name of Guthrie for the Westmoreland militia, and wished that he
might not cause too great an alarm; if the alarm should prove to be false, or
the militia should arrive at Fort Crawford, Beall should then proceed to Fort
Armstrong. On the 13th of May, he informed Washington that the above-mentioned
detachment of regulars was then at the fort. On the 3d of August, he wrote to
Carnahan that he intended again to garrison the upper forts when a sufficient
supply of provisions should be secured, and on the 18th, to Reed, that
necessity had compelled him to evacuate for a short time Forts Armstrong and
Crawford, but that he would return to the garrisons as soon as they could be
subsisted.On the 19th, he expressed to Lochery his hope, that, as the Monongahela was
slightly rising, he would soon be able to return those garrisons to their
stations, and suggested, September 6, that as the Allegheny had then risen
considerably by the late rains, no time should be lost in sending out those
garrisons, since it was uncertain what views might be entertained by the
British at Niagara. On the 27th of March, he wrote to President Reed that it
would be impossible, under existing circumstances, to further garrison Forts
Armstrong and Crawford, until the commander-in-chief would direct him to
evacuate Fort McIntosh, which was at or near the mouth of Beaver creek.It does not appear from the letters either of Col. Brodhead or of Gen.
William Irvine, who, in September, 1781, succeeded him in the command of Fort
Pitt, that Fort Armstrong was afterward either entirely of partly garrisoned
by continental or regular troops. Detachments of rangers and scouting parties
were stationed here at various times, after the close of the revolutionary
war, while the Indians were troublesome and dangerous. Two men were killed
near that fort by the Indians, a day or two before Capt. Miller and his
company (13) reached it, whose blood was fresh on the ground when they
arrived.George Cook, who was born about 1764, was a soldier, a scout, and resided
in the Manor from either his boyhood or his early manhood until he was nearly
fourscore, used to narrate to his neighbors, among whom was William McKelog,
of “Glentworth Park,” from whom the writer obtained a statement of
these tragical facts: While Cook was a member of a scouting party who occupied
a fort or blockhouse near Fort Run, so called from Fort Armstrong, some
Indians made a small cord from the inner bark of a linden tree, with which
they anchored a duck in hole or pool in that run, formed by the action of the
water above the roots of a sugar maple tree on its brink. Three of the
scouting party, while out on a tour of duty, noticed the duck which must have
appeared to them to be floating on the water. They set their guns up against a
buttonwood tree, which, with the sugar maple tree, was cu down after that land
came into the possession of Richard Bailey. While they were stooping to catch
the duck, as it was presumed they did, they were shot by Indians, probably
three, because three reports of gun shots were heard. They fell dead int o the
run, whose water was colored with their blood. Hence that stream also bears
the name of Bloody Run. The bodies of those three men were buried on a knoll
opposite where they were shot, eight or ten rods higher up the river. The
Indians were probably concealed among the weeds, which were then quite rank
and abundant. Several of the men who were in the fort or blockhouse, on
hearing the gunshots, came out, saw what had occurred, and discovered the
Indians’ trail, which, on that or the next day, they followed to the mouth of
Pine creek, and were about to give up the pursuit, when, looking up the hill,
they saw a smoke on its face. After dark, they crossed the mouth of the creek,
and ascertained the exact position in which the Indians were. The next morning
they crawled as carefully and quickly as possible through the weeds and
willows, until they thought they were within sure gunshot of the murderers of
their comrades. They saw one of them mending his moccasin. The other two were,
they thought, cooking meat for breakfast. They shot and killed two of the
Indians, and captured the other. Having brought him past the mouth of that
creek, on their return, and having reached “an open grove,” they
told him that they would give him a start of some distance ahead of them, and
if he would beat them in running a race he should be released. He accepted the
offer, started, but was overtaken, fatally shot, and his body was left where
he fell.The late Lt. Samuel Murphy related in his lifetime that a man by the name
of McFarland had a store about fifty rods below Fort Run, between 1787 and
1790, and carried on a considerable trade with the Indians, with whom he was
apparently on friendly terms. They finally captured and took him to Detroit.
McFarland was a brother-in-law of Gen. Andrew Lewis, of Virginia.A blockhouse called the Claypoole blockhouse was built by James Claypoole
about eighty rods below Fort Run, near the river bank. It is not now know just
when it was built. It must have been between 1790 and 1796. His wife, Lavinia
Claypoole, died in the last-mentioned year, and was buried but a few rods from
the graves of the three men killed by the Indians as above stated. Peter
Ehinger, with the ax-end of his mattock, cut her name and the year of her
death on the headstone of her grave, which some persons still living remember
to have seen. That blockhouse was one of the places of refuge for the settlers
and their families from the attacks of the Indians.About 120 rods southeast from the site of that blockhouse, at the present
residence of Charlton Bailey, is a very ancient well, bedded and walled with
limestone. It is not known by whom it was sunk; some conjecture it was done by
the French, and others by James Claypole. The probability is it was there
before the latter’s advent to the manor. As soon as it was safe to live out of
the blockhouse, his son George built a log house between it and the hill,
where D. S. Herrold now resides. There are two species of grapes still extant
in this locality, which have been perpetuated from vines imported and cultured
by the French. One is of the ordinary size, very sweet, of a deep purple, and
ripens earlier than other grapes. The other is of much larger size, delicious,
and is called, correctly or not, the fox grape.The security of the Westmoreland frontier, of which the territory included
in Manor township was a part, was either directly or indirectly affected by
the causes which embarrassed operations at and around Fort Pitt, among which
was the confusion resulting from the unsettled question (14) as to whether
Pennsylvania or Virginia had the rightful jurisdiction over the territory in
which that fort was located until the latter part of the summer of 1780, when
the boundary line between the two states was definitely ascertained, viz.,
Mason and Dixon’s line, which was adopted and agreed upon by George Bryan,
Rev. John Ewing and David Ritterhouse, commissioners on the part of
Pennsylvania, and Right Rev. James Madison, Bishop of Virginia, and Robert
Andrews, commissioners on the part of Virginia, at their joint convention held
at Baltimore, Maryland, August 31, 1779. Another distracting element was the
project of forming a new state out of that portion of the southwestern part of
Pennsylvania, which Lord Dunmore, “in the extravagance of his views and
designs,” had claimed as belonging to Virginia, and which was
inconsiderately favored even by some Pennsylvanians in that part of our
commonwealth.Not only the confusion in the public mind and the lack of fealty and
harmony caused by that project, but the want of ammunition and other
necessities, interfered with the adequate protection of this frontier and the
constant and adequate garrisoning of Fort Armstrong. “We have observed
with much concern,” wrote President Reed to Col. Piper, June 12, 1780,
“that supplies of ammunition intended for the frontiers, as well as other
articles, sent by casual opportunities, seldom arrive at the place of
destination without much loss. *** We find much more difficulty in the means
of transportation than procuring the articles. The public business has
sometimes been delayed a whole day while members of the council were employed
in looking for wagons and horses, which is not only inconvenient but
degrading.” Later in the season, on September 16, Brodhead wrote to Reed
from Fort Pitt: “Since my last, the whole of this garrison drew out to my
quarters. The soldiers were led by sergeants. Upon being asked the cause of
such an assembly, the sergeants answered that they came to represent to me
that they had been five days without bread. They behaved well, and upon being
told that their officers were equal sufferers, and that every possible
exertion was making to supply their wants, they immediately returned to their
quarters.”Lochery advised Reed, June 1, that he then needed 600 pounds of powder and
the same quantity of lead, and a quantity of flints; that since the beginning
of hostilities in the spring he had received but six pounds of powder, a large
quantity having been damaged in its carriage over the mountains; so that, at
that time they had only twenty pounds of good powder, of public property in
the county.That part of the frontier consisting of the manor also shared directly or
indirectly in the benefits resulting from the money and other sinews of war
furnished to the authorities of Westmoreland county. Reed, in his letter to
Lochery, indorsed June 2, 1780, advised him that he would therewith receive
10,000 pounds for the supply and service of his country, stating that it was,
in the first instance, to be employed in recruiting the company of rangers
agreeably to the accompanying instructions, and should there be any particular
exigency, he must use the money with discretion and judgement, ever
remembering that money had then a fixed value, and that there was then such an
attention given to expenditure as had not theretofore been observed. The
instructions required the proposed company to consist of one captain, one
lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one drummer, one fifer
and sixty privates. They were to be enlisted to serve until January 15, 1781,
unless sooner discharged by the supreme executive council, under whose orders
and directions they were to be during the service. The lieutenant of the
county (Lochery) was authorized to muster in the recruits, but not to admit
any under eighteen or over fifty years of age, all to be able of body, and at
least five feet and six inches high. He was to be especially careful not to
enlist any deserters from the continental army, or prisoners of war. Lochery,
August 24, acknowledged the receipt of supplies in good order.William Amheron was informed by President Reed, by letter dated August 5,
that his appointment as commissioner of purchases for Westmoreland county had
been forwarded to him early in the summer with which to make purchases. By
fixing the quotas of supplies to be drawn from each county, that of
Westmoreland was fixed at 50 barrels of flour, 500 bushels of Indian corn, and
100 gallons of whisky per month, with which to supply the garrison at Fort
Pitt. That post was then in danger of being evacuated for want of provisions.
As the harvest in that county that year was plentiful, it was hoped that there
would be no difficulty in getting those needed supplies, but if there were, he
was directed to impress them. Yet, as late as the middle of September, that
garrison was sadly in need of provisions. One cause of the difficulty in
obtaining provisions Brodhead attributed to the unsettled state of the
boundary between Pennsylvania and Virginia, which had greatly discouraged the
people, and, he apprehended, had “given a handle to the
disaffected.” A conception of the difficulties encountered by his
foraging parties in the country may be had from his reply to Capt. Samuel
Brady, October 11, in which he said: “I am favored with yours of the 9th
inst., and am much distressed on account of the apparent aversion of the
people to afford supplies, and the more so as I see no alternative between
using force and suffering. If Col. Lochery expects to claim a share in the
cattle that may be collected, his proposal is inadmissable, but if it is
intended to provide for the regulars only, it ought to be accepted. Under our
present circumstances we cannot admit a modest thought about using force as
the ultimate expedient; and in case you are likely to meet with opposition,
you must send notice to Captain Springer, near Little Redstone, who will
doubtless detach a party to your assistance.”There was also an embarrassing lack of money. On the 21st August he wrote
to President Reed: “Could a considerable sum of our state money be
obtained, our wants would speedily be supplied, for I am informed that the
people will gladly receive it in payment for their produce. *** If we could be
furnished with some half Johannes here we could recruit a number of excellent
men for the service, but they well scarcely agree to go all the way to
Philadelphia to be mustered before they receive their bounty. I think it
sounds best upon the drumhead;” and on the 16th September, “If a
little hard money could be sent to this side [of the] hills for the recruiting
service, I flatter myself that a number of good men might be raised for my
regiment. But paper money is too plenty amongst the lower class of people to
allure them.”Another drawback to the recruiting service for awhile after he assumed the
command at Fort Pitt was the higher bounty paid by Virginia, which, including
that allowed by Congress, amounted to $750 to each recruit. “This puts it
out of my power,” he wrote to Gen. Washington, July 31,1779, “to
recruit my regiment until the state of Pennsylvania offers a higher
bounty.”It appears from the foregoing stubborn facts how great and various were the
obstacles to garrisoning Fort Armstrong as constantly and effectively as the
exigencies along this frontier at times required. One of the earliest settlers
in the upper part of the manor, and, in fact, in this region, was Jeremiah
Cook, Sr., who emigrated from Virginia, and was, perhaps, among those
mentioned by Wm. Findley as having moved up to Crooked Creek in 1769. He was
the father of Conrad, George and Jeremiah Cook, whose names are on the
assessment list of Allegheny township for 1805, within whose limits the manor
tract was then included. Others were James Barr, one of the associate judges
of this county, James Claypoole, John Monroe, Joel Monroe, Jonathan Mason and
Parker Truitt. John Mason volunteered in Capt. Alexander’s company and was
killed by a bombshell. What induced Claypoole, and probably the others, to
settle here was their impression that the manor bottom would be divided into
tracts of about 100 acres each, and sold at moderate prices. But when the
Duncans became the owners they determined not to sell in small tracts. Barr
and Claypoole purchased elsewhere. The others-some of them, at least- remained
as renters. John Monroe was one of them, living at first on the hill, and
afterward on the bottom, about halfway between Fort Run and Tub-mill Run, on
that part of the tract now owned by Brown & Musgrove.The Duncan portion of the manor remained undivided about eighteen years
after the death of Robert Duncan. By his will, dated April 5, and registered
May 2, 1807, he directed that the residue of his real and personal estate,
after paying his debts, should be divided into fifteen parts, nine of which he
devised and bequeathed to his wife, Ellen Duncan, and six to his daughter
Mary. By proceedings in partition, No. 32, March term, 1825, in the court of
common pleas of this county, 651 acres and 21 perches of the lower part , and
580 acres and 57 perches of the upper part were awarded to and taken by Thomas
Duncan, and 1,130 acres and 141 perches of the central part were awarded to
and taken by Ellen and Mary Duncan, under and by virtue of the decree of the
court made on March 24, 1825. Thomas Duncan was appointed a puisne judge of
the supreme court of Pennsylvania, March 14, 1817, which position he filled
until his death, in the spring of 1827. By his last will and testament he
authorized his executors to sell and dispose of all his estate, except what he
had specifically devised and bequeathed. As he did not specifically devise his
manor lands, they were first advertised for sale by Eben S. Kelly, agent for
the executors, July 26, 1929. The executors having, at their own request, been
discharged from their executorship, without selling these lands, Thomas
Chamber was appointed administrator, with the will annexed, who, through is
agents, whom he selected after Mr. Kelly’s death, disposed of them, viz.: 349
acres and 7 perches to John Christy and Moses Patterson, June 5, 1883, for
$3,839.45; 304 acres and 33 perches to John R. Johnston, July 1, 1835, for
$2,427.60; 147 acres and allowance to William Ehinger, August 2, 1842 for
$1,029; 17 acres and 93 perches to Rev. Gabriel A. Reichart, January 13, 1845,
for $123; 111 acres and 17 perches to Mary and Eliza Sibbett, June 12, for
$777.70. The records do not show to whom the residue, or 305 acres and 88
perches, adjoining the eastern line of the tract sold to Christy and
Patterson, was conveyed. It is said to have been owned by David McLeod and
John McGraw, both of whom have been dead for many years.Ellen and Mary Duncan sold their part of these lands thus: 349 acres and
140 perches to John Mechling, March 16, 1835, for $4,200, and to Daniel Torney
330 acres and 149 perches, for $2,887; 108 acres and 34 perches to John
Houser, December 28, for $324; 222 acres to Jacob and Joseph Hileman, May 22,
1838, for $666; and 106 acres and 64 perches to Jacob Wolf, for $318. Mechling
sold his tract to Charles Montgomery, May 3, 1837, for $8,500-an advance of
$4,300 in less than 2 years.The territory included within the Thomas Duncan and Ellen and Mary Duncan
purparts has since been so divided and subdivided by numerous transfers, that
it now contains, besides the major part of Manorville, 57 tracts, whose areas
vary from 3 acres to 256 acres.That part of the southern portion of hte manor conveyed by Cobeau to
Cochran was conveyed by the latter to the late Judge Ross by deed dated
October 25, 1813, namely, 681 acres and 151 perches, for $6,000. In 1848, the
latter conveyed 318 acres and 37 perches to his son Washington, and devised
200 acres to his son James, and the residue, or 163 acres and 123 perches,
with the mills, to his daughters Margaret, Mary, Amelia, Elizabeth and Hannah.The other part of the southern portion, conveyed by Cobeau to Smith,
remained in the ownership of the latter and of his legal representatives until
and subsequent to 1844. The latter, under the authority of his will, on the
1st of October of the last mentioned year, conveyed 453 acres and 133 perches
to John J. and Frederick Klingler; (15) April 1, 1849, 245 acres and 131
perches to John Christy, 175 acres and 116 perches to John Huston, 111 acres
and 15 perches to Robert Wilson; May 1849, 35 acres and 9 perches to William
W. Beatty; April 4, 1852, to John Stephenson and David Barr 104 acres and 52
perches; April 14, 195 acres and 120 perches to Rev. L. M. Graves, whose wife
is one of the testator’s heirs; July 2, 1855, to Margaret Jane Fry, 150 acres
and 80 perches; March 20, 1857, to Joseph Wolf 195 acres and 139 perches; June
30, 1859, to Thomas Montgomery 50 acres and 7 perches; June 1877, to the
administrators of the estate of Hamilton Kelly, in trust, etc., 229 acres and
48 perches, in pursuance of an article of agreement dated December 12, 1848.
The aggregate amount of the purchase money for these tracts is $25,710.13.The Cobeau portion of the Manor tract contains, besides the town of Rosston,
twenty-five tracts, with areas varying from 20 to 250 acres.Source: Page(s) 310-345, History of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania by
Robert Walker Smith, Esq. Chicago: Waterman, Watkins & Co., 1883.
Transcribed January 1999 by Donna Mohney for the Armstrong County Smith
Project.
Contributed by onna Mohney for use by the Armstrong County Genealogy Project
(http://www.pa-roots.com/armstrong/)Armstrong County Genealogy Project Notice:
These electronic pages cannot be reproduced in any format, for any
presentation, without prior written permission.
Return to the Historical Index
Return to the Smith Project
About Author
