Source:Fleming-poorly/content
WEEK before last was Lincoln commemoration week on account of the anniversary of his birth, February 12. This week Washington's commemoration comes for the same reason. We accord both equal honor and reverence. In a historical sense Lincoln is not close to Pittsburgh; Washington was, has been and will remain so. From 1758 to the end of his second presidential term in 1797, the name of Washington runs through all the history of our region.
While history is a record of past events, it is lasting, continuous; hence may be spoken of in the present tense. We may say and be understood, that Washington is ever with us. We mean his name and the record of his deeds, hardships, sufferings, trials, adversities and business speculations in the region where he first came into history. We may add to the above list his troubles—those on account of the whisky insurrection for instance. We may also define his trials as tests of his physical strength in flood and field, his afflictions by reason of most inclement weather conditions. All of which inflictions he bore bravely and records no complaint. He kept accurate journals. He was most methodical. There were other trials not physical—trials at law but instituted by Washington—ejectment suits that ousted some squatters on his Washington county lands—all of which is fully written in the histories of Washington county.
Washington is not only alive in our local history by reason of his various activities in the region about Pittsburgh, but from his close relations personally with many of our pioneers, some of these pioneers' descendants being prominent in this community yet.
Under this head we enumerate Col. William Crawford of unhappy end; Col. John Canon, founder of Canonsburg; Gen. James O'Hara, quartermaster general in the Continental Army; Maj. Isaac Craig, Gen. John Neville; his son, Col. Presley Neville; Quartermaster-General John Wilkins, Jr., and Maj. Ebenezer Denny, first mayor of Pittsburgh—in fact the whole of the Fort Pitt contingent of officers in the Continental Army. A long list it is, revealing many commemorated local names. Most of these have been written of in these columns.
It is reasonably sure that Washington knew well all the foregoing men named. It is presumed that he knew all the officers in his army. His corps of officers was at no time so large as to make the remembrance of their names a task of magnitude. We therefore can take it that Washington knew the five fighting Butlers, Lieut. Col. Stephen Bayard, Cols. John and George Gibson, Alexander Fowler, James Johnston, Stephen Lowery, George Morgan, James Morrison and Aeneas Mackay, Majs. Abraham Kirkpatrick, Joel Lewis, John Small and Thomas Smallman; Capts. William Anderson, John Brandon, Samuel Dawson, John Guthrie, Henry Heth, Michael Huffnagle, Thomas Hutchins, John Irwin, George McCulley, Devereaux Smith, David Steel, Adamson Tannehill, George Wallace and John Wilkins; Surgeons Felix Brunot and John Morgan, and Chaplain Hugh Henry Brackenridge. All or most of these we can say knew Washington.
We know that Washington was personally acquainted with Capts. William Trent and Edward Ward, Maj. John Ormsby and Assistant Quartermaster Samuel Sample, and all the officers sent by his orders to command Fort Pitt, Gens. Edward Hand, Lachlan McIntosh, Daniel Broadhed [sic], William Irvine, Capt. John Finley and perhaps Maj. Joseph Marbury, the latter commanding in 1783–84.
Of 49 names enumerated on the tablet erected by the Daughters of the American Revolution on Trinity Churchyard wall, in Oliver avenue, it is more than probable that Washington had at some time personal relations with at least 45. We are excepting some subalterns, Sergt.-Maj. John Hull, Lieut. Gabriel Peterson and Jacob Springer. He may have known Commodore Joshua Barney during the War of the Revolution, whose bones now rest in the Allegheny Cemetery in the once celebrated "Barney Mound." It is certain that Washington knew Barney afterwards, for Washington sent him to France with James Monroe, the bearer of the American flag to the national convention. This was in 1794, Monroe then being minister to France.
Washington is the greatest name, therefore, in the history of Pittsburgh. He was the commander and associate of all our Revolutionary officers and was followed and obeyed by most of our Revolutionary heroes of the rank and file. He came to the region of the upper Ohio early in life and made six journeys thither. He started again late in life to personally conduct the campaign against the insurgents against the enforcement of the excise laws, generally called the "Whisky Insurrection," by some writers, "The Western Insurrection"—unmistakably an insurrection. That journey of Washington's did not bring him nearer here than Bedford.
Allusion is made in counting these visits to Washington's activities in the field in Southwestern Pennsylvania in 1754, his acts bringing on the French and Indian War, resulting in the defeat of Braddock and the supremacy of the French on the Ohio from 1754 to 1758. These were days of great moment. Washington shines through all the history of those years, when events of great moment were decided.
Three of his visits to our city or this region were peaceful, three were made in the capacity of a soldier. His mission to the French forts in Northwestern Pennsylvania was a peaceful one, yet futile. His visit in 1754 can scarcely be called a visit for he got as far only as Fort Necessity and that trip began war. He came again in 1755 with Braddock and again in 1770. This last time he journeyed to view his lands on the Kanawha River. In 1784 he journeyed to his Washington county lands in what is now Mount Pleasant township. On this trip he stopped with Col. John Canon, at what is now Canonsburg. In 1770 he stopped in Pittsburgh.
Washington's conduct at the battle of the Monongahela, July 12, 1755, generally known in history as Braddock's defeat, is well known to every school boy. His military career under Gen. John Forbes is not so well known and is scarcely mentioned in school histories. We are best informed concerning this service by Francis Parkman, in his inimitable work, "Montcalm and Wolfe."
Washingotn [sic] saw the banner of St. George raised over the devastated French fort at the Point November 24, 1758. He was in Pittsburgh when the town was created. In fact the town was named before it was built. Forbes wrote "I have called the place Pittsburgh." Col. John Armstrong ran up the English flag over the ruined bastions of Duquesne; the deeping dusk passed rapidly into night; the snow storm that had been threatening broke in fury over the tired soldiers and frontiersmen in their cheerless bivouac by the smoking ruins, but the place—the place was no longer Duquesne; no longer under the sovereignty of France. Henceforth it was Pittsburgh. And Washington was here.
And of all Washington's visits this was the most dramatic. It is recorded that Col. George Washington was sent forward in advance of the main body of the army of Gen. Forbes, and commanded a division engaged in opening the road.
An English prisoner was taken from some French whom Washington encountered. This man confirmed the reports, that Forbes had received, that Duquesne was in a defenseless condition. Col. John Armstrong pushed forward with 1,000 men to assist Washington. Forbes followed November 17 with 4,200 men. Tents and baggage were left behind. Hence the troops depended on their blankets and knapsacks. They were, therefore, poorly equipped.
The army crept on; friendly Indians out constantly as scouts, bivouacking wherever night overtook them. November 22 the army reached Turtle Creek, only 12 miles from the fort. There the army halted, awaiting intelligence from reconnoitering parties. The keen-eyed Indians with Forbes discovered the cloud of smoke to the west and called the General's attention to it. It was thick and omenous [sic]. It was evening when discovered. A halt was imperative. At midnight the sentries heard the dull sound of a distant explosion. It was the passing of Fort Duquesne.
At dawn the general sent a troop of light horse under Capt. John Hazlett forward to extinguish the flames if it were possible. It was clear the French had destroyed the fort and perhaps their town, also.
Our Pittsburgh historian, Mr. Charles W. Dahlinger, in his description, first recites the grewsome [sic] scenes on Maj. Grant's battlefield of September 14, Forbes' route passing over the battleground on what was for many years known as Grants Hill—Court House Hill, the old familiar hump, now mostly cut away. Then Mr. Dahlinger proceeds to say:
The early winter dusk was stealing on, when the army emerged from the leafless woods, and reached the elevation where Grant had been so terribly punished. Here a short halt was ordered. Before them on the level plain below were the smoking ruins of the fort. Thirty chimneys rose naked above the ashes of as many houses. Not a Frenchman was to be seen. After the commands had been re-formed, with flags flying, drums beating and bagpipes playing, the army marched down the elevation to the plain and onward to the fort. The Southern Indians were in the advance. After them Col. Washington and Col. Armstrong at the head of the Provincials led the way. Of the Provincials, Washington's Virginians in their hunting shirts and Indian blankets, came first, then followed the Pennsylvanians (serving under Armstrong), their green uniforms turned up with buff. Most of the other Provincials marched in the dress now torn and ragged that they had worn when leaving their usual vocations; interspersed were frontiersmen dressed in buckskin, with fringed hunting shirts, leggins [sic] and moccasins and wearing coonskin caps.
Then came Gen. Forbes, now terribly wasted, reclining on his litter, but with bright eyes and eager interest, directing the march. Col. Bouquet rode in front of his Royal Americans who followed the Provincials. Their three-cornered hats and dark scarlet uniforms faced with blue contrasted markedly with the diversely clad Provincials. The Highlanders in bonnets and kilts and belted plaids in a long, picturesque line under their colonel, Montgomery, brought up the rear. Not a spectator was there to observe that imposing martial array but a few vagabond Indians who had remained to tell of the departure of the French.
There is extant and frequently exhibited a fine steel engraving of the raising of the English standard over the ruins of Fort Duquesne. It was shown last November and December in the "City Charter Centennial Exhibition of Portraits, Views and Historical Relics of Early Pittsburgh" in the collection of Miss Winifred Jones. This steel engraving was the frontispiece of an old-time magazine. It represents a group of officers, one running up the flag and the subscript reads, "Washington raising the flag over Fort Duquesne." Mr. Dahlinger, whom we have followed, accords this honor to Col. Armstrong.
Was ever city so founded? And where is Washington's commemoration in this city, one that strikes the tourist with its magnitude and its fine art and evokes the query of its meaning and thus the story of the man and his deeds here and hereabouts?
Where indeed in this city is Washington's name best commemorated and how? Outside of the city one may answer in Washington county. Within the city one answer that merits attention is the name, Mt. Washington, supplanting the former designation, "Coal Hill." Washington is said to have climbed this hill and his name has been so far perpetuated, having been continued from the borough name, Mount Washington, the borough created about 1806, and annexed to the city in 1874. The borough name for 40 years was maintained in the sub-school district name, the ward originally the Thirty-second.
Since the new school code the name has lapsed and the three schools of the former Mt. Washington sub-district are called by their own names regardless of the sub-district, such divisions having been abolished. So now we hear of the Prospect, Whittier and Cargo schools—like many others no clue in the names to their locations.
What reasons can be advanced that the name of Washington applied to the historic hill will not in time be supplanted with some fantastic and incongruous appellation¾ We have seen historic names go—old-timers at that. Witness the passing of Washington street—to be sure we have "Washington Place" instead applied to the same thoroughfare, but it is unsatisfactory. The name, Washington, was applied to the street upon the laying out of the city in 1784 by George Woods and Thomas Vickroy, the original surveyors, and having lasted 125 years, in all fairness and by right of priority should have been allowed to remain as Washington street.
Who ever heard of the word "place" used to describe a thoroughfare a half mile long, or used as a synonym for road, street, highway, lane, pathway, passage, route, course or way?
The primary meaning of the word "place" is a broad way in a city; an open space; an area, a court yard—which of these is Washington place? We may go through all the other definitions of that word place and find as little pertinency in the use of the word as applied to a way. Some day Washington place will be no more a name and it will dawn on somebody that the "place" is still a public highway and then a new name. Nothing strange about this procedure.
Many names of local import have passed. We hear of Monument Hill, first called Hogback Hill, from its shape, the name coarse and distasteful, changed to Seminary Hill when the Presbyterians built their theological seminary on its summit in 1830. When their building was burned, January 23, 1854, the hill lost its distinguishing landmark, but for 14 years maintained its second and distinguishing name. Then after May 30, 1871, when the Soldiers' monument that still stands thereon, was completed and formally dedicated, the name changed to Monument Hill.
The monument constructed of Massillon sandstone has been refaced once. The elements are always at work. When the monument goes or is removed the designation "Monument" will become inapplicable, just as "Seminary" did. When it will be in order to bestow a new name—that is the usual procedure.
The movement last Thursday begun by the Sons of the American Revolution toward erecting a $25,000 monument to the Father of Our Country in Pittsburgh is a start in the right direction.
Who hears frequently now of Ayres Hill, or its changed name, Boyds Hill? When the Bluff is mentioned this hill is called to mind, yet the bluff is but the high bank extending perpendicularly from the river. The word cannot be applied to the hill as a whole, its summit nor its slope.
So, too, "Quarry Hill" as an appellation has long gone. We shortened this to simply the "Hill," which is plain enough to Pittsburghers who know but rather needing explanation when strangers are considered, especially when strangers see many hills in and about Pittsburgh. Quarry Hill would not do now for its name, the quarries have long since gone—at least 100 years ago—or close to it.
Then there is Herron Hill, named for its pioneer owners. This is gradually being supplanted by the more aristocratic designation, Schenley Heights. A recent article speaks of the "Schenley District of Pittsburgh." Which one, pray? There are a number of Schenley districts in Pittsburgh if by the term district is meant plots of ground owned by the Schenley estate. For many years this ground was built upon by tenants holding ground rents. A trip out Penn avenue will bring one to a typical Schenley district in the neighborhood of Twenty-seventh street.
One sees here a vastly different city section from the Schenley Farms tract, a section which owes its development to those who took title from the Schenleys, the Schenley Farms Company and their alienees. There are no farms on the tract now, hence the term "Farms" is a misnomer. It will go and the section will be known as "Schenley." Thus the name of an alien will shine with equal luster with George Washington in Pittsburgh, as applied to a locality. It may be stated that even now George Washington is secondary to Capt. Schenley in this respect. On the score of respectability who could think of comparing Mt. Washington as a locality resident or otherwise with Schenley Farms or its coming name Schenley? No one in the Schenley neighborhood.
Really Capt. Schenley's name is heard oftener in Pittsburgh than George Washington's. The captain surely has the call. We may be assured that we have Washington boulevard, which is only a portion of that fine roadway, the whole called simply the boulevard, the sections Bigelow, Beechwood and Washington practically all one thoroughfare. This should have one name.
But George's friends need not worry. He is well commemorated in our geographical nomenclature and in a hundred forms. We know his name is honored in the appellation of our National Capital, in a state of the Union and in many counties. In fact, 30 states have Washington counties; of the original 13 colonies, counting Maine as part of Massachusetts, nine have honored our first president in this way. When it comes to enumerating towns, burgs and villes with "Washington" prefixed, one would have to take a day to mention all. If he had any time over he could count the Washington townships. When one comes to consider that George Washington has some streets and "places" named for him and these should be counted also the enumerator would likely ask for his discharge.
Again, if streams, rivers, roads, ships, steamboats, hotels, restaurants, parks, libraries, colleges and people are mentioned, it is time to conclude that Washington of all Americans is the most honored in name commemoration. He outranks any famous American in the number of representations made of him, portraits, paintings, busts and silhouettes, bas reliefs in wax, water color drawings and in sculpture. The most famous artists of his years esteemed it an honor to paint or "sculp" or in some way delineate the Father of our country.
The earliest picture we have of George Washington is by Charles Wilson Peale, painted in 1772, when George Washington was 40, owned by the family of Gen. G. W. Custis Lee of Virginia. Peale made a number of paintings of Washington. The second was a miniature on ivory in 1777, when Washington was 45. Again in 1784, when Washington was 52; in 1787, Washington 55, and in 1795, when Washington was 63. Our best known and universally used portrait of Washington is that engraved from Gilbert Stuart's celebrated painting made in 1796, when Washington was 64. One by Stuart shown today is not so well known. This is the first painting of Washington by Stuart.
Other great artists who have depicted Washington were Joseph Wright, James Peale, Edward Savage, John Trumbull, Adolph Werthmueller, John Sharpless and St. Memin, the latter's the last portrait of George painted in 1798, the year before George Washington died. Wright painted George five times. Washington rather liked to have his "picture taken" and sat patiently for days at a time. A number of foreign artists also made paintings of George, some of little value, some fine art, notably those by two Scotchmen, Robertson by name, and not related.
George had some noted biographers also. Jared L. Sparks, once president of Harvard College, who has given us the greatest array of facts relating to Washington. John Marshall, the greatest chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, a name that is resonant of world fame, wrote a life of Washington originally in five large volumes, and that great man of letters, Washington Irving, did likewise, thus honoring the greater man for whom he took his baptismal name.
All these are old works. Marshall knew Washington well and was most competent to become his biographer. Modern biographies of Washington are numerous—all are good reading; all are uplifting. Marshall's first edition appeared in 1805, six years after Washington's death. His second edition, boiled down to two volumes, was published in 1832. The reading of these old works is to be commended. They tell all that was noteworthy of Washington, and Washington began Pittsburgh History and was here often enough to leave his name indissolubly linked with the name of Pittsburgh and hence ineradicable from Pittsburgh's history. We should know much of him.
Our Pittsburgh libraries do much to encourage historic research, the schools teach history and have from year to year applied the lessons to local records and local phases. The lectures and stereopticon views under the auspices of the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania are beginning to be more and more appreciated. Our libraries have gathered in everything extant concerning Washington's career in the region about Pittsburgh, to which ready access may be had in the reference rooms.
In the monthly bulletin of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh for February, 1908, there can be found a reference list of the books with all references to Washington's visits to Pittsburgh and the Ohio country. This is a complete list and occupies 11 pages of the bulletin. This list was prepared previous to the celebration of the sesqui-centennial of Pittsburgh.
The list is chronological, beginning with Washington's accounts in his letters and journals, first his wintry experiences in 1753 when but 21 years old, Christopher Gist and a party accompanying him, but Washington and Gist returning alone, leaving his retinue to follow. It was while on this trip that he wrote in his journal:
I spent some time in viewing the rivers and the land in the fork, which I think extremely well fitted for a fort, as it has the absolute command of both rivers. The land at the point is 20 or 25 feet above the common surface of the water; and a considerable bottom of flat, well-timbered land is all around it, very convenient for building; the rivers are each a quarter of a mile or more across, and run here very near at right angles: Aligany bearing N. E., and Monongahela, S. E. The former is a very rapid and swift-running water; the other deep and still, without any perceptible fall.
Washington writes in the old style of penmanship, capitalizing and punctuation. It seems quaint now. It is concise and accurate in description. The fort came in due time.
The Library Bulletin recites under each subhead the books to be consulted, referring to page and volume. The second sub-head refers to Washington's Fort Necessity campaign, 1754. Under this head the "Olden Time" by Neville B. Craig is the only local publication mentioned. Washington's writings, edited by W. C. Ford, are referred to continuously; so too, Sparks'; also the various histories of Allegheny county, Isaac D. Rupp's and J. R. Albach's histories and J. M. Toner's edition of Washington's journal, this latter most valuable.
Other subheads are given as follows in this reference list: "Braddock's Expedition, 1755;" "Expedition against Fort Duquesne, 1758;" "Tour to the Ohio, 1770;" "Tour to the Ohio, 1784;" "Accounts of Washington's Visits by Other Writers," "Magazine Articles" and "Newspaper Articles."
Under the head, "Accounts by Other Writers," are included 62 names. These include all the noted historians of our country, George Bancroft, Cyrus Townsend Brady, Samuel Adams Drake, Edward Everett, John Fiske, Edward Everett Hale, Albert Bushnell Hart, Archer Butler Hulbert, Henry Cabot Lodge, Benson J. Lossing, Silas Weir Mitchell, Francis Parkman, Horace E. Scudder, Reuben Gold Thwaites, Charles W. Upham and Justin Winsor. Veritably a striking list.
Our local historians and the historians of neighboring counties receive due recognition, viz.: Thomas J. Chapman's works, N. B. Craig's, Boyd Crumrine's histories (Washington county), Franklin Ellis' (Fayette county), Darlington's, "Gist's Journals;" Miss Sarah H. Kilikelly's [sic] "History of Pittsburgh;" W. H. Laudermilk's "History of Cumberland, Maryland;" J. H. Newton's "History of Venango County;" A. W. Patterson's "History of the Backwoods" (very good for Washington's first two visits), and James Veech's "The Monongahela of Old."
Of course, standard and well-known works such as Sparks', Marshall's and Irving's are mentioned. Then there are various state reports and official publications both of Virginia and Pennsylvania. James Hadden's newspaper stories since printed in other forms, Frost's "Pictorial Life of George, Washington," 1848; Norman Hapgood's biography of him, 1901; James Kirk Paulding's "Life of Washington," 1858, are somewhat less known works—Paulding's for young folks first appearing in 1835.
The magazine articles are especially interesting and valuable. One real old one is the London Magazine for July, 1754, which gives Washington's account of his journey to the French forts the preceding winter. This was quick work for publicity in those days, considering the distance and slow methods of travel.
The "Magazine of Western History," tells the story of Washington's Western lands. Niles' "Weekly Register" between June, 1816, and May, 1818, has various Washington articles. Then we have the "Pennsylvania Magazine of History" and the "Virginia Magazine of History and Biography" of various dates more than 20 years ago, and the "Canadian Monthly" for January, 1872, discussing the Jumonville affair, and finally in the "Historical Magazine" for July, 1862, is the outline of M. Thomas' historical poem, "Jumonville," with English translations of parts and comments. This work appeared in Paris in 1759 and painted the death of Jumonville in the most tragic style, ascribing all the subsequent misfortunes of the English to this unpardonable killing, holding it to have been murder.
In this once famous poem Washington, without being once named, parades through its entire length as the Satan as in Paradise Lost. The French seemed, however, to have forgiven him for less than 30 years afterwards they sent troops under Rochambeau and a fleet under DeGrasse to help Washington against Great Britain, and they did help materially.
The long and carefully compiled list of books above is not by any means all the Washington history extant. It is the list of books containing in whole or in part the history Washington made in this region. Much of it therefore is Pittsburgh history—great portion of it indeed. The library has this list printed and bound for distribution.
Peale's picture shown today was painted in 1779 when Washington was temporarily in Pennsylvania. It was once partly destroyed by vandals. In 1779 Gen. Washington was 47 years old. Note the difference from Stuart's picture made in 1795 and the usually shown one by Stuart made in 1796. How age crept on.
