John Montour

John Montour: Life of a Cultural Go-Between

by Kevin P. Kelly

In the stories of Indian-white relations in the colonial era, the Indian headmen and the colonial governors are given a prominent role. And they were key figures. They were the players who signed the treaties, and they were the people who had to persuade their communities to abide by the agreements reached.

But in the shadows behind these chiefs and governors were other individuals who were equally essential to the success of the relationship between these two very different peoples. In eighteenth-century documents, they are called interpreters because they literally translated the speeches of each into the language of the other. But they did much more. They guided colonists to Indian villages and escorted Indian delegations to colonial capitals such as Williamsburg. They carried news from place to place. They would advise both sides of the cultural divide on what would be acceptable to the other. In other words, they were cultural go-betweens, brokers, mediators, and negotiators.¹

In the best of times, the cultural go-between was a true bridge between the Indian and colonial worlds. But tension between the two mounted during the 1750s, 1760s, and 1770s. As attitudes of distrust and contempt hardened, the role of the cultural go-between, who hoped to keep a foot in both camps, grew problematic, and perhaps, in the end, even impossible. This is the story of one such go-between. His name was John Montour.

He was born in 1744. His father was Andrew Montour, a well-known metis who had Iroquois and French ancestors. His mother was a Delaware, the granddaughter of Sassoonam.² Andrew Montour married twice and possibly three times. His was a large family. Late in the Revolutionary War, reports indicated that John was one of seven brothers or half-brothers.³ The English names of two are known: Debby, who was schooled in Philadelphia, and Thomas, who was killed during the Revolution. John Montour also had at least two sisters. Kayodaghscroony, or Madelina, was living with the Delaware in 1756, and Polly was cared for in Philadelphia in the late 1750s and early 1760s. ⁴

John's father, Andrew Montour, was one of the most important interpreters and negotiators in the Virginia and Pennsylvania backcountry in the 1750s and 1760s. Authorities in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia employed his services. In the 1750s, Andrew Montour believed it was possible for go-betweens such as himself to truly live in both the Indian and white worlds, and he hoped that his children could too.⁵ To that end, Andrew Montour enrolled his ten-year-old son in the Brafferton School at the College of William and Mary in 1754 and 1755. John received further education in Philadelphia. As a result of his schooling, Montour could both read and write English and speak it correctly.⁶ Undoubtedly, he could speak his native tongue, Delaware, and, because of his close dealings with the Wyandot and the Mingo during the Revolutionary War, he probably spoke those languages as well. Most important, after his many years living with Anglo-Americans, John Montour knew their ways well.

Montour had left Philadelphia by 1762 when his father announced he and John intended to open a trading store at Shamokin on the Susquehanna River. He traveled to western Pennsylvania with his father in 1770.⁷ By the mid-1770s, John was living on an island, named Montour's Island, about five miles below the forks of the Ohio. John claimed the island by virtue of his father's claim to it.⁸

When war came to the upper Ohio country in 1774, the demands on cultural go-betweens grew in intensity. John Montour's life as a go-between during the war certainly demonstrates the complexities these individuals faced. Furthermore, his wartime career seemed full of contradictions. It started simply enough during Dunmore's War. After gathering his troops at Pittsburgh, Lord Dunmore set off down the Ohio in September 1774. The Shawnee had led Dunmore to believe they would meet him at the mouth of the Hochoching River. But when he arrived there, only White Eyes, a Delaware chief, and John Montour were waiting for him. They accompanied Dunmore during the resulting assault on the Shawnee.⁹ John Montour next appeared at the Pittsburgh Treaty negotiations in the fall of 1775. On September 15, the negotiators learned that two men wearing hunting shirts had shot at White Mingo, one of the important chiefs in attendance. Because this was a serious and a dangerous incident, Captain James Wood, John Walker, and two other American delegates were sent out to investigate. Simon Girty and John Montour accompanied them as interpreters. ¹⁰

These activities were not unusual for go-betweens, and they point to Montour's early willingness to assist the colonists. But the situation was very different in July 1776. In the opening year of the war for independence, the Americans were very concerned that the Indians of the Ohio country remain neutral. To that end, William Wilson, an agent for Congress's Indian Commissioners, was dispatched in July to invite the Wyandot to the second Pittsburgh Treaty negotiations scheduled for the fall of 1776. White Eyes agreed to escort Wilson to the Wyandot village near Detroit. As they passed through Wingenund's town, John Montour joined them. They all continued on to Detroit, where British Lieutenant Governor Henry Hamilton confronted the travelers. He tore up the letter from Congress that Wilson was carrying and cut up the wampum belt Wilson was to give the Wyandot. Hamilton then insulted White Eyes and ordered him and Wilson to leave Detroit without delay. Montour was given no such order. He may have come to Detroit with White Eyes and Wilson, but he did not share their mission. As Hamilton reported, Montour "brought me a great Belt of friendship addressed to his Majesty by the Delaware Nation."¹¹

The reason Montour delivered this belt is unclear. At the very least, he signaled his current acute resentment of the Americans. In early spring 1776, while Montour was away from home, Colonel William Crawford surveyed Montour's Island for John Marvie, Charles Syms, and Captain John Neville. This action alarmed the Delaware chiefs because they believed it was in clear violation of the 1768 Fort Stanwix treaty. Richard Butler, the American Indian agent at Fort Pitt, feared that when Montour found out what had happened, he would "paint it [the survey] to our disadvantage." ¹² Delivering a belt to Hamilton certainly put Montour at odds with White Eyes. White Eyes, who favored neutrality, was the war chief of the Turtle clan and a powerful figure in the Delaware council at Coshocton. One did not want to earn his displeasure foolishly. However, that Montour presented "a great Belt" indicated that he spoke for more than just himself. Wingenund, who later openly backed the British, may have sent Montour to inform Hamilton that he and many other Delaware, such as Captain Pipe, war chief of the Wolf clan, were not part of the pro-American faction.¹³

In any case, Montour remained in the northern Ohio area along the Sandusky River for the next year-and-a-half openly supporting the British.¹⁴
Two events during that time make this clear. In the spring of 1777, a Daniel Sullivan, in the pay of Virginia, traveled to the Ohio country on an intelligence-gathering mission. By the end of April 1777, Sullivan had arrived at Detroit. While there he was recognized by a Mingo Indian who suspected he was an American spy. The Mingo reported his discovery to Lieutenant Governor Hamilton. At this point, Montour stepped forward and confirmed Sullivan's identity. Sullivan was immediately imprisoned and was soon sent to Quebec. Again, Montour's motive for backing the Mingo's charge is unclear. But it is worth noting that in 1763, when young Sullivan had been captured by the Delaware, who adopted him and raised him for nine years. Moreover, Sullivan's cover story during his travels in the Ohio country was that he had moved back to his Delaware relatives at the start of the war. Montour's action against Sullivan may have stemmed from incidents in their common Delaware past.¹⁵

The second key event occurred in November 1777. In April of that year, Hamilton had received permission to openly urge the Ohio country Indians to attack the American frontier. The Mingoes, who had been raiding western settlements for more than a year, stepped up their attacks. Other groups, such as the Wyandot nation, were not yet willing to declare war. However, encouraged by Hamilton, individuals and small groups of Wyandot began to raid along the frontier on their own initiative. When the Moravian missionaries among the Delaware heard of such planned attacks, they readily passed that information on to the American military at Fort Pitt. On November 16, 1777, the Reverend David Zeisberger wrote General Edward Hand that on the 8th of that month, fourteen Wyandots and two white men passed through Coshocton on their way to raid Wheeling. Zeisberger also felt compelled to note that John Montour was "in their company."¹⁶ Montour seemed solidly in the British camp.

But suddenly he was not. In late April 1778, Lieutenant Governor Hamilton informed Sir Guy Carleton that in late January of that year, John Montour helped three Virginia prisoners escape from Detroit. They were pursued and recaptured. Had they not been surprised, Montour and the prisoners might have succeeded. They were armed and prepared to defend themselves. The Virginians, "having made so bad a use of the indulgence shown them," were again placed in irons and were to be sent to Quebec. Montour was also confined. Hamilton released him after several weeks only because of the "earnest" solicitation of the Wyandot and Mingo chiefs that he do so.¹⁷

Why would Montour take such a risk? Even if he had succeeded and had not suffered imprisonment, he would have lost what trust Hamilton placed in him. Perhaps part of the answer can be found in the identity of one of the prisoners. The evidence strongly suggests that John Dodge, an American trader in the Sandusky villages, was one of the escapees. In his narrative of his capture and treatment, Dodge states he was captured January 15, 1776. After several months of close confinement, he was allowed the liberty of the prison. He further states that on January 25, 1778, he and two other gentlemen had traveled out to visit some Sandusky-bound merchants camped about two leagues (five to ten miles) from Detroit. Although Dodge claims he was on his way back to Detroit, he and the two gentlemen were surrounded by thirty to forty soldiers, seized, and returned to the jail in Detroit. On May 1, 1778, he was shipped off to Quebec.¹⁸

Although Hamilton did not name the prisoners he claimed Montour helped, the timing of their escape (visit?), the number arrested, and their fate corresponds with what Dodge related. The connection is important because John Montour and John Dodge were friends. When, in January 1779, Montour learned that Dodge had finally escaped from the British, he reportedly jumped for joy, and declared, "My friend, Dodge is alive yet."¹⁹ When Dodge and Montour had become friends is not known, but they had known each other long enough to have developed mutual acquaintances in Detroit.²⁰ For Montour the obligations of friendship apparently outweighed the wrath of Lieutenant Governor Hamilton.

John Montour's imprisonment certainly soured him toward the British. In June 1778, David Zeisberger wrote Colonel George Morgan, the American Indian agent at Pittsburgh, that John Montour had returned to the Delaware villages on the Muskingum River where he was doing much good. He now spoke in favor of the United States. He especially spoke against Hamilton "everywhere."²¹ Montour did not, however, stay near Coshocton. He returned to the Sandusky River Valley to live with the Wyandot.

The simplest explanation for his return to the Wyandot villages was that he hoped to keep open a line of communication between the Indians and the Americans. For example, General Lachlan McIntosh, General Hand's replacement, wanted to march against the British at Detroit in the fall of 1778. To do that, McIntosh would need Wyandot permission to cross their territory. In the spring of 1779, Montour was instrumental in getting the Wyandot to abandon the British for a while. Meanwhile, the Wyandot were very much at war with America. They assaulted Fort Donnally in western Virginia in May 1778 and later laid siege to Fort Laurens on the Tuscarawas River in the winter of 1779.²² Montour was again living with the enemy.

There may have been other reasons why he was living with them. For example, if his wife were a Wyandot, it would be natural for him to seek alliances with her relatives.²³ He may also have been fearful that his past support for the British made it too dangerous for him to live near Pittsburgh. His friend John Dodge wrote Montour in early January 1779 that his fears were groundless; if he returned to Pittsburgh the Americans would treat him "as a friend now." John Killbuck (Galalemend), the principal chief of the Delaware, told Montour the same thing. Montour may have believed there were other Delaware at Coshocton that wished he were somewhere else. White Eyes would have remembered his action at Detroit in 1776. In fact, it may have been that conduct that the Delaware chiefs deemed "foolish" and for which they said he was made an outcast from the Coshocton villages.²⁴

There is a third possible reason for Montour to live with Wyandot on the Sandusky River: He may have been fulfilling a family or a clan obligation. If so, it began in February 1778. In that month, American General Hand set off on an expedition to destroy some British supplies stored at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, but an early thaw pre-vented him from reaching his goal. As the army was returning to Fort Pitt, it fell upon a Delaware village, Kuskusky, on Beaver Creek, where an old man, four women, and a young boy were killed. Relatives of Captain Pipe, were among the dead. Although Captain Pipe refused to take revenge then, another Delaware did.

The Delaware chiefs told George Morgan that Ché Chéas, who was driven away from Kuskusky by General Hand, was a "foolish Fellow & for revenge went & joined the Wiandot." Furthermore they identified him as John Montour's brother. At a council held in Detroit in June 1778, a Captain James took up the war axe against Americans from Lieutenant Governor Hamilton for himself and for the sixty Delaware living in his village. George Morgan just assumed that John Montour had persuaded Ché Chéas and Pey,mau,coo,sect, Montour's half brother to join him, but it probably had been the other way round.²⁵

For whatever reason Montour chose to live with the Wyandot, he was playing a dangerous game. It seems that he was forced to prove his commitment to the Wyandot by participating in their siege of Fort Laurens. In late January 1779, John Heckewelder informed Colonel John Gibson, the commander at Fort Laurens, that he had heard that when Montour received Dodge's letter telling him he would be welcome at Pittsburgh, Montour remarked that it arrived too late, for if he were to back out of what had been agreed to it would have cost him his life. Montour himself wrote that he could not have gone to Pittsburgh in the winter of 1779 because "the Mingoes were against me." In May 1779, well after the siege of Fort Laurens ended, the Delaware chiefs pointedly informed Colonel George Morgan that the fort had been besieged by 180 Indians, mainly Wyandot, Mingoes, Muncees, and only four Delaware, who they identified as the three Montour brothers and a nephew of Captain Pipe.²⁶

The Wyandot called off the siege of Fort Laurens in March soon after news of George Rogers Clark's capture of Lieutenant Governor Hamilton reached the Muskingum River area. At home in their villages, the Wyandot began to assess their situation. The Americans had finally shown some military strength and the British were not the all-powerful protectors they professed to be. It was during these reconsiderations that Montour's long connection with the Wyandot began to bear fruit. In late March 1779, Montour accompanied the Wyandot to Detroit where he helped them deliver a message to the new British commander. The Wyandot told him that unless the British provided them the strong assistance promised, they would not continue to fight the Americans. In early May, Montour carried letters and speeches as well as three peace belts from the Americans to the Wyandot. On May 28, 1779, he arrived at Coshocton with the news that the Wyandot were willing to make peace with the Americans. Montour's activities among the Wyandot had not gone unnoticed by the British. When he departed for Coshocton, soldiers were sent out to capture him, but gave up after tracking him for nine days without success.²⁷

Although the Wyandot did not actually travel to Fort Pitt until September—a delay that called their sincerity into question—the new military commander at Fort Pitt, Colonel Daniel Brodhead, did not hold the delay against John Montour. In June he told John Heckewelder that he trusted Montour's "fidelity." Because of that trust, Brodhead began to use Montour more aggressively in the American cause. In late June 1779, Brodhead learned that tory Simon Girty and seven Mingoes had passed through Coshocton on their way to raid nearby Holiday Cove on the east side of the Ohio River. Brodhead dispatched a party of men under Captain Brady and John Montour to intercept Girty. Unfortunately for the Americans, Girty was able to elude his pursuers. Although the Wyandot had agreed to a nominal peace, the Mingoes had not. They and some Munsies (a group closely affiliated with the Delaware) continued their raids against the frontier settlers. To punish them, Colonel Brodhead decided to strike at the Mingo villages along the upper Allegheny River and recruited Montour to guide the September 1779 campaign.²⁸

By 1780, the good effects of Clark's victory at Vincennes began to wear off. The inability of the Americans to adequately supply the Ohio country Indians strengthened the British position. There were, after all, trade goods at Detroit. Throughout 1780, the Wyandot began to renew their ties with the British. The situation among the Delaware was also growing tense. When Captain Pipe relocated his followers to the upper Sandusky region early in 1779, they provided the center around which the anti-American faction could form. During 1780, this growing faction was increasingly vocal. The Delaware who wished to stay neutral lost a strong proponent of peace when White Eyes died in the fall of 1779. Had the authorities at Fort Pitt not covered up the fact that he had been murdered, the neutralists would have been quickly undone. As it was, leadership of the peace faction fell to John Killbuck, chief of the Turtle clan. Although his position made him first among the chiefs, his authority was not strong. This was caused, in part, by the war, which increased the influence of the war chiefs. But Killbuck's continued reliance on the Americans also made him look weak because it was becoming obvious to Indians and whites alike just how weak the American forces were.²⁹

Killbuck's loss of influence had begun in the spring of 1779 when, bowing to the hectoring of Colonel Brodhead, he agreed to allow individual Delaware to fight with the Americans against other Indians. Montour undoubtedly approved of the new policy because he took advantage of it. What Killbuck permitted, however, broke with a long, unwritten understanding that Ohio country Indians would not attack each other at the behest of the French, British, or Americans. ³⁰ Many Delaware were uncomfortable with this new policy and their discontent festered. In December 1780, Killbuck and those still loyal to him on the council at Coshocton took an even more drastic step: They openly sided with the Americans and declared war on the Mingo. Montour, now very much on the side of Killbuck, was chosen to lead the attack, but he did not aim solely at the Mingo. On December 7, 1780, Colonel Brodhead wrote, "Captain Montour is now in pursuit of another party of Indians… supposed to be either Tory Delaware or Muncies."³¹ Delaware were now fighting Delaware.

If Killbuck had hoped his declaration would silence his critics, he badly misjudged their reaction, which rapidly undercut what little authority he had left. His impotence can be seen in the Henry Bawbee affair.³² In the fall of 1780, Bawbee, a Wyandot, arrived at Coshocton claiming to have valuable information he wanted to give to the Americans. Because of his long association with the Wyandot, Montour knew that Bawbee was no friend and was, in fact, a spy. After Montour unmasked him, Killbuck had Bawbee delivered to Colonel Brodhead at Fort Pitt. There he was jailed to await trial for espionage. But in January 1781, Bawbee escaped. He returned to Coshocton where he openly damned Killbuck and Montour with "the most horrid threats."Brodhead was irritated that Killbuck did not have Bawbee retaken and returned to Fort Pitt. But John Heckewelder replied that Killbuck could not have laid hold of Bawbee; in fact, had he so much as touched Bawbee, Killbuck would have been killed.³³

In January 1781, Killbuck was forced to step down as chief of the Turtle clan. His absence from the Coshocton council gave Captain Pipe the opportunity to persuade the Coshocton Delaware to join the British against the Americans. Word reached Fort Pitt by March 4 that the Delaware were at war and that three war parties were ready to move against western settlements. John Montour, the bearer of this information, told Brodhead that he had been pursued by eight warriors and just barely avoided capture. Montour remained at Fort Pitt, while Killbuck took refuge with the Moravians.³⁴

Colonel Brodhead decided to go on the offensive immediately. On April 7, 1781, he set off from Fort Pitt with 150 continental soldiers. Montour and four other loyal Delaware went with them. At Wheeling, Brodhead was joined by 150 militiamen. With Montour as his pilot, Brodhead marched his army toward Coshocton, where he took the town with little difficulty, capturing fifteen Delaware warriors and upwards of twenty old men, women, and children. When the warriors could not prove their loyalty to America, Brodhead had them executed. The village of Coshocton was put to the torch. ³⁵

Upon learning that Brodhead had taken and burned Coshocton, Killbuck left the Moravians and joined the Americans. On the way, he encountered a group of Delaware returning from a raid. In the resulting skirmish, Killbuck killed one of the raiders and brought the scalp to Brodhead. Homeless and facing the certain knowledge that the warring Delaware would seek revenge, Montour had little choice but to join Killbuck and thirty loyal Delaware who sought asylum at Pittsburgh. For the time being, Montour had burned all his bridges to the Ohio country Indians.³⁶

Montour, a captain since 1779, continued his military service after his return to Fort Pitt. His duties for the rest of 1781 and the winter of 1782 are not known. There was probably little for him to do. The continental forces at Fort Pitt were too weak to mount any full-scale campaigns; routine patrolling was probably the extent of his service. However, on April 13, 1782, Captain John Montour and five other soldiers addressed a petition to Brigadier General William Irvine that indicated they had been in a recent fight with the Indians during which several brother soldiers had been killed. They specifically requested permission to seek revenge on the "savages" who had caused them harm. General Irvine, unlike Fort Pitt's former commander, Colonel Brodhead, distrusted Montour because he had once been in the British service. In addition, Irvine found Montour far too cunning and went so far as to conclude it had been "very ill-judged to give such a fellow a commission." Rather than granting Montour permission to take revenge, Irvine, on April 16, ordered him to wait on the secretary of war in Philadelphia. Irvine recommended that Montour be sent to New York to serve with the Oneida. Irvine's principal worry was that Montour's superior knowledge of the upper Ohio country would make him extremely dangerous if he returned to the British. It would be safer if Montour were stationed in unfamiliar territory.³⁷

Irvine had good reason to suspect that Montour would switch sides. On March 8, 1782, Pennsylvania militiamen murdered more than ninety Delaware Indians at the village of Gnadenhutten. Eighty-eight were Moravians, and more than half of those were women and children. The Delaware were outraged. Even those who held little respect for Christianity, such as Captain Pipe, swore they would seek revenge. News of the massacre spread rapidly. There can be little doubt that Montour had heard what happened at Gnadenhutten by April 13, 1782. Furthermore, because of his earlier close association with the Moravian missionaries and their Delaware congregations, he too would have been angry with their killers.³⁸

Irvine also had reason to suspect that Montour may have wanted revenge not against the "savages" as he requested but on the frontier settlers. Colonel David Williamson, who commanded the militia that killed the Moravian Delaware, had led an earlier expedition against the Moravian villages in the fall of 1781. When he arrived at them, he found that nearly all the Moravian Delaware had abandoned their towns. Williamson made prisoners of the few Indians who remained and jailed them at Fort Pitt. Because they had committed no crime, they were soon released. Frontier lore records that one family was killed soon after its release. The family was that of a "Mr. Montour," probably a kinsman of John.³⁹

Irvine's fears were realized. Montour did not travel to Philadelphia as ordered. Instead, he went to the lower Sandusky villages, where on April 24, 1782, he gave the Moravians more details of the Gnadenhutten massacre. In November 1782, John Montour and his brother brought four scalps and three young female prisoners to the British at Fort Niagara. Montour's victims had lived in the Susquehanna River Valley northeast of the old Indian town of Shamokin. He stated that he had taken revenge upon Pennsylvania settlers because five of his brothers had been killed during the war. For the second time within a year Montour severed ties with a group with which he had earlier cast his lot.⁴⁰

After 1782, John Montour's name dropped out of the public record. Indian agents and the military establishment in the 1780s make no mention of him. There is also no clear evidence of where he may have lived. He may have returned to Montour's Island, but the island was no longer his. In 1783, the Pennsylvania Assembly granted preemptive rights to the island to Brigadier General William Irvine. Furthermore, given the frontiersmen's deep hatred of all Indians, and especially those who had killed white settlers, living close to Pittsburgh would have been extremely dangerous for a renegade like John Montour. He may have lived among the Miami Indians in the Indiana territory. The Piankashaw, a group affiliated with the Miami, invited Delaware Indians displaced by the Revolution to live on their land along the White River. Montour may have accepted their offer or he may have sought refuge with relatives. His great-aunt had lived with the Miami early in the century, and, in 1785, a Piankashaw chief named Montour attended a council held at Louisville, Kentucky.

In any event, John Heckewelder provides closure on this period in Montour's life. On a trip to visit the old Moravian settlements on the Muskingum, Heckewelder learned that two people he had known well had died. One was a Pittsburgh printer, who had hanged himself. The other was John Montour, who had been murdered by some Mingoes while he was out hunting in the winter of 1788. It was not inevitable that Montour would die at the hands of Mingoes, but it is not surprising. John Montour had made enemies.⁴¹

What are we to make of the strange wartime career of John Montour? Pro-British, anti-American; pro-American, anti-British; friendly with the anti-America Wyandot and anti-American Delaware Wolf clan, loyal to the discredited John Killbuck, a captain in the American army, a vengeful raider on the Pennsylvania frontier. The nature of the Revolutionary War in the Ohio country provides some explanations. Very quickly pre-war alliances among the Indians and between Indians and colonists collapsed. The war became what historian Richard White has labeled a contest between villages, both Indian and white.⁴² Under the constant pressure to choose sides even villages fragmented into competing factions. In this world of raids and counter raids and persistent apprehension, neutrality-the ability or desire to walk the middle course-was foreclosed.⁴³ Yet such a space was essential for a cultural go-between. As the war progressed, John Montour's room to maneuver between Indian and Americans disappeared.

In the chaos of war, where a wide range of options are eliminated, older core values assert themselves and influence how one acts in a confusing situation. Despite Andrew Montour's hope that his son would continue his dream and be at home in both the Indian and white worlds, it was not to be. John Montour remained at his cultural core an Indian. The telling point was when he sought permission to seek revenge. A soldier does not seek revenge, but a warrior does. Sensitivity to slights, reciprocal loyalty to friends, but most importantly, the demands imposed by kin and clan obligations, drove Montour's actions. In a way, it was fitting that he died engaged in a winter hunt. It was a tradition that had defined Delaware men for generations.

Endnotes

¹James H. Merrell, Into the American Woods: Negotiators on the Pennsylvania Frontier (New York, 1999), 19-41.

²Colonial Records of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, Pa., 1851-53), 7: 95 (Hereafter, Pa. Col. Rees.).

³Colin G. Calloway, The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities (Cambridge, 1995), 280.

⁴Pennsylvania Archives, 8th set. (Philadelphia, 1852 ), 7: 58, 53 (Hereafter, PA); Earl P Olmstead, Blackcoats among the Delaware: David Zeisberger on the Ohio Frontier (Kent, Ohio, 1991), 228; Pa. Col. Recs., 7: 95; PA, 8th set, 5: 48, 59-60, 7: 5853.

⁵Merrell, Into the American Woods, 75-77. In 1756, the reason given for sending Montour's children to Philadelphia was that they could "be independent of the mother." In Delaware society it was the mother's family who was responsible for raising the children. Removing the children from the mother clearly implies that Andrew Montour did not want his wife's Delaware brothers instructing his children. See Pa. Col. Recs., 7: 95.

⁶Karen A. Stuart, "`So Good a Work': The Brafferton School, 1691-1777" (M.A. thesis, College of William and Mary, 1984), 85; James H. Merrell, "`The Cast of His Countenance': Reading Andrew Montour," in Ronald Hoffman, Mechal Sobel, and Frederika J. Teute, eds., Through a Glass Darkly: Reflections on Personal Identity in Early America (Chapel Hill, N. C., 1997), 38. On speaking, see "Monforton to Lernonet, 7 May 1779," Illinois State Historical Library Collections (Springfield, Ill., n.d.), 1: 435 (Hereafter, Ill. Hist. Colts.); "John Montour to John Dodge, 28 May 1779" in Louise P. Kellogg, ed., Frontier Advance on the Upper Ohio, 1778-1779 (Madison, Wis., 1916), 346.

⁷Merrell, "`The Cast of His Countenance,"' 38.

⁸"Richard Butler to Col. James Wilson, April 9, 1776," in Peter Force, comp., American Archives, 4th set. (Washington, D.C., 1837-53), 5: 817-818.

⁹Reuben Gold Thwaites and Louise Phelps Kellogg, eds., A Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774 (Madison, Wis., 1905), 302.

¹⁰Reuben Gold Thwaites and Louise Phelps Kellogg, eds., The Revolution on the Upper Ohio, 1775-1777 (Madison, Wis.,1908), 28.

¹¹Randolph C. Downes, Council Fires on the Upper Ohio: A Narrative of Indian Affairs in the Upper Ohio Valley until 1795 (Pittsburgh, Pa., 1940), 192-193; Thwaites and Kellogg, eds., Revolution on the Upper Ohio, 202; "Hamilton to the Earl of Dartmouth, Sept. 2, 1776," Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections 10: 269-270 (Hereafter, MPHC).

¹²"Butler to Wilson, April 9, 1776," in Force, comp., American Archives, 4th set., 5: 81718.

¹³For information about factionalism among the Delaware during the war, see Gregory E. Dowd, A Spirited Resistance: The North American Indian Struggle for Unity, 1745-1815 (Baltimore, 1992), 68-83; C.A. Weslager, The Delaware Indians: A History (New Brunswick, N.J., 1972), 282-328.

¹⁴David Zeisberger to Col. George Morgan, July 7, 1777" in Reuben Gold Thwaites and Louise Phelps Kellogg, eds., Frontier Defense on the Upper Ohio, 1777-1778 (Madison, Wis., 1912), 19.

¹⁵Sullivan's Deposition, Fort Pitt, March 21, 1778," Thwaites and Kellogg, eds., Frontier Defense, 230-233.

¹⁶Thwaites and Kellogg, eds., Frontier Defense, 164.

¹⁷Ibid., 280-281; Kellogg, ed., Frontier Advance, 82.

¹⁸"A Narrative of the capture and treatment of JOHN DODGE, by the English, at Detroit," [J. Almon], The Remembrancer; or Impartial Repository of Public Events For the Year 1779 ([London], 1779), 74, 790.

¹⁹"Narrative," Remembrancer;… 1779, 81; "John Heckewelder to Col. John Gibson," Kellogg, ed., Frontier Advance, 222.

²⁰"John Montour to John Dodge, Cooshackung, May 28, 1779," in Kellogg, ed., Frontier Advance, 346.

²¹Ibid., 82.

²²Louise P Kellogg, "Historical Introduction," in Kellogg, ed., Frontier Advance, 16-17; "David Zeisberger to Col. George Morgan, June 9,1778," ibid., 82; "Col. George Morgan to John Jay, May 28, 1779," ibid., 343.

²³For mention of his wife, see "William Irvine to Maj. Gen. Lincoln, April 30, 1782," in C. W Butterfield, ed., Washington-Irvine Correspondence (Madison, Wis., 1882), 168-169.

²⁴III. Hist. Coils., 1: 380; "Galalemend to John Montour, January 18, 1779," ibid., 379; "Col. George Morgan to John Jay, May 28, 1779," in Kellogg, ed., Frontier Advance, 343.

²⁵Dowd, Spirited Resistance, 77; Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge, Eng., 1991), 385; "Morgan to Jay, May 28, 1779;" in Kellogg, ed., Frontier Advance, 343; MPHC, 9: 44252.

²⁶Kellogg, ed., Frontier Advance, 222; "John Montour to John Dodge, Cooshackung, May 28, 1779," ibid., 346; "Morgan to Jay May 28, 1779," ibid., 343.

²⁷Downes, Council Fires, 222-223, 238-240; MPHC, 10: 328; "Guile Monforton to Mr. Belanger Larnoult, Huron Village, May 7, 1779," I11. Hist. Coils., l: 435; "John Heckewelder to Col. Brodhead, Coochocking, May 28, 1779," PA, 1st set, 7: 516-518.

²⁸Kellogg, ed., Frontier Advance, 359; Consul Wiltshire Butterfield, History of the Girtys (1890; repr. Columbus, Ohio, 1950), 97-98; "The Recollections of Capt. Jesse Ellis," in Louise Phelps Kellogg, ed., Frontier Retreat on the Upper Ohio, 1779-1781 (Madison, Wis., 1917), 58; "Daniel Brodhead to Timothy Pickering, Sept. 16, 1779," in Neville B. Craig, ed., The Olden Time: A Monthly Publication Devoted to the Preservation of Documents…. (1848; repr. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1876), 2: 309-311.

²⁹Calloway, American Revolution in Indian Country, 36-39, 59-60; Weslager, Delaware Indians, 312-314; Dowd, Spirited Resistance, 78-83; Downes, Council Fires, 262-265.

³⁰Calloway, American Revolution in Indian Country, 78.

³¹Craig, Olden Time, 2: 378.

³²It is possible that Henry Bawbee was the "son of the famous Bawbee," that Dr. Thomas Walker placed at the Brafferton School in November 1775. He was back in the Ohio country in 1779 where he spread unfavorable reports about Virginians; John Heckewelder, Narrative of the Mission of the United Brethren among the Delaware… (1820; rept:, New York, 1971), 206.

³³John Heckewelder to Col. Daniel Brodhead, February 26, 1781," in Kellogg, ed., Frontier Retreat, 337-338; "Brodhead to the Council at Cooshocking, Nov. 19, 1780," ibid., 295; "Col. Brodhead to John Heckewelder, Jan. 21, 1781," ibid., 321.

³⁴Kellogg, ed., Frontier Retreat, 339, 343.

³⁵"Col. Daniel Brodhead to Pres. Reed, May 22, 1781," PA, 1st set., 9: 161-162; Dowd, Spirited Resistance, 82-83.

³⁶Weslager, Delaware Indians, 314-315; Dowd, Spirited Resistance, 823; "Brodhead to Reed, May 22, 1781," PA, 1st set., 9: 161-162. "A few days after the return of Brodhead from Coshocton, eighty hostile Delaware came up the Tuscarawas in search of Captain Killbuck and his band, breathing destruction to all of them," C. W Butterfield, "Narrative of Brodhead's Coshocton Expedition," in Kellogg, ed., Frontier Retreat, 380.

³⁷Jack M. Sosin, The Revolutionary Frontier, 1763-1783 (New York, 1967), 134-137; "To the most excellent James [William] Irvine,…" Butterfield, ed., Washington-Irvine Correspondence, 169; "Irvine to Lincoln, Fort Pitt, April 30, 1782," ibid., 168-169.

³⁸Heckewelder, Narrative, 309-328.

³⁹Alexander Withers, Chronicles of Border Warfare: or; A History of the Settlement by Whites of Northwestern Virginia (repr., 1895; new ed., 1970), 313, 318. If this was actually the family of John Montour, at least one child survived to visit the Mora, vians in the early nineteenth century. See "John Montour," in Carl John Fliegel, comp., Index to the Records of the Moravian Mission among the Indians of North America, vol. 1 (New Haven, Conn., 1970).

⁴⁰Calloway, American Revolution in Indian Country, 280, citing the Haldimand Papers, Addl. MSS, 21762:213. One of the captive women noted seeing a General Otter of Sunbury on the march with 200 militiamen. See also, the Pennsylvania Gazette, August 28, 1782, for a report from Sunbury, Pennsylvania, of a raid that took four scalps and three prisoners on the northeast branch of the Susquehanna in late July 1782.

⁴¹Charles Hanna concludes that he did live on Montour's Island during the 1780s. Charles A. Hanna, The Wilderness Trail (New York, 1911), 1: 246, 200; Pennsylvania Gazette, October 1, 1783; "William Clark to the Indian Commissioners, Oct. 5, 1785," Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, r69.156, p. 297; John Heckewelder, "A Short Account,…" in Paul A. W Wallace, ed., Thirty Thousand Miles with John Heckewelder (Pittsburgh, Pa., 1958), 220, 222. On the hatred of frontiersmen toward Indians, see White, Middle Ground, 387-396.

⁴²White, Middle Ground.

⁴³Calloway, American Revolution in Indian Country, 30-32, 36-39.

Kevin Kelly is a historian in the Department of Historical Research. This paper was published in the Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter, Volume 21, No. 4 (2000/01).