were killed during a friendly visit to Point Pleasant, in the summer of 1775, only a few months after the action. The circumstances attending the affair are thus related by Col. Stewart:

“A Captain Arbuckle commanded the garrison of the fort erected at Point Pleasant after the battle fought by General Lewis with the Indians at that place, in October, 1774. In the succeeding year, when the revolutionary war had commenced, the agents of Great Britain exerted themselves to excite the Indians to hostility against the United States. The mass of the Shawanees entertained a strong animosity against the Americans. But, two of their chiefs. Cornstalk and Red Hawk, not participating in that animosity, visited the garrison at the Point, where Arbuckle continued to command. Col. Stewart was at the post in the character of a volunteer, and was an eye-witness of the facts which he relates. Cornstalk represented his unwillingness to take a part in the war, on the British side: but stated, that his nation, except himself and his tribe, were determined on war with us, and he supposed, that he and his people would be compelled to go with the stream. On this intimation, Arbuckle resolved to detain the two chiefs, and a third Shawanees who came with them to the fort, as hostages, under the expectation of preventing thereby any hostile efforts of the nation. On the day before these unfortunate Indians fell victims to the fury of the garrison, Elenipsico, the son of Cornstalk, repaired to Point Pleasant for the purpose of visiting his father, and on the next day, two men belonging to the garrison, whose names were Hamilton and Gillmore, crossed the Kenhawa, intending to hunt in the woods beyond it.On their return from hunting, some Indians who had come to view the position at the Point, concealed themselves in the weeds near the mouth of the Kenhawa, and killed Gillmore while endeavoring to pass them. Col. Stewart and Capt. Arbuckle were standing on the opposite bank of the river, at that time and were surprized that a gun had been fired so near the fort, in violation of orders which had been issued inhibiting such an act. Hamilton ran down the bank, and cried out that Gillmore was killed. Captain Hall commanded the company to which Gillmore belonged. His men leaped into a canoe, and hastened to the relief of Hamilton. They brought the body of Gillmore weltering in blood, and the head scalped, across the river. The canoe had scarcely reached the shore, when Hall's men cried out "Let us kill the Indians in the fort." Captain Hall placed himself in front of his soldiers, and they ascended the river's bank pale with rage, and carrying their loaded firelocks in their hands. Colonel Stuart and Captain Arbuckle exerted themselves in vain, to dissuade these men, exasperated to madness by the spectacle of Gillmore's corpse, from the cruel deed which they contemplated. They cocked their guns, threatening those gentlemen with instant death, if they did not desist, and rushed into the fort.

The interpreter's wife, who had been a captive among the Indians, and felt an affection for them, ran to their cabin and informed them

that Hall's soldiers were advancing, with the intention of taking their lives, because they believed that the Indians who killed Gillmore, had come with Cornstalk's son the preceding day. This the young man solemnly denied, and averred that he knew nothing of them. His father, perceiving that Elenipsico was in great agitation, encouraged him and advised him not to fear. "If the great Spirit, said he, has sent you here to be killed, you ought to die like a man!" As the soldiers approached the door, Cornstalk rose to meet them, and received seven or eight balls which instantly terminated his existence. His son was shot dead in the seat which he occupied. The Red Hawk made an attempt to climb the chimney, but fell by the fire of some of Hall's men. The other Indian, says Colonel Stuart," was shamefully mangled, and I grieved to see him so long dying."

REVIEW.

The Great West.*

MANY may, and no doubt but some readers will, deem contrasts between the past and present condition of the great West as trival; but I hope that more will gladly go with me in those retrospective excursions. In some previous communications, I have endeavored to sketch outlines of the physical geography of the higher part of the Ohio Valley. I shall now proceed to give some outlines of its history. We owe an unpayable debt to the men who were the pioneers into the Western wilds; but, if they are gone beyond our reach, if they are removed to where even the voice of our gratitude cannot be heard, it is well to remind the existing generation how much of their enjoyments has been produced by the toil, sweat and blood of their foreparents or forerunners. A much too common opinion has prevailed, and continues to prevail, that the early frontier settlers were rough, rude, ignorant, and lawless; whilst it may be asserted, fearlessly, that the far greater number of them were, on the contrary, as well informed, as orderly, and as ardently inclined to promote the interests of religion, pure morals, and the restraints of law, as were those they left in the more safe Eastern border. As a proof of these assertions, one of the first erections made by these pioneers was a log school-house, and one of the next a temple or meeting-house. Rough and rude were their own dwellings, and so were their school-houses and meeting-houses, and so were there clothing and diet; but kind and affectionate were their hearts, and open were their doors to the stranger. The increase of population, commenced thus, is a phenomenon of high interest in the political history of this continent, but it yields in intensity of interest to the intellectual advance of the West. The proceedings and debates in the halls of our general legislation afford accumulated documents in support of the foregoing. It would also appear, from the sequel, that these primitive settlers had some where read and

* For the subjoined pages, the compiler of this volume is indebted to an intelligent and well-informed correspondent of the "National Intelligencer," for which journal they were originally furnished in detached numbers.-They are regarded as both interesting in themselves and suitable for the closing of this work.

adopted the following conclusions, drawn in A. D. 1525, by Philip Melancthon, in his oration at the opening of the Academy of Nuremberg:

"In the proper constitution of a state, therefore, schools of learning are primarily requisite, where the rising generation, which is the foundation of a future empire, should be instructed; for it is a most fallacious idea to suppose that solid excellence is likely to be acquir ed without due regard to instruction; nor can persons be suitably qualified to govern the state without the knowledge of those principles of right government which learning only can bestow."

Recommending to some high dignitaries of the present age a careful attention to the words of one of the most gifted of the sons of men, I shall proceed to give a few outlines of the history of the great West. Bred, myself, on the Indian frontier, and, from infancy, a witness to the advance of white, and destruction of Indian, population; and, in the decline of life, when the far greater number of those in whose fate or fame my feelings were enlisted in my more youthful years, are gone to their rest, I hope I may speak freely. Even in youth, and many years before the most distant idea was conceived of writing on the subject, it had struck me repeatedly that one material error prevailed as regarded the Indian population of not alone the Ohio Valley, but of all the interior regions of North America, and that was, that their numbers were most enormously exaggerated. "What has become of the Indians?" is a question proposed on all sides; and, though not all, yet much of its import may be complied with by the plain answer, "To the amount usually supposed, or to any near approach to any such amount, the Indians never had an existence." This is a bold assertion," many may say; and, unsupported by evidence, it would really be not only a bold but rash assertion. Let us examine some of the evidence.

The Anglo-Saxon population commenced settlements necessarily on or near the seacoast. The first permanent settlement of that people in America was made in 1607, in Eastern Virginia; and, between that epoch and 1650, the English had colonized Lower Virginia and Lower Maryland, and the eastern and southern parts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut; the Dutch had planted a colony on the Hudson; the Swedes one on the Delaware; and the French had colonized Canada, and were thinly scattered along the St. Lawrence. Fifty years still later, the French planted a feeble colony near the mouth of the Mississippi river. And again, at the end of another half century, or in 1750, what was the condition of the immense interior regions drained by the confluents of the mighty Mississippi? Thus answers the author of Border Warfare:

"As settlements extended from the sea shore, the Massawonies gradually retired; and when the white population reached the Blue Ridge of mountains, the valley between it and the Alleghany was entirely uninhabited. This delightful region of country was then only used as a hunting ground, and as a highway for belligerent