Bouquets Campaigns in America 1758 to 64

8/13/2019 Bouquets Campaigns in America 1758 to 64

1/127

HENRY BOUQUET: A STUDY OF THREE MILITAR YCAMPAIGNS IN NORTH AMERIC A 1 7 5 8 1 7 6 4

A t hesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. ArmyCommand and General Staff College in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for thedegree

MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE

PATRICK H. HANNUM MAJOR USMCB.A. Youngstown State Univ. Youngstown OH 1 9 7 6

Fort Leavenworth Kansas1 9 9 1

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.


2/127

MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SC IENCE

THESIS APPROVAL PAGE

Name of cand idate : Majo r Patrick H Hannum, USMC

Titl e of thesis: Henry Bouquet: A Study of Thre eMilitary Ca mpaigns in North America,1758-1764

Approved by:

& ? k , j ~ ~ k - - Thes is Con-mi tee Chair manLTC J mes R. McLean

Membe r, Graduate Faculty

/:

Accepted this 7th day of June 199 1 by:

Director, Graduate DegreePhilip J Brookes, Ph.9. Programs

The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those ofthe student author and do not necessarily represent theviews of the U.S. Army Command and Generai Staff Collegeor any other governmental agency. References to thisstudy should include the foregoing statement.)


3/127

ABSTRACT

HENRY BOUQUET: A STUDY OF THREE MILITARY CAMPAIGN S INNORTH AMERICA, 1758 -1764 by Ma jor Patrick H.Hannum, USMC, 1 27 pages.

Henry Bouq uet, a professional Swis s officer, served in theBritish Army from 1756-17 65 in the 6 0th or Royal AmericanRegiment. Bouquet s ser vice to the Crown involved hisparticipati on in three major campaigns in North America.During 17 58 Bouquet ser ved as the sec ond-in-comman d toBrigadier General John Forbes in an expedition to securefrom the French Fort Duques ne, later renamed Fort Pitt.

In 176 3, Bouquet returned to Fort Pi tt, personallyorganizing and leading the relief column which broke theIndian seige of that critical fr ontier installation duringPontiac s rebellion. This action resulted in the Battleof Bushy Run. In 176 4, Bouquet conducted an expeditionagainst the Delaware and Shawnee Indians in the MuskingumRiver Valley of Ohio. In this campaign he succeeded inending Indian resistance in the region without having tofight in a sing le battle or eagagement. Bouquet isgenerally evaluated by historians as a successful Indianfighter. An analysis of his campaigns reveals the factthat his success resulted from his performance as acompetent and professioaal military leader.

This study evaluates Bouquet s three campaigns. Itrelates Bouquet s performance to leadership, warfightingand campaigning concepts outlined in modern militarydoctrine.


4/127

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

Thesis Approval Page

A b s t r a c t . . . ii

1. Background and Introduction. 1

2. The F orbes Expedition, 1758 22

3. The Relief of Fort Pitt , 1763 51

4. The Expedition Against the Ohio In dians, 1 7 6 4 7 6

5. Conclusions and Analysis 9 4

Bibliography 1 0 4

Initial Distribution List 110

Figures

Sources 1 1

1. Braddock s and Forbes Road s, 1 7 5 5 1 7 5 8 11 2

2. British and French Forts and Outpos ts,

1750 1760 113

3. The Plan of the Battle Near Bushy Run,

1 7 6 3 . 1 14

4. A Map of the Country on the Ohio and

Muskingum Rivers, 1764 115

5. March and Defensive Formations Used by

Bouquet s Army 11 6

Appendixes:

A. Primary Individuals/U nits in Forbes

Expedition, March-Decembe r 1 7 5 8 A 1

B. Troop Stren gth, 1763 B 1

C. Henry Bouquet s Expeditionary Army, 1 7 6 4 C-1


5/127

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

On 5 and 6 August 1 7 6 3 Colonel Henry Bouquet

fought his only major tactical engagement on the North

American continent, known today as the Battle of Bushy

Run. Although a relatively minor encounter in the

military history of the world, it was an impo rtant event

in the opening of the interior of North America to

settlement by British and later Americans. The action at

Bushy Run occurred during the second of Bouquet s three

major North American campaigns. Bouquet played a major

role in three operationally significant campaig ns or

expeditions between 1758 and 1764 all of which achieved

their operational objectives, due in large part to his

professional leadership and deci sive actions.1

This study will evaluate Bouquet s thre e major

North American campaigns, concentrating on an analysis of

his performance as it relates to the modern concepts of

leadership, warfigting and campaigning. During 1758

Bouquet served as th e forward commander and

seco nd-in -com mand to Brigadier (General) John Forbes

during the Forbes Expedition. In 1763 during Pontiac s

rebellion, Bouquet led an expedition resulting in the

Batt le of Bushy Run and relief of Fort Pitt . In 764

Bouquet led an expedition against the Ohio Indians and

without a batt le or engagement achieved his operational

objective.


6/127

Henry Bouquet s career as a professional British

officer spans a nine-year period between 1756 and 1765.

During this entire period he served in North America.

His efforts influenc ed the course of history, assisting

in the defeat of French and In dian forces and opening the

continent for future English expansion. In reviewing his

successful record of military achievements it is evident

that Bouquet made a significa nt contribution to warfare

in North America. The reasons for Bouquet s

accomplishmen ts are less obvious. His succes s is based

around his adhere nce to many of the basic conc epts and

principles today outlined in modern military doctrine.

Heary Bouquet s background and European military

experiences as well as the events leading to his arrivai

in North America are importan t in understandin g Bouquet s

role and successful performance in colonial American

warfare. Henry Bouquet was born in Rolle, Switzerland,

during 1719 the son of a French Huguenot family.

Bouquet s family was wea lthy, well educated and contained

a numb er of military officers.2

Henry Bouquet s military career began on 4 April

1736 when he became a cadet in a Swiss regiment. His

commissioned service began 1 June 1 7 3 9 as a second

lieutenant in a Swiss Regiment in the servic e of the King

of Sardinia where he served between 1 7 3 9 and 1748. The

rugged Sardinian theater included operations i n the

mountains of northern Italy and ~r o v i d e d n excellent


7/127

training ground for Bouquet s future operat ions in North

Americ a. Bouquet s three major campaign s in North

America inv olved the crossing of and ope ration s n the

rugged Appalachia n Mountai ns of Pennsylvania.,

Little is know n of Henry Bouquet s life between

1 7 4 8 and 1 7 5 6 As peaceful relations developed on the

Europe an continent during this period Bouquet continued

his ed ucation as his services as a combat officer were

not required. During this time he traveled, as a

chaper one, in France and Italy with Lord Middleton

(Georg e Brodrick) f rom whom he acquired his knowle dge of

the Englis h language. Bouquet also obtained valcable

military knowledge relative to battlefields and

fortifications on the European continent during this

period. The young Lord Middle ton may have also

influenced the social sphe re which had access to the Duke

of CumSerland.5 Cumberl and, the Kir.gls so n, served as

the Commander -in-Ch ief of the British Army and was

instrumental in the decision to appoint foreig n officers

to the Royal American Regiment, Bouquet s future

command. Theref ore, any contacts in this social circle

worked to Bouquet s benefit in gaining a commissi on from

the Crown.5In 1 7 5 5 Bouquet was serving as a lieutenant

colonel i n the Regiment of Swiss Guards at th e Hag ue.

This regiment was in the service of William the I V,

Pricce of Orang e, leader of the Dut ch Republic.6 A


8/127

series of events unfolded on th e North Ameri can continent

between 7 4 8 and 7 55 which provided a challenge to

British military dominance. Whi le England and France

were technically at pea ce, a state of limited if not

total war de velope d on the North American continent

between the French and English and their respective

Indian allies.

Both Fran ce and England laid clai m to the vast

interi or of North Ameri ca, the region west of the

Allegheny Mountains. The general strate gy developed by

the British government prior to 756 authorized the use

of offensive action in North America to secu re those

areas occupied by t he Frenc h, but claim ed by both the

Fren ch and the English. Th e general attitu de in the

English business community was to eliminate France as a

commercial competitor not only in North Amer ica , but

worldw ide. Land specul ators and land compani es in both

Virginia and Penn sylvan ia had their eye on the rich lands

in the Ohio Valley. The French colonial government in

Canada, or New France as it was called, perceived the

threat posed by the combined British commercial and

provincial interests to French claims in North

America.8 30th England and France initia ted action s tostreng then their military and political posi tions in the

coloni es. This series of events set the stag e for Henry

Bouquet s arrival in North America.


9/127

The French viewed their military activity in t he

Canadian theater as an economy of force measure. Their

intent was to tie-up as many regular British Army and

Navy forces as possible, preventing their use in

Europ ean, West Indian or East Indian theater of

operations.9 After negotiations with the Iroquois

Indians, the Governor of Cana da, the Marquis de la

Gali ssonn iere, moved quickly to es tablish French

authority over the Ohio country. He dispatched an

expedition under Pierr e-Joseph de Celoron de Blainv ille

to the Ohio River Valley during the sum mer of 1749 to

show the fl ag, drive out the English traders and reclaim

the region for France. Celoron found the Indian

population in the Ohio Valley fully supportive of the

English for numerous reasons, primarily because the

English could offer merchandise at about one-fourth the

cost of the French.10

The major blow to English tra de in the Ohio Valley

came not f rom the Frenc h military but from a band of

Ottawa and Chippewa Indians led by a Fren chman , Charles

Langlade. In June of 1752 Langlade s band attacked and

destroyed th e English trading post and Indi an village at

Pickawillany , on the Miami River. The Miami Indians who

lived at Pickawilla ny were loyal suppo rter s of th e

Engl ish and viewed by th e French as a sign ific ant threat

to their interests.11


10/127

Th e French attack o n Pickawiliany had been

preceded by a confer ence in May of 1751 at Logstown.

Located about eighteen miles downstream from ?resent day

Pit tsbl~rgh, ennsylvania, Logstown was an important

trading village. In 1754, however , military activities

shifted away from Logstow n to the forks of the Ohio. The

confluence of the Allegheny and Monongaheia Ri vers , form

the Ohio River, at this s trategic geographic locat ion.

The f orks of the Ohio became the focus for military

activities i n the Ohio Vaiiey until well after the

American Xevolut ion while Logstown faded into

insignif icance. See Figure 1.

Represented at iogstown were t he French, the

Engiish and the major Indian tr ibes; Iroquois , Deiawar e,

Shawnee , Suro n and Miami. George Croghan , an experienced

Pennsylvaaia t rader and Thomas Joncaire, a Canadian

half-breed, represented the Engiish and Fr ench interests

respectively. The confer ence at Logsto wc reaffirmed the

Englis h loyalty of the In dians, specifi cally the

Iro quoi s, who exercised control cver much of the Ohio

3iver Valley. The Iroqxois actually authorized Fnsl ish

construction of fortified trading posts in the upper h i s

Valiey. The pacifistic government of Pennsyi vania,

howeve r, faiied to respond to requests for military posts

in the Ohio Valley allowing Virgiaia to expand her

interes ts in this resion.12


11/127

The French government i n Canada initiated a

military cam paign in February of 753 with the purpose of

establishing a series of forts in t he Ohio Valley,

regaining support of t he Indians and blocking the Englishwestward advancement.13 By the fall of 753 the French

succeeded in establishing three forts, one at Pres qu

'Isle, on the south sid e of Lake Erie, near present Erie,

Pennsylvania, a second at Le Boeuf, present Waterford,

Penns ylva nia, and a third at Venango, Pennsylvania. (See

Figure 2.

Governor Dinwidd ie in Williamsburg, Virginia

monitored these developments with great concern. The

initial respon se to these French efforts was a diplomatic

gesture. twen ty-on e year old major in the Virginia

militia, George Washington, delivered a warning to the

Fren ch from the Gove rnor of Virginia to termina te their

efforts in the Ohio Valley. The French rejected this

diplomatic effort and Washington believed that the next

move by the French would be to the fork s of the Ohio.,

This strat egic loc tion would remai n a piece of key

terrain, and becauqe of i ts military significance , the

primary geographical focus in each of Henry Bouquet's

major campaigns in' North America.14

In the spring of 7 5 4 the English, actually a

detachment of Virginia mili tia, began c onstruction of a

fort at the forks of the Ohio. Fren ch force of about

5 men under th e command of Capta in Claude-Pierre


12/127

Pecaudy de Contrecoeur arrived and forced the English to

abando n the site. This Frenc h army began constructio n of

Fort Duques ne and dispatched a reconnaissance party to

locate the English troops advancing from the

southeast I 5

George Washington, now a Lieutenant Colonel,

advanced toward Fort Duquesn e from Winchester, Virginia

with a 350-man force. Xi s mission was to eject the

French from the region. Washington located and attacked

a French reconnaissance party. Upon learning of this

attack, the French countered, with a 650-ma n army ,

forcing Washing ton to establish Fort Necessity and

await reinforcements. On 3 July 1 7 5 4 the French attacked

in force and Washington surrendered his army under rather

lenient terms.16

The events of th e summer of 1 7 5 4 were clear in one

res pec t, the English failed to gain a base of op eratio nson the west s ide 'of the Appalachian Mountains and the

French were present i n strength at the forks of the

Ohio. It would not-.$e until 1758 that General John

Forbes , with his abf e and trusted forward commander and

second -in-com mand, Henry Bouquet, would g ain control of

the upp-er Ohi o Valley for the English.

The political implications of these events in the

wilderness were significant. France and England were not

at war. Th e Fren ch had seized a partially completed

British foritifi cation by the use of military force. As


13/127

a result, Washington, based on guidance from the Virginia

government, believed he had the authority to use military

force to eject the French and exercised this privilege.

The English response to the events near the forks

of the Ohio w as to resort to the use of more militar y

force. The Duke of Cumberland, an experienced

professional soldier and Commander-in-Chief of the

Briti sh arm y, emerged from this series of political and

diplomatic events as the chief policy maker in the

Briti sh government concerni ng use of military force on

the North American continent.17 This fact is critical

in understanding later events in the raising of t he Royal

American Regim ent for service in North America.

After hea ring of Washington s disa ster at Fort

Necessity, in September of 1754 the British cabi net

quickly responded in October directing General Edwa rd

Braddock and a n expeditionary force of 2 000 men to North

America. This was one aspect of a four part plan

initiated by Cumberland. The plan, which was offensive

in nature, involved the securing of F ort Beau sejo ur, Nova

Scotia, Crown Point i n the Hudson River Valley, and Fort

Niagara o n Lake Ontario as well as Braddock s driv e on

Fort Duqusene. The British also initiated a naval

blockade at the entrance to the St. Lawrence River t o

prevent any French reinforcements from reaching New

Fran ce. Upo n learning of Braddock s mis sion the French

ordered a counter expedition of 3 000 men whic h departed


14/127

Fran ce in May of 1755 Cumberland's plan achieved

succe ss only in Nova Scotia where New England t roops

occupied For t Beausejour and settlements on the t

John's River.1Braddock began his expedition with ex treme

indi ffer ence displayed by the colonies toward the crisis

on the frontier. This provincial attitude resulted in a

lack of personnel, logistical and monetary support for

Braddock's efforts. A critical aspect was the failure of

the colonial gove rnors to secure the assista nce of loyal

Indians to support Braddock. Forb es and Bouquet

experienced similar problems in 1 7 5 8 but were successful

in dealing with all of these issues. Additionall y,

Braddock be gan his expedit ion from Willi amsbu rg, Virginia

unlik e Forb es and Bouquet who launched their expedi tion

from Phi ladel phia, Pennsylvania.19

Th e defeat of General Braddock's force , along the

banks of the ~o nb ng ah el a iver by the French and Indians

was on e of the most d ecisive defeats suffered by any army

on the North American continent. In a classic meeting

engagement the smaller French force totally destroyed

Braddock's army. More detrimental than the route was the

loss of British plans in Braddock's baggage. Thisallowed th e French to effectively counter British attacks

on For t Niagra and Cro wn Point.20

The Fr ench followed up th e victory o ver Braddock

with a seri es of violent and bloody r aids against

10


15/127

frontier settlements. The English had no force available

to counter this threat. These attacks , always made at

dawn, were sudden , short and brutal. The result was a

300 mile front of terror and a war of attrition . The

French did not perceive these activities as decisive.

They were s imply a distract ion designed to break the will

of the English co1onists.zl

Events in the colonies helped to bring about the

"diplomat ic revo utionW in Europe in 1756. France,

Austria and Russia alligned themselves against Britain

and Prussia. Prior to Britain's decla ration of war

against France on 17 May 1 7 5 6 preparations wer e well

underway for war.22 One of these acts involved the

formation of a new unit for service in North America, the

Royal American Regim ent." The Royal Americans consisted

of four battalions of ten companies each with a total

authorized s treng th of 4400 noncommissioned officers and

men. Recruiting took place in both Europe and North

America. Although the actual order to raise the regiment

was not formally issued until 4 March 1756 actions to

build the regiment began in late 1755. Christmas Day

1 7 5 5 is the date of Lord Loudon's commission as

colon el-in -chie f of the regiment. Loudon arrived in New

York as Comm ander-in-Chief of His Majesties Forces i n

North America on 2 July 1756.23

The issue of providing capable competent officers

for service in this new regiment was critical.

11


16/127

Recruiting German and Swi ss Protestants from the European

continent balanced by an equal number of native British

officers solved this problem. On January 1 7 5 6 Henry

Bouquet was commissioned as a lieutenant colonel i n the

Royal Americans. Bouquet was the senior lieutenant

colonel commissioned in the regiment.24

One of Henry Bouquet s first mis sio ns, after

receiving his commission as the commanding officer of the

1st Battalion of the Royal Americans , was to recruit

additional officers for the regiment.25 This effo rt,

in conjunction with James Prevost , resulted in the

contracting of forty-six Swiss and other European

officers. Thes e officers made up slightly less than half

of the offic ers in the regiment. Altho ugh many of these

European officers recruited along with Bouquet had

engineering or artillery experien ce, they served as

infantry officers.26 Thes e technical skills woul d,

howe ver, prove valuable in campaigning in North America.

On 1 7 August 1 7 5 6 Henry Bouquet arrived in New York

Harbor.27 During Bouquet s translanti c voyage both

England and Fr ance had formally declared war.

Bouquet and his battalion initially served in New

York at both Albany and Saratoga. The battalion arrived

in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 1 December 1756 and

went into winter quarters. During Dece mber, Bouquet s

battalion contained less than fifty percent of its

authorized streng th but new recru its, primarily fro m

1 2


17/127

Pennsylvani a, continued to arrive dai ly, increasing his

combat capabilities.28

During February and March Bouquet developed

detailed plans for offensive action against Fort

Duquesne. In March 1757 Bouquet s orie ntation shifted to

the south. A meeting between Loudoun and the southern

governors resulted in the assignment of Bouquet to

command a planned combined regular and provincial force

of 2,000 men , based in Charleston, South Carolina.

Bouquet departed Philadelphia on 16 May with five

comp anie s of his Royal Americans. Thi s was Bouquet s

f irst independent command in North A m e r i ~ a . 2 ~

Colonel John Sta nwix, colonel-in-c hief of the 1st

Battalion of Royal Americans and Bouquet s sup erior

remained in Carl isle , Pennsylvania providing security on

the Pennsylvani a frontier and recruiting to fill the

remaining vacancies in the battalion. Stanwix s

posi tion , as colonel c ommandant of the battali on, was

primarily an administra tive and ceremonial title.

Bouquet, as the seni or field officer, managed and fought

the unit. Bouquet met with numerous frustrations during

his independent command in Sou th Carolina. Lack of

billeting and the unhealthy climate reduced his effective

regular strength. He received only 170 of the 1,3 00

provincial troops promised by the southern gover nors,

reducing his offensive capabilitie s. He encountered

professional differences with William Litt leton , Governor

i3


18/127

of South Carolina and al so experienced seri ous problems

recruiting i n the region.30

Despite thes e problems Bouquet surveye d and

strengthened coastal defenses on the Georgia and Sou th

Carolina coasts. H e also improved English strength at

the outposts on the western frontier of Georgi a, North

and South Carolina. In Septe mber, the newly formed 77th

Highland Regiment under the command of Lieutenant Colonel

Archibald Montgomery arrived in Charleston f rom Ireland

to rein forc e Bouquet. Bouquet also received the very

pleasant news of his promotion to co?onel.31

The lack of a signi ficant threat to the southern

provinces and the development of the 1758 campaign plan

necessitated the redeployment of Bouquet s forces to the

north. Bouquet departed Charleston with his Royal

Americans during March, arriving in New York on 19 April

1758 Lieutenant Colonel Montgomery remained in

Charleston until adequate shippin g became a vailable to

move his Highland Regiment north , to join Bouquet. Upon

arrival i n New York , Bouuqet learned of his assignment to

the Forbes Expedition, the first of his three major nort h

American campaigns.32


19/127

ENDNOTES

Dale Van Every, Forth to the Wilderness (NewYork: William Morrow and C ompa ny, 1961), 181 -4; and NilesAnderson, The Battle of Bushy Run (Harrisburg :

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1975),14-15.

The Papers of Henrv Bouq uet, Vol. I, ed.,S.K. Stevens, Donald H. Ken t, Autumn L. Leonard(Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and MuseumComm issi on, 1972), xvi-xxviii; and Louis M. Waddell, heAmerican Career of Colonel Henrv Bo uquet. 17 55-1 765, AnAddress Delivered to the Swiss American HistoricalSociety, Philadelphia, PA , October 1980. Rolle ,Switzerland is located on the north bank of Lake Genevain the Canton of Berne. Bouquet s French Huguenot familyhad reside d in the area for at least fifty years prior tohis birth. Bouquet s uncl e, Louis Bouquet was know n tohave served in the Swiss Guards and a ttained the rank oflieutenant general in the se rvice of Holland in 1772.Bouquet s father was ac tive in local governm ent and hismother s family was wealthy.

Bouquet Papers , Vol. I, xx-xxii and 78;Dictionary of National B i o a r a ~ h v , ol. 11, ed., SirLeslie Steph en and Sir Sidney Lee (London: OxfordUniversity Pre ss, 1938), 917 ; and R. Ernest and Trevor N.Dupu y, The Encyclopedia of Military History (New York:Harper and Row Publ isher s, 1970), 636.

Bouquet was seventeen years old i n i736 when hejoined the company of Captain Crousaz i n the SwissRegiment of Constant. He served as a cadet for threeyears continuing his general education and gaining hisfirst exposure to military science. Education remainedimportant to Bouquet throughout his life. H eparticularly enjoyed the study of mathematics.

Bouquet s service in the Sardini an theater between1739 and 1748 involved experience in at least two Swissregiments. His initial combat experience occurred inthis relatively minor theater in the War of Austrian

Succession. Bouquet s regiments fought for King CharlesEmmanuel 111 , of Sardini a. Sard inia occupied much ofwhat is today northern Italy. The King allied himselfwith the Austrians while opposing the Spanish and laterthe French and other Italian states.

4 Dictionary of American Bioarauhy, Voi. 11,ed., Allen Johnson (New York: Ch arles Scribner s Sons ,1929), 480; Dictionary of American Military Bi o q r a ~ h v ,Vol. I , ed., Roger J . Spiller (Westport, CT: Greenwood


20/127

Pre ss, 1984). 102 ; Dict iona ry of National Bi oqr aph y, Vol.11, 917; and Waddell Address. During the 1748 to 1756period, Bouquet also accompanied a group of offi cers whoreceived evacuated forts in the Low Countries from theFrench.

Waddell Address.6 Dictionary of National B i o q r a ~ h v , ol. 1 1

917 ; Dictionary of American Bioqraphv, Vol. 11, 480; andDictionary of American Military Bioq raph y, Vol. I , 102.While at the Hague Bouquet studied under ProfessorsHemslerhuis , Konig and Allemand. Bouquet would laterwrite a letter of introduction for Benjamin Franklin toProfessor Koni g, a noted mathematicia n. Dictionary ofAmerican Mili tary Bi oq ra ~h v, ol . I , 102; and BouquetPapers, Vol. I , 78.

7 Sir Julian S. Corbett, Ensland in the S evenYears War, Vol. (London: Longmans Gree n and Co ., 1918),23-27.

8 W. J. Eccl es, France in America (New York:Harper and Row Publ isher s, 1972), 178 -9.

Ibid., 179.

l o Donald H. Ken t, The Fre nch Inv asion ofWest ern Pennsy lvania (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historicaland Museum Comm issio n, 1981), 5 and 9 ; and Ecc les, 180.

l

Walter O Mera, Guns at the Forks (Pittsburgh:University of Pittsbu rgh Press , 1979), 15-1 6.

l 2 Douglas Edward Leach, m i o r mpire (NewYork: The MacMillan Compan y, 1973), 322-3 and 325-3 26;and O Mera, 12- 13. Virginia s interest in the OhioValley was primarily economic. Formed in 1747 by Londonand Virginia land specu lator s, the Ohio Company was aneconomic venture. The British crown authorized thecompany 500,00 0 acres if the company promised to seat ahundred families in the upper Ohio Valley within sev enyears. The first tract selected for colonization wasbetween the Monongahela and Kanawha Rivers. The Royal

Governor of Virginia, Robert Di nwid die, supported theOhio Company s efforts for both personal and politicalreasons. Dinwiddie was a stockholder in the Ohio Companyand served to benefit from these actions.

3 Kent, 19. The Appalachian Mountainsrepresented a significant barrier to the Englishcolonizatio n of North America. Once across theAppalachians the extensive river and lake syst em providedwaterborn mobility as far west as the Rocky Mountains. A


21/127

successful effort by thetheir colonial empire inat a minimum require theresources by the EnglishValley.

4 Leach, 327-30;Washinaton beaan his 900

Frenc h could insure integritythe interio r of Nor th Americause of trem endo us militaryto gain control of the Ohi o

and Eccles, 181. Georgemile seven ty-fi ve day journey

31 0ctober 1753. Washing ton tr aveled a s f ar a s - ~ o r t eBoeuf where he surveyed the military resources availableto the French and received a negative reply from thepolite but firm Fren ch commander.

5 O Mera, 27-28, 40-41, 82 and 87-89; Leach,318- 19 and 332; and Eccl es, 381. The race to the forksof t he Ohi o seemed to be won by t he Engl ish when duringFebruary 175 4 William Trent a n experienced frontiersman,commissioned as a captain in the Virginia mili tia, beganconstruction of a fort at the forks of the Ohio. Theproject received the support of Half King or Tanaghrissonappointed as a viceroy by the League of the Iroq uois overthe vassal tribes who occupied the Ohio Valley. TheIroquois confederation, consisting of six sepa ratetribe s, viewed th e Delaware as a subor dinate politicalentity. The Delaware did not share this view butexercised diplomacy in dealing with the powerfulIroquois. Half King had openly supported the Britishefforts in the Ohio Valley since 1748.

A Fr ench force of about 500 men under the commandof C aptain Claude-P ierre Pecaudy de Contreco eur arrived

at the fork s of the Ohio on 17 April, and without firinga shot easily required the British fo rces , under thecommand of Ensign Wa rd , to abandon the site. Uponlearning of the events at the forks George Washingt on,now a lieutenant colo nel, began a movement toward theforks of the Ohio with th e intent ion of establishi ng aforward base and to wait for a 80 0 reinforceme nts underColonel Fry. Between the terrain, weather and the threatof mutiny within his ar my , Washington s progress aver agedonly two miles per day, allowing the Fren ch anopportunity to streng then and reinforce their position.

The Fre nch, now constructing Fort Duqusene at t heforks of the Ohio, dispatched Ensign Joseph Coulon deJumonville and a party of about thir ty-fi ve men on anarmed reconnaissance mission. Washington s Indian scoutsadvised him of the approa ch of this Fr enc h party andafter discussion with Half K ing , Washington decided togain the initiative. Early on the morning of 28 May 1 754Washington and his party attacked the Fren ch soldiers.In an engagement which lasted about fi fteen minutes theGreat War for Empire began with this seeminglyinsignificant fire fight. Jumonville, the French


22/127

commander and nine of his men were killed . Washin gtontook twenty -one prisoners and suffe red only one killedand several wounded. Unfortunately for Washin gton, oneFrench sold ier, escaped to Fort Duqusene and provided adetailed account of t he events to the commander there.

6 Eccles, 183; O'Mera, 92 and 103; and Leach,335 . Fren ch reaction was prompt and e ffective.Washington's small army of less than 350 men hastilybuilt Fort Necessity, and awaited reinforcements. Th eFrench response came in the form of 650 French andIndians under the command of Captain Co ulon de Villiers,Jomonville's brother. After a short engagement on July3 1 7 5 4 Washington surrendered his army under ratherlenient terms and the next mornin g began the march backto Virginia.

Washing ton built Fort Necessity in the middle ofGreat Meadows, which turned out ta be a swamp when itrained , a poor location for a fort. Washington's maj ormistake i n negotiating with the French was to sign thearticle s of capitu lation which referred to theassass inatio n of Jumonville. The Fre nch distributedcopies of the article of capitu alatio n signed byWashington to the governments of E urope trying to gaindiplom atic support for their position over the incidentand discredit the British.

7 Francis Jennings, Empire of Fortune , NewYork: W.W. Norton and Company, 1988 , 119 and 122. KingGeorge had an aversion to sending troops to NorthAmeric a. The Duke of Newcastle, First Lord of theTreasury and Head of the Ministry strong ly supportedmilitary action against France in North America.Newcastle appealed to the Duke of Cumberl and, the King'sson, for his assistance in gaining the King's support.

8 Walter L. Dorn, Competition for Emuire1740-1763 , New York: Harper and Brothers Publis hers,1940, 287-89. Cumberland's plan was bold andaggressive. He intended with one offensive campaign toeliminate the French in North America. The fouroffensive ground expeditions were to strike at the Frenchstrength. The naval blockade supported the ground actionby preventing reinfo rcemen ts from reaching New Fran cethroug h the St. Lawrenc e River. The naval blockade wassuccessful in stopping only two ships.

9 Lawrence Henry Gip son, The British EmuireBefore the American Revolution. The Great War for theEmuire, 1754-1757, Vol. 6 (New York: Alfred A. Kn opf,1946 , 65- 70 , 71-72 and 74-75 .


23/127

2 Leach, 365-367; O Mera, 143-148; and Eccles,184-185. The French commander at Fort Duqu eseneresponded to Braddock s 3,000 man a rmy , with an off ensivegamble. The French plan called for their nearly 900 manfor ce, 250 Frenc h regulars and militia and 600 Indians toambush the English force as it crossed the MonongahelaRiver. As with most plans , the enemy failed tocooperate. The end result was a meeting engagementbetween the two forces. The French routed Braddock sarmy inflicting nearly two-thirds casualties. Fren chcasualties were light, twenty-three killed and twentywounded.

The third English volley took th e life of th eFrench comma nder, Captain Beaujeu, dead with a roundthrough his forehead. Captain Dumas took comm and, heldthe road with his militia and regulars while the Indianspoured enfilad ing fir e into the flanks of th e column.Confusion reigned in Braddock s army , his troops brokeand ran, leaving guns and equipment on th e battlefield.Braddock himself had five horses shot fro m under him ,before being hit, while attempting to rally his troops.The route was comp lete , out of 1460 men e ngage d, 913 werekilled or wounded. Of the eighty-six officers involvedsixty-three were casualties.

Many interesting accounts of what took placeduring this meeting engagement are available. In manyrespects the French regulars and militia functioned inconventional tactical formations.

2

O Mera, 157-8.2 2 Leach, 380.

2 Lewi s Butl er, The Anna ls of the Kins s RoyalRifle Corps, Vol. I , London: Smi th, Elder and Co., 1913,18 and 24 Originally numbered the 62d, but upondisba ndmen t, in America of two regiments captured by theFrenc h at Oswego, resulted in designating the RoyalAmericans as the 60th.

2 4 Waddell Address; Butl er, 345; and Dictionaryof National B io sr a~ hv , ol . XI, 1120. The Brit ishAmbassador to the Hague, Sir Joseph Yor k, engaged theservice of an advanturo us Swis s enterpriser Jacques (orJames) Prevost in recruiting qualified officers for theRoyal Americans. Henr y Bouquet and his good friendFrederick Haldimand were several of t he first officersrecruited for the Royal Americans. Recruiting, carriedout by British representatives on the European continent,was under the direction of the British government. Thosedirctions appear to have come from two men in London,Lord Ligonier and the Duk e of Cumberla nd. Ligonier was a


24/127

proven battlefield commander, a trusted military advisorto King Georg e I1 and like Henry Bouque t, a member of aHuguenot family originally from the south of France. Atthe time of the formatio n of the Royal Americ an Regimen t,Ligonier was serving as Lieutenant General of theOrdnance. The Duke of Cumberland was serving as

commander-in-chief,5 Butler, xxi; and Bouauet Paoe rs, Vol. I,

xxvii.

6 Waddel? Address.

7 Bouquet Pape rs, Vol. I, 3 and 7.

8 Ibid., 7, 10, 25-39, 40, and 42-47. HereBouquet experienced considerable resistance and lack ofprovincial cooperation in obtaining adequat e winterquar ters for his troops. After petitioning the localauthorities, governor and the Pennsylva nia Assembly, allparties concerned met and resolved the issue.

9 Ibid., 49-62, 67- 75, 91-96, 101-102 and 171.Bouquet s planned tro op list included the following:

1st Bn Royal Americ ans (5 companies)3 Independent CompaniesProvincial Troops (South Carolina)

(North Carolina)(Virginia)(Pennsylvania)

TOTAL

Trooo Strenath

Of these planned units Bouquet received only 170Virginians to augment his Royal Americans. The effectivestrength of the independent companies was seventy men.Because of sickne ss Bouquet s Royal Americans averaged aneffective stren gth of only 300 men. Bouquet s strengthdid not exceed 1, 000 until the arrival of the 77thHighland Regiment in Septembe r.

Lord Loudoun thought rather highly of Bou quet , asdid the Duke of Cumberland. This was the main reasonLoudoun selected Bouquet to command in So uth Carolinaover several colonels and more se nior lieutenantcolonels. Stanley Pargellis ed., Militarv Affairs inNorth America. 1748 -1765 . Selected Documents from theCumberland Paoers in Windsor Cas tle, (New York, London:D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1936), 235, 254 , 223and 345.


25/127

3 Bouauet Pape rs, Vol. I , 119-120 121-122124-126 157-162 170-176 201 212-220 232 248-250254-260 266-269 and 271; and Pargellis, 345.

3 Bouquet P apers , Vol. I , 115 147-148163-169 182 and 274. Bouquet s promotion to colonel ,effective in America only, was dated 16 January 1758.Montgomery al so received news of his promotion tocolonel. His date of rank was junior to Bouquet s. Thi swas important because they both served under GeneralForbes during 1758. Bouquet, however, served as Forbesforward commander, because of his expe rience and hisseniority.

3 2 Ibid., 301-302 331 and 333.


26/127

CHAPTER 2

THE FORBES EXPEDITION, 1 7 5 8

During the Forbes Expedition, named for it s

comm ander , Brigadier (General) John Forb es, Colonel HenryBouquet served as the second-in-command. The expedition,

whose obj ective was the destructio n of Frenc h military

power in the Ohio River Valley, lasted nearly nine

months. It began, when Forb es assumed responsibility for

planning and organizing the effo rt, in March 1 7 5 8 and

ended with the fall of Fort Duquesne in late November.

Henry Bouquet played a critical role in the conduct of

the expedition. An anal ysis of his effort provides

valuable insight into Bouquet s perfor mance and abilities

as a professional officer camp aigning in North

The Forbe s Expedition was one of three North

American expeditions against French and Indian forces

conducted during 1758 . The theater campaign plan

outlined by British Pri me Minister Willia m Pitt called

for three geographically separated but strategicall y

supporting offensive thrusts. Pitt directed an

amphibious operation against the f ortress of Louisburg

located on Cape Breton Island. The second expedition,with the city of Montreal as its objec tive, was an effort

north from New York City along the Hudson River and Lake

Champlain. The third was Forbes overland effort

beginning at Philadelphia against Fort Duquesne. Thes e


27/127

three campaigns focused on the destruction of F rench

military power in North America. The Fren ch concentrated

their military resources along the St. Lawre nce Rive r,

but significant military forces also controlled the Ohio

and Mississippi River Valleys. The three 1 7 5 8

expeditions were to commence simultaneously in the late

spring to prevent the French from concentr ating forces

against any one effort. The Forbes Expedition was a

supporting attack and therefore received the least amount

of combat power.2

The amphibious assault against Louisburg,

commanded by Major General Jeffery Amhe rst, succeeded in

late July in securing this strategic for tress which

controlled the entrance to the St. Lawrence River.

Amherst was unable to follo w-up on this success with a

drive toward Quebec and Montreal because of the relative

lateness of the season. He chose not to chance having

his amphibiou s forces trapped by ic e in the St. Lawrence

River. He also learned of General Abercromby s defeat at

Fort Ticonderog a eliminating the planned link-up of the

two armies.

Major General James Abercromby, who replaced Lord

Loudoun as Comm ander-in-Chi ef in North America during

March 1 7 5 8 assumed command of the expedit ion whose

objective was Montreal.4 Unli ke the amphibious

expedition against Louisburg , Abercromby s force

consisted primarily of provincial troops. After repeated


28/127

and costly frontal ass aults against fortified defensive

positions at Fort Ticonde roga during Jul y, Abercromby

broke contact and retreated sou th, down the Hudson River

Valley. His efforts were a complete failure costing1 500 casualties.5

Despite the defeat at Tico ndero ga, the Forbes

Expedition received positive sup port from Abercromby s

army. After marching his army back to Alba ny, New Yor k,

Abercromby held a council of war. In an effort to

salvage some success from his failed effort, he

authorized Lieutenant Colonel John Bradstreet to conduct

an offensive effort against Fort Frontenac. Located on

the northeast shore of Lake Ontario near t he entrance to

the St. Lawrence River, Fort Frontenac represented a key

communicatio ns link with the Frenc h posts t o the west and

south (see Figure 2 . After a short artillery dual the

Fre nch commander surr ender ed the post.6 Th e fall of

Fort Fronte nac during late August 1758 cut the supply

lifeline between Montreal and Fort Duque sne, contributing

to the success of Forbes and Bouquet later that year.7

The North American theater campaign plans provided

General Forbes relatively vague guidance concerning his

objective. In an effort to eliminate Fren ch military

power i n the Ohio Valley and int erdi ct the line of

communicati ons between Montreal and the Mississippi Rive r

Valle y, Forb es focused his efforts on the capture of Fo rt

Duquesne (see Figures and 2). The ca ptur e of this post


29/127

would provide a se cure base west of the Allegheny

Moun tains , and serve as a secu re forward post to reassert

English influe nces over the western Indians and

reestablish English claims to t he disputed Ohio

Valley .

Henry Bouquet s assignment to the Forbes

Expedition resulted from a series of decisions made i n

both London and North America. Forbes needed an

aggr essiv e, rational and experienced officer who was

senior to the provincial colonels. As a resu lt,

Abercromby assigned Bouquet and four of his ten companies

of the 1st Battalion, 60th Royal American Regiment, to

the Forb es Expedition. Abercromby formalize d Bouquet s

authority as second-in-com mand by the issuance, on May

1 7 5 8 of two important warrants with legal authority.

These warrants authorized Bouquet general courts martial

authority and authority to grant warrants for

subsistance. These two documents delegated Bouquet the

authority to si gn not only for Forbes but for Abercromby

as well. This action formalized Bouquet s assignment as

second-in-comm and and provided Forbes with a positive,

professional leader.9

Bouquet s first personal contact with his new

supe rior, Brigadier General John Forbes, took place

during mid-May 1758 in Philadelphia. The general ordered

Bouquet west, to Carl isle, Pennsylvania, the assembly

area for the majority of the army. Ther e, Bouquet began

5


30/127

the difficult process of organizing, training and

equipping the provinci al troops.10

The first regular troops to arrive at Carlisle

were Bouquet's four comapnie s of Royal American s during

late May. Montgomery's 77th Highland Regiment did not

reach that location, from South Carolina, until June.

The Pennsylvania provincial troops formed at Carlisle

during May and June while the Virginians formed at

Winch ester , during the same period.11 (Appendix A

provides additional information concerning planned and

actual troop streng th and unit comman ders during the

expedition.)

Bouquet faced many challenges at Carlisle during

May and June. As well as forming the provincial uni ts,

Bouquet found it neces sary to equip them. Th e provincial

troops required tents, blankets, tomahawks , kettl es,

canteens as well as weapons. Forbe s obtained equipment

from local sources and pushed it forward fo r Bouquet to

distribute because the supply ships did not arrive from

England until late June. Equipment arrived at Carli sle

so rapidly many wagon s had no inventory lists or

ins tructi ons as to who was to rec eiv e them.'?

Bouquet outlined his fru strat ion with the state ofprovincial troops in a letter to Forbes , The new

recruits will make you a thousand troubles; they need

blankets, clothi ng, and so on endlessly. Their

officers haven't an idea of the ser vic e, and one cannot


31/127


32/127

Duquesne. Two potential axis of advance existed in 1 7 5 8

see Figure 1 . Both routes proved marginal for moving

an army with wagons and artillery. The two routes began

at Carlisl e, Pennsylva nia and Winches ter, Virginia

respectively. Thes e two communities represented the

west ern limit of s ettl emen t in the spring of 1758 on

these two axis. West of these two communities were only

a f ew small stockaded forts to protect the frontier from

the Frenc h sponsored Indian raids. The most imp ortant of

these posts were Forts Loud oun, Lyttleton and Cumberland.

Supplying the army during its advance across the

Appalachian Mountains became the first priority of the

expedition commander. The distance between Carlisle and

Fort Duquesne was 2 miles. Nearly all the territory

west of Carl isle was unde r enemy control.15 Duri ng

May, Brigadier Forbes developed a supply support plan for

the advance for the army. His logistics conce pt, based

on the work of a French autho r, called for the

constructio n of a series of stockaded camps with block

hous es, every forty miles. He understood this would slow

his adva nce but ultimately reduce his vulnerability while

securing a line of communicati ons and retreat, if

necessary. Bouquet began construction of his first new

supply depot and stockade at Raystown during Ju ne, on the

northern route. At the same time he began an effort to

link Fort Cumberland and Raystown by improving the

2 8


33/127

partially completed trail between these two posts (see

Figure 1 . 1 6

Thes e operational and logistical dec isio ns by

Forbes and actions by Bouquet offered several options for

further advance of the army. The Virginians assembling

at Winchester and Fort Cumberland could advan ce using

Braddock s old road or link -up with th e regular troops

and Penn sylvanians, and proceed using the northern

route. This cours e of action was practical only if a

suit able wagon road over Laurel Hill co uld be located.

Should no acceptable route over Laurel Hill be foun d, the

entire army could advance from Raystown to Fort Cumberand

then to the objective, Fort Duquesne (see Figure 1 . The

southern route was about twenty miles longer and included

several river cro ssin gs, but the trail was already

cleared within eight miles of Fort Duqu esne . For this

reason the sout hern route offered a more rapid a xis of

advance I 7

Henry Bouquet spent the month of July supervis ing

and personally conducting the route reco nnai ssan ce of the

northern route. He forwarded his findings and

reco mmen dati ons to the expedition commander during late

July. Forbe s chose to advance along the new all weathernorthern route. This axis avoided crossing the

Monongahela River making it more trafficable during

periods of high water. He continued to maintain a strong

provincial for ce under the command of Colonel Geor ge

9


34/127

Washington operating out of Fort Cumberland on the

southern route, in an attempt to deceive th e French as to

his intention. This decision created a great deal of

controversy within the army.10

George Washington served not only as the senior

Virginian in Forbes army but acted as a representa tive

of Virginia s political intere sts. Washing ton and the

government of Virignia had no desire to see a new

northern route cut across Laurel Hill. The Virginians

viewed this actio n as a threat to their political control

and economic interests in the Ohio Valley. Washington

confronted Bouquet over the issue but failed to persuade

him with his argument for the use of Braddock s road.

Washington wrote to both Birgadier General For bes and his

aide, Major Halkett, on the issue. However , he

accomp lished little except irritating both Bouquet and

the expedition commander. The decision was fi nal, the

army would advance over what soon came to be known as

Forbes Road (see Figure 1 .19

The manage ment of logistical aspects of the

expedition provided Bouque t, as the forward commande r,

with many challenges. Supporting an army of 6 000 men

over mountai nous ter rain required hundreds of wagons and

thousands of pack horses.20

The farmers and merchants on the Penn sylvani a,

Marylan d and Virginia f rontie rs were somewhat reluctant

to support the army with wagons and hor ses , for good

3


35/127

reason. Many of the teamst ers hired to support the

Braddock expedition had never been paid. These men

received no comp ensati on for their dead horses or lost or

destroyed wagons. The farmer who owned only one wagon

and a good team of ho rses was not interest ed in loaning

them to the army , despite the promise of

compensation.21

On two occasions in May and again in October the

lack of transport threatened to halt the forward movement

of the army. In May a Press Warrant issued by Goveno r

Denny of Pennsylvania relieved the immediate

transpo rtatio n problems experienced by the army. At this

point in the expedition Forbes required adequate

transport to stock the Raystown depot with three months

supplies for 6,000 me n. In Oct obe r, with the majority of

the army staged at Loyalhanna (Fort Ligonier), only fifty

miles from Fort Duquesne , movement of supplies forward

from Raysto wn became critical to the army's cxistan ce

(see Figure 1 .

To resolve this issue Bouquet recommended to

General For bes that he appeal directly to the

Pennsyl vania Assembly for assistance. The general

followed Bouquet's recommendation and sent hisQuartermaster, Sir John S t Clair, to meet with members

of the Pennsy lvania Assembly in Philad elphia . St. Clair

reached a favorable agreement concerning transportation

issues with the Pennsylvania authorities. This allowed

3


36/127

both Forbes and Bouquet to concentrate on the operational

issues confronting th em, although logistics remained a

signif icant limiting fa ctor throughout the campaign.22

A major issue in the expedition was the

integr ation of regular and provincial troops , with Indian

suppor t, into a formidable army. As the forward

comman der much of the responsibility for accomplishing

this task fell on Henry Bouquet. It was the intent of

the British government for the colonies to provide the

majority of the troops for the North American campaigns.

Provincial troops made up more than two thirds of Forb es'

small army turning the Duke of Newcastle's philosophy,

Let America ns fight Americ ans, into reality.

Additionally, the colonies were responsible for rais ing,

clothing and paying their troops. Th e Cro wn assumed

responsibility for furnishing arms, ammu nition, tents and

provisions 2

Bouquet utilized the provincial troops to perform

the majority of th e manual labor associated with building

a road through the mounta ins and forest s. He quickly

gained an ap precia tion for the many differ ences between

military operations conducted in Europe and those

conducted deep in the North America n wilderness.24 InJune 758 he wrote:

It will never be my opinio n that the soldierin America should be paid for his work on campaign,that can be done in Europe where they have noprovisions and there is lit tle work to be done ,but her e where not a step can be taken except bywor k, if things were put on that basis, this army


37/127

would cost the government more than thre e armiesin Europe.25

Bouquet also gained an appreciation for the type

of equipment needed for campaigning in the forests.

Nearly half of the provincial recruits arrived with their

own firearm s, rifled muskets. Bouquet, familiar with

these weapons in Europ e, requested lead bars to mold

bullets and fine powder which functioned more efficiently

in a rifle. The use of rifled weapons had little impact

on the supply system despite the added requirements. The

fact that many provincial troops carried personally owned

rifles had little overall effect on the army. Bouqu et,

however, adopted functional provincial practices to

improve combat performance in the mountains and

forests 2 6

Bouquet appreciated the need for equipment suited

for use in the wilderness. He found the bayonet auseless weapon in t he woods and preferred the tomahawk.

Because numerous provincials carried personal weapons,

many were unable to fix bayonets even if they had been

supplied. Early in the expedition Bouquet did obtain

sixteen rifles capable of mounting bayonets, unique until

the mid-Nineteen th Century, and unique as well in Forbes

army. Bouquet also noted that provincial troops were not

very good at making cartridges, they took too much time

and their cartri dge boxes held only nine t o twelve

char ges. He recomm ended the use of powder horns and


38/127

pouches for carrying bullets. Bouquet felt this was a

better method in cas e of a su dden or night attack.

Washington was using this system with his Virginians with

good results.27Washington also dressed his Virginians in a rather

nontraditional military style. Washington believed it

was necessary to ...cause the men to adopt the Indian

dress but officers also , and set the example

myself: . . . . Washington recommended this dress,

primarily buckskin, to reduce baggage and for

convenience. After viewing this styl e of dress on the

arrival of two companies of Virgin ians at Raystown ,

Bouquet concurred and recommended its use. The regulars

and provincials differed greatly not only in their

equipment but in their dress as well. The Pennsylvani a

provincial troops dressed in buckskin breeches and short

green jackets while t he Highlanders wore plaid ki lts and

hose with scar let coats and the Royal Ame rican s, buckskin

leggings with s carl et coats.28

Intelligence gathering in the forest was an

element of th e campai gn whic h consumed a gre at deal of

Bouquet's effort. Thro ugho ut the planning and exec utio n

of the expeditio n the importance of the Indi an in thisrole was evident. Ind ian s, because of their way of li fe,

were a ble to move quickly over long distances with

minimal supply suppo rt and therefore made excellent

scouts. Bouquet understood the need to maintain loyal

4


39/127

Indians as part of the army and worked dili gently t o

empl oy support and retain them.

In fact the issue of Indian alleg iance not

necessarily active offensive supp ort became a critical

factor in the succ ess of the campaign. In the spring of

1758 a serie s of dipl omatic efforts gained the allegiance

of over 7 Cherokee supported by Catawba warriors f rom

the southern frontier. For a variety of reasons the

majority of these warriors left the army after only a few

weeks service. Despite a significant effort by both

Forbes and Bouquet and numerous provincial officers to

encourage Indian loyalty to the arm y the majority of

those who remained were not considered extremely

reliable.29

Bouquet employed the friendly Indians that

remained with the army in small patrols accompanied by a

trustworthy regular or provincial officer or non-

commissioned officer. He followed this procedure to

insu re an accu rate report upon return of the party and to

keep the Indians offensively oriented while in the

field. Despite a small but aggressive patrolling effort

throughout the campaign Bouquet failed to obtain a clear

view of enemy strength.30

General Forb es concerned over the lack of

intelligence and friendly Indian suppo rt sought to

reduce French influenc e over the Ohio Valley tribes.

French military strength in the Ohi o Valley relied

5


40/127

heavily on Ind ian warriors to augment their small but

capable regular and militia detachments. If several

tribes supporting the Frenc h could be convinced to bury

the hatc het, Forbes felt he could easily crush the Frenc hforc e at Fort Duquesne. Part of the general's stated

mission was to reassert English influence over the Ohio

Valley Indians.31

Bouquet understood th e need t o manag e the Ind ian

issu es to the benefit of the army . Bouquet understood

the need to encourage neutrality among th e western

tribes, specifically the Delaware, Shawnee and

Seneca.32 Management of Ind ian affairs with these

tribes was t he responsibility of Sir William Johnson.

Howe ver, Johnson and t he Mohawk tribe with whom he had

direct cont act, were not on good diplomatic terms with

these western tribes. As a result of this relationship,

the western tribes were actually looking for a diplomatic

avenue to approach the Png lish but to avoid Johnson.33

Forbe s, disappointed in Johnson's performance,

obtained th e assi stanc e of Israel Pemb erto n and the

Pennsylvania Quakers. The Quakers seeking peace with the

Delaware, arranged for a conference at Easton,

Pennsylvania. Attending were the governors of New Jerseyand Pen nsylv ania, Geor ge Croghan in the capacity of

Johnson's depu ty, Israel Pemb erto n, and about 5 Indians

from fif tee n tribes.


41/127

The conference which lasted nearly th e entire

month of October 1 758 not only opened communicatio ns with

the Ohio Indians but resulted in diplomatic developments

favo rabl e to British imperial interests. Alth ough all

issues were not fully resolved, the majority of the

Delaware and Shawn ee warriors deserted their former

French allies in an effort to establish a peaceful

relationship with the English o n th e frontier.35

The events at Easton combined with t he return of

many western Indians to their homes, for the wint er,

improved the English ratio of combat power in the

vicinity of Fort Duqu esne . News of the event s at East on

reached the frontier just as Forbes consolidated his army

for a final push for Fort Duquesne.36

This consolidatd effort by Forbe s was not t he

first offensive thrust oriented at Fort Duquesne during

the expedition. Major James Grant , second-in-co mmand to

Colonel Archibald Montgomery of the 77th Highland

Regim ent, made an unsuccessful effort during September.

During Aug ust, this extremely aggress ive officer moved

forward to reinforc e Bouquet at Loy alhanna with a

detachment of the 77th Regiment. Loyalhanna (Ligonier)

was the last major stockade and sup ply depot on the rout e

to Fort Duquesne.37 (See Figu re 1.

Upon arrival at that post Bouquet authorized Grant

to conduct a rec onna issa nce- in-f orce and if practical

conduct a limited objec tive attack. Grant s target was

3


42/127

the Indian camp and bivouac area just outsi de the walls

of Fort Duquesne. Bouquet and Grant secretly planned the

operation to insure operational security. This action

was undertaken in re sponse to several Indian attacks on

small parties of t roops in the vicinity of

Loyalhanna.38

Bouquet placed under Grant s command a combined

regular and provincial force of nearly 800 men. A

combination of poor reconnaissan ce and a sl ow night

movement t o the objective caused Grant to lose the

element of surprise. On 4 September 1 7 5 8 his force

became separated and disoriented and was defeated i n

detail by the Fren ch and Indians. Grant himself was

captured and he lost nearly 300 men killed or captured.

Bouquet s decision to authorize this attack caused the

only strain in relations between Bouquet and Forbes

experienced during the expedition.39

Bouquet fully expected the Fren ch to follow -up

Grant s defeat with a n attack on his line of

communicatio ns. He therefore moved his reserves forward

in anticipation of this action. The intelligence picture

at Fort Duquesne remained extremely unclear. Estimates

of combined French and Indian strength ranged fr om 1 2 0 0

to 3 000 even after Grant s defeat. Fortunately for

Forbes and Bouqu et, the French did not pursue or

follow-up on their victory, allowing Bouquet to

strengthen his position at Loyalhanna. Interestingly

38


43/127

enoug h, despite Grant s defea t, Bouquet maintained a

favorable impression of the provincial troops and their

ability to fight.40

During mid-October, Bouquet placed Colonel James

Burd , of the 2d Pennsylvan ia Batt alion , in command at

Loyalhanna. He moved to the east to supervise needed

improvements to the marginal road traversing Laurel

Hill. During his absence a Frenc h and Indian force

assaulted the garrison at L oyalhanna, inflicting only

minor casualties but driving off numerous packhorses.

Bouquet was extremely upset when he learned that Colonel

Burd , one of his trusted provincial office rs, failed to

pursue the enemy after repulsing their assault.41

Despite this minor setback Forbes consolidated the

army at Loyalhanna for the final assault on Fort

Duquesne. Washington arrived with his provincial troops

on 23 October while Forb es hims elf, accompanied by

Colonel Montgomery arrived on 2 November.42

Shortly after his arrival Fo rbes solicited from

his colonels plans for future offensive action against

For t Duq ues ne, and then held a council of war on

November. Th e coun cil, attended by all regular and

provincial c olon els, decided against continuin g the

attack. The primary reasons for this decision were the

lack of accu rate intel lige nce and the s hort age of

clothing and provisions needed to support a cold weather

campaign.43


44/127

The following day th e enemy made their second

attack on Loyalhanna. This attack by 200 Frenc h and

Indians was o ne of the most important engagements to

occur during 1758 Its objective was simply to harass

the garrison and drive off their livestock. The

Virginians, in the process of breaking up the atta ck,

captured three prisoners, two Indians and a white man.

The white man was a Bri tish subject who had defected to

the French. Threatened with death, the man talked and

revealed the weakness of the French garrison at Fort

Duquesne. Armed with this new inform ation , the best

intelligence to date, Forbes reconsidered his decision

and c hos e to advance.44

Forbe s established a strong garrison at Loyalhanna

then task organized an assault force into three

brigades. The assault element consisted of 2 500 hand

picked men , both regular and provinci al, with only a

light train of artillery.45 His regular colon els,

Bouquet and Montgom ery, commanded two of the brigades

while Washington commanded the third.46 The army began

its advance on 15 November with detachments of Bouquet's

and Montgomery's brigades in the lead foll owed by

Washington's men cutting the road. The army assembled on21 November along a ridge know n as Bouquet's Camp,

which was the final attack position for the assault of

Fort Duquesne. Scouting parties moved toward the

obje ctiv e in an tici pati on of the final attack.4'

40


45/127


46/127

Bouquet took no credit for the successful results of the

campai gn. His correspond ence and orders reflect loyal

professional conduct throughout the expedition. Under

the guidanc e of John Forbe s, Henry Bouquet experienced

his first campaign deep in the American wilderness. He

gained valuab le experience in a number of important areas

and displayed a solid understanding of his surrou ndings .

A numb er of obser vation s concer ning Bouquet s

abilities as a professional officer are evident in

reviewing his performance during the Forbes Expedition.

These observations fall int o two major categories.

Bouquet used insight and tact in dealing with the

provincial governme nts and officers. He also displa yed a

willin gness to adopt new i deas if they enhanced the

performance of his organization.

Bouquet s assignment as the forward expedition

comman der placed him in constant contact with the

provincial officers in the army. Bouquet effectively

integrated the inexperienced provincial units into the

army, maintaining high standards of performance, while

suppor ting the provincial o fficer s and maintaining

harmony. Throug hout the expedi tion many leadership and

management is sues concerning provincial suppo rt of t he

expedi tion frustrated him yet he never lost his mission

focus. He maintained his offensive attitude while

effectively addr essing the political realit ies of

colonial iife.51


47/127

Support of t he British military effort to defeat

the Frenc h in North America was never extremely popular

in th e coloni es, specifically in Pennsylvania.52

Mainta ining a minimum level of support from the Quaker

controlled Pennsylvania government was necessary to the

success of the campaign. Both Forbes and Bouquet were

able to influe nce the decision making process at just the

right time producing the minimu m suppor t necessary t o

defeat the French.

Bouquet s letter to his friend , Willia m Allen, a

member of the Pennsylvania Assembly, written the day Fort

Duquesne fe ll, outlines the responsibilities facing the

government,

ut I know the disposit ion of people ingeneral always indolent and ready to fall asleepon the smallest glance of ease and quiet. Youmust rouse the m, and make them sensib le that thisbusiness is but half done. W e hav e acted ourpart, let you do yours; It is now in your power toeniov in peace and quietude your Lands an dposses sions, if you will only lay out in som e timeand money, which may save you ten times more, andthe lives of thousands of your poor Inhabitants.53

Bouquet understood th e import ance of the military

achiev ement in which he played such a critical role. He

did not want to see his efforts and acco mplish ments and

those of the army wasted because of the lack of provincial

political support.

Bouquet s willingness to adopt new ide as to enhance

his combat capabi lities is clearly evident. Bouquet

adopted aspects of colonial dress , equipment and tactics .


48/127

H e exercised a great deal of judgement and discertion in

tailoring and employing his forces for combat in the

rugged mountains and forests while ensuring compliance

with basic military principles. He emphasized securityand reconnaissance while employing combined regular,

provincial and Indian organizations in offensive combat

operations. Offensively orient ed, Bouquet displayed an

understanding of the tactical defens e. He addressed

progressive concepts suc h as marksm enship training and

entrenching, reflecting a superior knowled ge of

contemporary military art and science.54 Th e mai n

supply depots at Forts Bedford and Ligonier contained

fortified earthworks similarly in de sign to those outlined

by the great military engineer Vauban.

While the For bes Expedi tion was Bouquet s first

major expedition or campaign in North Amer ica, his

performance reflected the training of a cap able combat

office r. Bouquet s frontie r knowle dge and experi ence

would continue to grow prior to his next major campaign.

By 1763 Henry Bouquet deve loped into one of the leading

senior military experts on North American colonial

frontier.


49/127

ENDNOTES

S. K. Stevens , Donald H. Kent , and Autumn N.Leonard, eds., The Papers of Henry B ouauet, Vol. I1(Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Historical and MuseumCommission, 1951 , iii.

2 Alfred Procter Ja mes , ed., The Writinss ofGeneral John Forbes, (Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press,1938 , 54; and Sir Julian S. Cor bett, Enaland in the SevenYears War, Vol. I (London: ~on gm an s reen and Co., 1918 ,305-7.

3 Corbett, Vol. I, 317-330. Th e loss ofLouisburg by the French had more economic impact th anmilita ry. Louisburg represented a valuab le commercialpossession. It provided a port from which to exploit thevaluable cod fisher ies on the grand banks off NewFoundl and. Whil e the fur trade in the interio r of Canadawas essential to maintaining political al liances andsupport of the Indians to the Fre nch , the fishing industrywas far more valuable to the economy of France. Franci sJenning s, Empire of Fortun e ( New York: W. W. Norton andCompany, 1988 , 306.

4 James, 54.

Lawrence Henry Gi ps on , Th e Br it ish Em-Before the American Revolution, The Great War for theEmpire, 1758-60 , Vol. 7, (New York: Alfred A. Kn opf ,1949 . 230-231: and Jenninas. 363-364. Abercromby splanked strengt h was 15,006 troops making it the iargesteffort of the 1758 campaign. Unlike the Louisburg effort ,the majori ty of Abercromby s force consis ted of provincialtroops . Eight regular battalions made up the corps of thearmy. Six companies of Bouquet s 1st Batt ali on, 6 thRegiment under the command of Brigadier General JohnStanwix, Colonel-Commandant of the Battalion, and MajorJohn Tulleken fought at Ticonderoga. These men were partof a series of unsupported at tacks ordered by Abercromby.Bouquet considered Tullek en a fine officer. All but twoof t he 1st Battal ion officers who fought at Ticond erogasuffered death or a wo und, including Tulleken who waswounded but survive d. Bouquet Pau ers, Vo1. 11, 308-309.

Gipson, Vol. 7 236-246.

7 Jennings, 367 and Douglas Edward Leach, rmsfor Empire , (New York: Macmillan and Compa ny, 1973 ,436-437.

James, 35. The 1758 campaign glans approvedby P rime Minis ter William Pitt during late December 1757did not arrive in North America until 4 March 1758.


50/127

Loudouns plan for Operations on the Ohio dated 1February 1758 state s, Seneca Indians would assist indest ruct ion of the Fren ch. Based on Loudoun'scommissioning of Col. James Byrd, 111 of Virginia to gainsupport of the Cherokee nation , during February 1 758 , itseems possible this was an error and shou ld have read

Cherokee Indians. Loudoun's plan s, whil e not identicalto those outlined by William Pitt, were similar. Bothcalled for Forbes to command the southern expedition to

annoy the enemy. Troop lists were however different.This is the reason the regular troops, specifically ninecomp anie s of Bouquet's 1st Battalion of Royal Americ ans,literally passed each other on th e road between New Yorkand Philadelphia in April of 1758. Jame s, 35, 54 and 91.

Bouquet Papers, Vol. I, 337-339. There is noindication that Bouquet and Forbes met prior to Bouquet'sassignment as his second-in-com mand. Forb es arrived inNorth America i n 1757 as a colonel in the 17t h Regiment.He ser ved as Loudoun's adjutant general until hisassignment to command the 1758 expedition. During thissame period Bouquet served i n Phi ladelphia, Pennsylvaniaand South Caroli na, Forbes was in New York.

During his independent command in Sout h CarolinaBouquet corresponded extensively with Forb es in hiscapacity as adjutant general for Loudoun. Although noreference is availa ble, Forbes no doubt approved Bouquet'sassignment to serve as his second-in-command. Also seeChapter 2, Note 10. Bouquet Papers, Vol. I, 247 and AllenJohns on, ed., Dictionary of American Bioqrauhv, Vol. VI

(New York: Char les Scribner's Son s, 1929), 505.1 Ibid., Vol. 11, 47. When Forbe s and Bouquet

met in Philadelphia during May 1758 they obviouslydiscussed the many details of the campaign. Bouquetpreviously outlined plans for a ca mpaign against FortDuqu esne, Marc h 1757. Bouquet's 1757 plan, reviewed byLord Loudoun is similar in many ways to the plan followedby Forbe s. While it is unfair to Forb es to credit Bouquetwith the entire campaign plan, much of the plan must beattributed to him. Forbes served as Loudoun's adjutantgeneral until his assignment to command the expeditionagainst Fort Duquesne. He no doubt had access to

Bouquet's plan and tim e to stud y and imp rove its contentafter discussing it with Loudoun. Bouquet Pape rs, Vol. I ,49-6 2 and 247.

Bouquet Paue rs, Vol. I, 351, Vol. 11, 39-40,and 60.

1 2 Niles Anderson, The General Chooses a Road.Western Pennsylvania Historical M asazine, 4 2, No. 2 (June1959): 11 5; and Bouquet Papers , Vol. 11, 16-17.


51/127

3 Bouquet Papers , Vol. 11, 23 and 35. Among thecapable provincial officer s Bouquet mentions were:Colonel James Burd , Captain John Hambrig ht, Captain RobertCallender and Lieutenant Thomas Hutchings. Colonel Burdcommanded the d Pennsylvania Battalion of wh ich CaptainHambright was a member. Bouquet transferred Hambright to

command a troop of light horse. Bouquet wrote ofHambr ight, He is the most suitable man in America forthat commission. Bouquet was in fact impressed withColonel Burd's ent ire batt alio n. Of Burd's tr oops hewrote, They are almost all soldiers who have served inEurope or ar e woodsmen who are useful on this expedition.

Captain Callender was a prominent Indian trader whowas serving in the 1st Pennsylvani a Battalion. Bouquetappointed Callender as wagon master general because of hisenergy and knowledge of the country. Lieutenant Hutchinsof the 3d Pennsy lvania Battalion he appoi nted asquartermaste r in charge of provisions. Hutchins laterbecame a trusted regular officer in the Royal Americ ans, asuperior surveyor and engin eer, and later served as thefirst geographer of the United Sta tes of Amer ica. BouquetPavers, Vol. 11, 6, 48, 51-52, 122 and 1 2 4 and AllenJo hn so n, ed ., Dict ionary of American Bioqr-, Vol . 9(New York : Charles Scribner's Son s, 1929 , 436.

4 James, 37 , 102 , 166 , and 172; BouquetPa-, Vol. 11, 135, 167, 264, and 380; and Gipson, Vol.

, 259. Forbes was extremely ill during the expediti on,for weeks he could not even write a letter.

1 5 James, i18 and 140-141. For more detail onthese routes see Archer Butler Hulb ert, Historic Hiqhwavsof A meri ca, Vol. 5, The Old Glade Road (Cleveland, OH:1902-5 , reprinted, New York: AMS Press , Inc., 1971 ,1 6 - 2 4 ; Bouquet Paper s, Vol. 11, 300; and Archer Butl erHulbe rt, Historic Hiqhwavs of America, Vol. 2, IndianThorouqhfare s, (Cleveland, OH: 1902-5 , reprinted, NewYork: AMS Press , Inc., 1971 , 71 and 89-91. These routes,former Indian trading path s, permitted only sin gle filetraf fic, totally inadequate for wagons and artillery. The

Old Trading Path beca me Forb es' Road whil e Nemacolin'sPath became known as Braddock's Ro ad.

6 Bouquet Papers, Vol. I, 347-348 and 366-368;James, 117-118 and 239-240; and Anderson, 120-122 .

Hulbert, Vol. 5, 16-24 and Bouquet Papers,Vol. 11, 300.

8 Bouquet Papers, Vol. 11, 142 , 234-246 , 255 ,265, 294 and 336.


52/127

1 9 Ibid., 291 , 298-303 and 344; and Anderson,242.

2 Ibid., 254.

2 1 Worthington Chauncey For d, ed., he

Writinqs of ~ e o r u e a sh in qt on , Vol. I , ( ~ e w o r k : . P.Putnam's Sons, 1889 , 184 ; John C. Fitzpatrick, WashinqtonHimsel f, (Westport, CN: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1933 ,83 ; Bouquet Pap ers, Vol. 11, 105; and James, 89 and 247.

2 2 Souquet Papers , Vol. I, 405 and Vol. 1 1,471-474 .

2 3 Lawrence Henry Gips on, The British Empire-Before the American Revolut ion, The Great War for theEmpire, 1754-1757, Vol. 6 (New York: Alfred A, Knopf,1949 , 10; and Anderson, 113-115 .

2 4 Bouquet Pa pe rs , Vo . 11, 53 , 75 , 143 , 149 and253.

2 5 Ibid., 152.

2 6 Ibid., 17 , 23 and 5 0 .

2 7 Ibid., Vo . I, 339 and Vol. 11, 22 and 88-89 .

2 Ibid., Vol. 11; 7 , 136 , 159 and 183; andAnderson, 390.

2 9 Stanley Pargellis, Military Affairs in Nort kAmerica, 1748-1765 , Selected Documents from the CumberlandPapers i n Windsor C a u New York a nd London: D .Appleton-Century Compan y, Inc., 1936 , 431 ; James, 38 , 75 ,91 , 102 and 141; Gipson, Vol. 7, 257; and Bouauet Paper s,Vol. 11, 15 , 39-40 , 65 , 68 , 98-102 , 137 and 146. DuringJune and July 1758 Bouquet and Washington made referenceto over 200 warriors from several Indian tribes supportingthe army. These included Cheroke e, Windots , Catawba ,Nottoway and Tuscarora.

3 0 Bouquet Pape rs, Vol. 11, 180 , 205-206 and221-222.

3 1 James, 286 and 289.

3 2 Bouquet Pape rs, Vol. 11, 380-381

3 3 James, 85. Sir Wil l iam Johnson m a ~ a g e d ndianaffairs from Pennsylvania north and Edmund Atkin fromVirginia south. Johnson received his commission in 1 7 5 5and Atkiin in 1756. The app ointme nt of these men tomanage Indian affairs in the colonies was th e only acti on


53/127

to result from the Albany Congress of 1754. The northernand southern Indian districts did not matc h the geographicboundaries of the military distri cts created during theFren ch and Indian war of 1756 to 1763. Specifically, theprovince of Pennsylvani a was in the northern Indi andistrict and the southern military district. Thiscontributed to coordinat ion problems during the ForbesExpedition. John Richard Alden, John Stuart and theSouthern Colonial Frontier (New York: Gordi an Press Inc .,1966 , 75-79; James Alan Roge rs, Northern ColonialOpposition to the French and Indian War, (DocotralDiss erta tion, University of Cal ifornia, Santa Barbara,1968 , 24-51.

3 4 Leach, 442; James, 85; and Jennings, 384.

3 5 Gips on, Vol. 7, 275-278. Christian FredrickPost, a Moravian missionary made t wo trips to the OhioValley from Phila delph ia, Pennsylvania. The purpose ofthese trips was to e ncourage attendance by the Delaware atthe Easton conference and carry news of the results.During both tr ips, made during July and Novemberrespectively , Post risked his life. Leach, 441-444.

6 Bouquet Papers , Vol. 11, 461-462 and 494.

7 Ibid., 457.

8 Ibid. , 493

9 Ibid. , 499-505, 512, 518 and 513-521 . Grant's

action took place on what is now Grant's Hill neardowntown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Grant along with otherprisoners returned to friendly lines via Canada in aprisoner exchange. Grant saw no more action in the Forbescampaign but commanded the successful exp edition againstthe Cherokee Indians in 1761. He als o campaigned againstthe Americans during the Revolution.

4 Ibid., 513-521. Although Bouquet frequentlyaddressed organiz ation and management problems experiencedby the provincials, he never questioned the fightingabilities of these men , only their inexperience.

4 Ibid., 555-556 and 560. Bouquet could hearthe battle at Loyalhanna from his location on the eastsid e of Laurel Hill. Bouq uet, supe rvis ing the movement ofan artillery tra in, believed his presence at Loyalhannaduring this engagement would have proved deci sive. Burdcounterattacked but did not aggressively pursue the ene my.

4 Ibid., 547 and 555-556.

4 3 Ibid., 5 9 3 - 5 9 9 .


54/127

4 4 James, 255 and 392.

5 Bouquet Pavers, Vol. 1 1 610.

6 Anderson, 393. The brigades were structuredas follows:

1st Bde Col Bouquet Pennsylvania RegtRoyal Americans

2nd Bde Col Montgomery Highlanders2d Virginia Regt

3rd Bde Col Washington 1st Virginia RegtNorth Carolina TroopsMaryland TroopsLower County Troops

Delaware)

4 7 James, 259-260; and Anderson, 394.

s Gipson, Vol 7 , 285.

9 James, 263; and Anderson, 295.

5 Forbes Writinss, 269. It is interesting that,while many frontier forts simply rotted away, constructionof these three forts was adequate and their locationstrategic enough to permit their use for a number ofyears. All three survived and are today museums open tothe public. Forbes and Bouquet have living monuments tothe success of their campaign.

5 1 Bouquet Pavers, Vol. 1 1 185, 224, 397 and436.

5 2 Rogers, vii-viii.

5 Bouquet Pavers, Vol. 11 611.

5 4 Ibid., 396-397 and 642.


55/127

CHAPTER

THE RELIEF OF FORT PITT, 1 7 6 3

The political and military cond itio ns whic h led to

Pontiac s rebellion in 1 7 6 3 evolved from a serie s of

English military victories in North America. Henry

Bouquet was an active participant in these events.

Bouquet s involvemen t in the Forb es campa ign of 1 7 5 8

followed by three and one-half years of servi ce on the

frontier directly exposed him to the military and

diplomatic conditio ns leading to the rise of Pontiac and

his Indian coalition.1 Fro m the fall of Fort Duqu esne

in late November 1 7 5 8 through t he summe r of 1 7 6 3 English

military domi nance over the French in North America was

complete. English control of the western Indian trib es,

howev