A History of Oregon, 1792-1849

The narrative continues: “This American then observed, ‘Yesterday you were going to kill me; now you must die,’ and drawing a pistol – Elijah, who had been five or six years at the Methodist Mission, and had learned to read, write, and speak English respectably, said deliberately, ‘Let me pray a little first;’ and kneeling down, at once commenced, and, when invoking the Divine mercy, was shot through the heart or vitals, dead upon the spot. Taking for truth an Indian report [which in this case suited this priest and Dr. White’s purposes better than a true statement of the facts would], this horrible affair created considerable excitement [which, he tells us in another place, the Young Chief, who was present, was able to quell], and there is some danger of its disturbing the friendly relations that hitherto existed between us here and all those formidable tribes in the region of Wallawalla and Snake River.”

This Indian story or tragedy is useful for three purposes. First, to show Dr. White’s disposition to have his importance known to the department at Washington. Second, to show the disposition of this “holy father, the Catholic priest,” to quote a case of the kind, to justify the Whitman massacre by the Indians, and deceive his readers and the world as to the real cause of that transaction; thus aiding us in bringing home the guilt of a crime where it belongs. Third, to show how capable he is of misrepresenting and falsifying historical facts, to excuse a foul murder of American citizens. He continues to quote Dr. White as follows: —

“Learning from Dr. Whitman, who resides in their midst, how much they were all excited by reason of the treacherous and violent death of this educated and accomplished young chief, and, perhaps more especially by the loss they had sustained, and then, after suffering so many hardships and encountering so many dangers, losing the whole, I apprehended there might be much difficulty in adjusting it, particularly as they lay much stress upon the restless, disaffected scamps, late from Wallamet to California, loading them with the vile epithets of dogs, thieves, etc., from which they believed or affected to believe that the slanderous reports of our citizens caused all their loss and disasters, and therefore held us responsible. He, Ellis, the Nez Percé chief, assured me that the Cayuses, Wallawallas, Nez Percés, Spokans, Ponderays, and Snakes were all on terms of amity, and that a portion of the aggrieved party were for raising a party of about two thousand warriors of those formidable tribes, and march to California at once,13 and, nobly revenging themselves on the inhabitants by capture and plunder, enrich themselves upon the spoils; while others, not indisposed to the enterprise, wished first to learn how it would be regarded here, and whether we would remain neutral in the affair. A third party were for holding us responsible, as Elijah was killed by an American, and the Americans incensed the Spaniards.”14

The above extract is quoted by Brouillet for so base a purpose, that it seems necessary, in order to correct the errors of Dr. White and this priest, to give it in full. We have given the statement of Mr. McKinley, as quoted by Brouillet, which shows the absurdity of this whole document. If the Young Chief went into the room and saw Elijah shot down in the brutal manner represented by Dr. White, he certainly must have been a very remarkable and forgiving Indian if he used his influence to prevent his tribe from seeking revenge; besides, we find in the subsequent history, that even Elijah’s own father did not seek to avenge his death, as stated by this priest on page 30 of this narrative (28th of Ross Browne’s report).

He says: “And in the spring of 1847, the Wallawalla chief himself, Yellow Serpent, started with a party of Wallawallas and Cayuses for the purpose of attacking the Americans in California, whom they thought unsuspicious. But having found them on their guard, and too strong to be attacked without danger, he took their part against the Spaniards, offered his services to them, and fought in their ranks.”

This, with the statement of Mr. McBean, as will be given in his letter, shows that this very Rev. Father Brouillet knew nothing of the subject he was writing about, and was ready to pick up any statement that might be made, without any regard to its absurdity or plausibility. I query whether there is a living man well acquainted with Dr. White, who will state that he believes he would tell the truth, officially or otherwise, when a falsehood would suit his purposes better; and from a careful study of the statements and writings of this reverend priest, we are forced to the same conclusion.

Rev. Mr. Brouillet has filled four pages and a half of his narrative with the statements of William Craig, in answer to questions asked by Hon. P. H. Burnett, all of which show that Mr. Craig knew nothing of the massacre only as he was told, by two Indians, what some other Indian said that some other Indian had said. We are not surprised that Mr. Burnett gave up the contest with Mr. Spalding, after examining such a witness as Mr. Craig, and finding that he knew so little relative to the subject in question. Suppose Tom Hill and the Indian messenger that brought the news to Mr. Spalding’s station told all they heard of the matter, did that make their statements true? Or did the repeating of these Indian statements by Mr. Craig make them true? Rev. Father Brouillet has showed, in these four pages, a weakness we did not expect to find in a man with so many sacred titles to his name. In fact, the greater part of his statements are from persons who make them as coming second-hand from the Indians. He makes Mr. Craig repent from the mouth of the Indian messenger the statement first published in Sir James Douglas’s letter to the Sandwich Islands; and then in conclusion says, on page 29: —

“Now I am satisfied that every impartial and unprejudiced person, after reading attentively the above documents, will come with me to the conclusion that the true causes, both remote and immediate, of the whole evil must have been the following: 1st. The promise made by Mr. Parker to the Cayuses and Nez Percés of paying for their lands every year, and the want of fulfillment of that promise.”

Which promise Mr. Parker never made, and which the Hudson’s Bay Company and these Roman priests made up to cause difficulty with the Indians and American missions and settlements.

“2d. The death of the Nez Percé chief, killed on his way to the United States, when he was in company with Mr. Gray, and in his service.” This Mr. Gray knows to be false, both in statement and inference, as already explained.

This priest says: “The conclusion is evident, from the circumstances which preceded that death, and from the proceedings of the Nez Percés against Mr. Spalding and all the people of his establishment on account of it, and likewise from the general habit of the Indians in such cases.”

We will here state that we were two years at Mr. Spalding’s station, on returning from the States, and saw the whole Nez Percé tribe, and employed them for days and months, and worked with them, and explored their country to select farms for them, and know that the Nez Percés never, on any occasion, made the least disturbance about the station, or in any other place, on account of the death of that Indian; and we know that neither Mr. Spalding nor any of the people at his place were ever confined in their houses for an hour on account of it; and we further know that the statement made by Brouillet, as coming from old Toupin, is false and malicious, and only shows the ignorance and malice of this priest, who has made these false statements, as he has those about the killing of Elijah, to cover his own guilt in the infamous crime charged upon him and his associates.

“3d. The murder committed by an American in California on the person of Elijah, the son of the Wallawalla chief, in 1844.” Answered already.

This priest says of Yellow Serpent: “On his way coming back from California he lost many of his people from sickness [to which Istacus alludes in his reasons for not believing that Dr. Whitman was the cause of the Indians dying by poison], so that he and his young men, when arrived at home in the fall, felt more ill-disposed than ever toward the Americans.” This priest’s fourth reason embraces the tales told by Tom Hill, Joe Lewis, Finlay, old Toupin, and Stanfield, which are all of the same class, and have all been learned from the same reverend teachers, and copied into Sir James Douglas’s letter, for the benefit of the American Board, going by way of the Sandwich Islands.

His fifth reason, about the small-pox, as stated by Craig – the Doctor and Gray’s poisoning melons – the Doctor being a physician, shows that he is terribly pressed for a plausible reason for the crime he attempts to excuse. His sixth reason – lack of sincerity. Here he quotes Mr. Spalding’s letter, written soon after his return home, after being exposed six days and nights to extreme fatigue, hunger, and cold, – his mind racked with anxiety and fear in regard to himself and family, and tortured with thoughts of the scene at Wailatpu; being ignorant of any of the particulars of the massacre, and of the part the bishop and his priests were taking in it, he wrote as to friends whom he thought would feel for his situation. He also quotes a letter he received through P. H. Burnett, signed J. Magone, who says: “I recollect distinctly, however, that he (Mr. Spalding) was not in favor of killing all the Cayuses, for he gave me names of some four or five that he knew to be friendly, and another whom I marked as questionable.” (Mr. S. had learned more of the particulars of the massacre.) Does this letter prove that he was in favor of killing all the Indians but the ones mentioned, or does it show his anxiety lest the innocent should perish with the guilty, which led him to give those names to Major Magone, an officer in the provisional army?

We have naturally left that deep, silent grand council of Indians, presided over by his reverence, Bishop Blanchet, and directed our attention to other important facts and statements relative to the subject of this chapter.

We now have the touching appeal of Edward Tilokaikt, with whom the reader has become acquainted in the depositions already given. He is now brought before us in this grand council at the bishop’s house (page 66 of Brouillet; page 44 Ross Browne).

“Edward, the son of Tilokaikt, then came forward, bearing in his hand the Catholic Ladder stained with blood; he repeated the words which Dr. Whitman had used when he showed it to them, one or two weeks before he died: ‘You see this blood! it is to show you that now, because you have the priests among you, the country is going to be covered with blood! You will have nothing now but blood!’ He then related what had passed, gave a touching picture of the afflicted families in seeing borne to the grave a father, a mother, a brother, or a sister; spoke of a single member of a family who had been left to weep alone over all the rest, who had disappeared. He stated how and for what the murder had been committed, entered into the most minute details, avoiding, however, to give any knowledge of the guilty, repeated the words which Joseph Lewis said had passed between Dr. Whitman, his wife, and Mr. Spalding, and finally spoke of the pretended declaration of Mr. Rogers at the moment of his death: ‘that Dr. Whitman had been poisoning the Indians.’”

Reader, need I tell you that the language and sentiment above quoted as coming from Edward Tilokaikt, never entered his savage Indian brain; that this speech is the carefully combined and studied production of the author of the narrative we have quoted it from? It is given in connection, repeated and combined with a little variation by every individual who makes a statement favorable to those priests; and in the whole list of statements this priest Brouillet and McBean are the only two that could write or translate the Indian ideas into French or English; so that at the time these Indian speeches were said to have been made, and purport to have been translated by Brouillet, it is plain to be seen that he tells his own story to suit the case in hand; and the letter of Sir James Douglas to the Sandwich Islands shows this priest to be the author of the statements contained therein. These Indian assemblies or councils were held to more closely unite the tribe, and give a coloring of truth to the malicious statements of Joe Lewis and Edward Tilokaikt.

All these false statements were written out and sent to the Sandwich Islands under date, Vancouver, 9th December, 1847, while Brouillet says this Edward Tilokaikt repeated them as a reason for the massacre on the 20th December, 1847, eleven days before they are said to have been repeated by the Indians.

Many important facts can only be reached by carefully studying the language of this priest, in connection with the evidence obtained from the survivors, and their subsequent conduct, and the foreign correspondence of the parties who were seeking the exclusive occupation of our country.

From the statement that follows, it will be seen how careful this Jesuit is to inform us that these propositions come from the Nez Percés.

He says, on page 65: “After having deliberated together, the chiefs concluded by adding something to the propositions of the Nez Percés, insisting principally upon the reasons which they pretended ought to excuse their action, and requested the bishop to send to the governor in their name the following manifesto.”

Before copying this important document and the letter which accompanied it to the governor of Oregon, we will place before our readers the “preface” to the book in which we find it, that they may see the full object of the author of that narrative in publishing it: —

“New York, June, 1853.

“The following interesting narrative was prepared by the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, vicar-general of Wallawalla, at the time of the excitement consequent on the murder of Dr. Whitman by the Indians, and in answer to Mr. Spalding, and other of Dr. Whitman’s former associates. Although the immediate occasion has passed away, it is proper, still, to put the facts of the case on record; and these pages, which appeared recently in the columns of the New York Freeman’s Journal, will form an interesting and authentic chapter in the history of Protestant missions.

“J. A. McMasters.”

We will now turn to the 65th page of this false and malicious narrative, and find a document carefully prepared, as stated by its author, in grand council assembled under the eye of Bishop Blanchet, then bishop of Wallawalla, by the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, etc. By a cursory glance at this narrative and document, it will be seen that it is prepared as coming from the Indians for the express purpose of blackening the character of Dr. Whitman, his wife, Mr. Spalding, and Mr. Rogers, and of charging them with being the cause of their own murder, and the murder of all who fell at Wailatpu by the hands of their own Indians, the Cayuses. That it embodies all the foul slanders against those missions that have been collected for a series of years, and asserts them to be true, without a single deposition or statement having been made before any court or justice of peace, known to the laws then in the country. These statements, from preface to finis, go upon the presumption that the title and professions of the men whose names are attached are sufficient evidence of the truth of any statements they may make, however unreasonable or false they may be. The documents above referred to are as follows (J. R. Browne, page 45): —

“The principal chiefs of the Cayuses, in council assembled, state: That a young Indian (Joseph Lewis) who understands English, and who slept in Dr. Whitman’s room, heard the Doctor, his wife, and Mr. Spalding express their desire of possessing the lands and animals of the Indians; that he stated also that Mr. Spalding said to the Doctor, ‘Hurry giving medicines to the Indians, that they may soon die;’ that the same Indian told the Cayuses, ‘If you do not kill the Doctor soon, you will all be dead before spring;’ that they buried six Cayuses on Sunday, November 28, and three the next day; that Mr. Rogers, the schoolmaster, stated to them before he died that the Doctor, his wife, and Mr. Spalding poisoned the Indians; that for several years past they had to deplore the death of their children; and that, according to these reports, they were led to believe that the whites had undertaken to kill them all; and that these were the motives which led them to kill the Americans. The same chiefs ask at present —

“1st. That the Americans may not go to war with the Cayuses.

“2d. That they may forget the lately committed murders, as the Cayuses will forget the murder of the son of the great chief of Wallawalla, committed in California.

“3d. That two or three great men may come up to conclude peace.

“4th. That as soon as these great men have arrived and concluded peace, they may take with them all the women and children.

“5th. They give assurance that they will not harm the Americans before the arrival of these two or three great men.

“6th. They ask that Americans may not travel any more through their country, as their young men might do them harm.

“(Signed,)

“Tilokaikt.

“Camaspelo.

“Tawatowe.

“Achekaia.

“Place of Tawatowe, Umatilla, December 20, 1847.”

“The bishop accompanied this manifesto with a letter addressed to the governor, which concluded in these terms: ‘It is sufficient to state that all these speeches went to show, that since they had been instructed by the whites they abhorred war, and that the tragedy of the 29th had occurred from an anxious desire of self-preservation, and that it was the reports made against the Doctor and others which led them to commit this act. They desire to have the past forgotten and to live in peace as before. Your excellency has to judge of the value of the documents which I have been requested to forward to you. Nevertheless, without having the least intention to influence one way or the other, I feel myself obliged to tell you, that by going to war with the Cayuses, you will likely have all the Indians of this country against you. Would it be for the interest of a young colony to expose herself? That you will have to decide with your council.’”

Reader, you now have before you a full statement of the most important facts of the Whitman massacre, and of the part taken in it by “the holy fathers, the Catholic priests,” as they were styled by Mr. McBean, of Fort Nez Percés, to Mr. Kimzey and his wife.

The part taken by Mr. McBean, Mr. Ogden, and Sir James Douglas, will be given in another chapter.

The above manifesto is given as having been made on the 20th of December, 1847. On the 23d, three days after, when this very Rev. Mr. Brouillet mounted his horse to go to the fort, he told Miss Bewley that “if she went to Five Crows’ lodge any more she must not come back to his house.” Miss Bewley says: “The bishop told me I had better go.⚹ ⚹ ⚹ The bishop sent an Indian with me; he took me to Five Crows’ lodge.⚹ ⚹ ⚹ The bishop finally ordered me to go.⚹ ⚹ ⚹ I found I could get no help.”

These are the solemn affirmations of this intelligent young American lady, who was present at the bishop’s house when this manifesto was prepared.

Were this Bishop Blanchet and his priests true and sincere in what they said, and in the advice they say they gave to the Indians?

We have now traced what may be termed the missionary account of this painful tragedy, as given by both parties. Our readers must judge for themselves as to the guilt or innocence of all the parties involved, and also of the application to our subject of the extensive extracts we have given. We will now turn our attention to those whom we conceive to be the prime movers, and, in consequence, the most deeply implicated in this tragedy.

We have had occasion to allude to the intimate connection existing between the Jesuit missions in Oregon and the Hudson’s Bay Company. As early as 1836, that company brought a Protestant Episcopal chaplain to Vancouver for political reasons, whom they soon dismissed and attempted to disgrace, as unworthy of belief in any statement he might make. Soon after, in the fall of 1838, two Roman priests arrived at Vancouver and took charge of the religious and literary instructions of the members of the company, – of their children and servants, and, as far as possible, of all the Indians in the country; and while the company professed friendship for the American missionaries, they were active and vigilant to defeat all their efforts to enlighten and civilize the Indians, enlisting sufficient American influence to distract and divide the American people, so as to cover up their main object of securing the country for British Territory. This will be seen by evidence already quoted from our English authors, Mr. Fitzgerald and Sir Edward Belcher, and the refusal of Sir James Douglas to aid the provisional government, or furnish supplies for their troops, and the fact that they did embrace every opportunity to supply the Indians with guns, powder, and balls, and sought to combine the whole Indian power and prejudice against the settlements.

CHAPTER LX

The Hudson’s Bay Company’s and the priests’ part in the massacre. – McBean’s messenger. – Plot divulged to Hinman, Ogden, and Douglas. – Douglas’s remark to Hinman. – McBean’s letter. – His perversion of facts. – Comments. – Sir James Douglas’s letter to Governor Abernethy. – His Sandwich Islands letter. – Its falsehood and absurdity. – Mr. Hinman’s letter to Governor Abernethy. – The dates. – Assertion of Robert Newell. – Hudson’s Bay Company v. United States.

We learn from Mr. McBean’s letter, given below, that his horse guard and interpreter were at Dr. Whitman’s mission and saw the dead bodies; and from Indians we learn that they were kept by the Rev. Mr. Brouillet, and took his account of the massacre (which he spent most of the night in preparing) to Mr. McBean. They also reported to him that three parties of Indians were preparing and about to start, to destroy the remaining Protestant missions and American settlements in middle Oregon, including the station at the Dalles; that the women and children were to be held as hostages, or captives for future disposal; that letters and a statement were prepared by Mr. McBean, and instructions given to his messenger that he might inform the Indians on his way down to Vancouver of what had happened, but he must not give any information to any American on the way, or at the Dalles. We learn from the Hon. A. Hinman that this messenger went to him at the Dalles station, and told him that he was sent by Mr. McBean to Vancouver for men, to replace such as had died of sickness at Fort Nez Percés. The messenger took dinner with Mr. Hinman, who went with him to the Indian lodges, where the messenger told the Indians of the massacre. Mr. Hinman procured a canoe and started with him to go to Vancouver. They reached Cape Horn, some thirty miles above that place, and there, while windbound, he informed Mr. Hinman of what had occurred, making a full confession, that “the priests, Mr. McBean, and he were bad in trying to deceive him and have his family and people killed by the Indians;” told of his instructions, and of what was expected to be done with all the Americans in the country, and that he was the bearer of letters to Governor Ogden from Mr. McBean.

We will now go with this express to Vancouver. Says the Hon. A. Hinman, who is still alive, and has made oath to the truth of his statements: “We went first to Mr. Ogden’s room and informed him of the massacre. He was shocked, and said: ‘Mr. Hinman, you can now see what opposition in religion will do.’ We then went to Mr. Douglas’s room and informed him, and when Mr. Ogden was pacing the room, he said: ‘Mr. Douglas, you see now what opposition in religion does.’ After a moment’s pause, Mr. Douglas replied, ‘There may be other causes.’”

Reader, will you turn back and read over the chapter on the English Hudson’s Bay Company’s effort to secure Oregon, and see if there has not been a desperate effort made, since Dr. McLaughlin left that company, to overcome his mistakes and his humane policy toward Americans. Look also at the chapter on the English Hudson’s Bay Company’s policy relative to Rupert’s Land and Oregon, and learn fully what Mr. Ogden and Mr. (now Sir James) Douglas meant by these expressions made to Mr. Hinman, who says: “Mr. Douglas turned to me, and wished to know why I was not at home at so perilous a time. I told him I had received no letter from Wallawalla, and did not learn of the massacre till below the Cascades. At this he expressed surprise, and said, ‘Mr. McBean ought by all means to have informed you of your danger.’