Death of Colonel Crafford, The

DESCRIPTION: Crafford leads a party out to slaughter the Indians outside Sandusky. Despite the valor of the white officers, they are forced back and Crafford is taken. The tribal council condemns him to be burnt. The survivors go home and cry for revenge
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1873 (Butterfield)
KEYWORDS: Indians(Am.) execution war | William Crawford Sandusky
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Mar 7, 1782 - American militia massacre 96 Delaware Indians (all Christians) at Gnadenhutten, Ohio. This was in retaliation for raids in which the Delaware took no part
May 25-June 6, 1782 - Colonel William Crawford's campaign against the Indians (and British loyalists) on the Sandusky River, culminating in his severe defeat and the massacre of his army.
June 11, 1782 - Execution by burning of Crawford. Crawford's defeat brought many Indians into the Revolutionary War on the British side, but this did little to change the balance of power; Cornwallis had already surrendered and American independence was assured
FOUND IN: US(MW)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Eddy-BalladsAndSongsFromOhio 115, "A Song on the Death of Colonel Crafford" (1 text)
Cohen-AmericanFolkSongsARegionalEncyclopedia2, pp. 390-393, "A Song, Called Crawford's Defeat by the Indian on the Fourth Day of June, 1782" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: C. W. Butterfield, _An Historical Account of the Expedition against Sandusky under Col. William Crawford in 1782_, Robert Clarke & Co, 1873 (available on Google Books), p. 76 n. 10, "Crawford's Defeat" (1 excerpt)
Robert N. Thompson, _Disaster on the Sandusky: The Life of Colonel William Crawford_, American History Press, 2017, pp. 243-246, "A Song, Called Crawford's Defeat by the Indians, On the Fourth Day of June, 1782" (1 text)
Phillip W. Hoffman, _Simon Girty: Turncoat Hero_, Flying Camp Press, 2009, pp. 230-231, "(Crawford's Defeat)" (1 excerpt)
ST E115 (Full)
Roud #5341
NOTES [6829 words]: Butterfield, p. 76 n. 10, which as far as I know is the first printed version of this song, says of it, "The 'poem' [quoted]... is entitled 'Crawford's Defeat'... which 'story,' it may be premised, contains much more history than poetry. It was long after a favorite song upon the frontier -- sung to various tunes. Its echoes are remembered to have been heard even at a late date, and as far west as the valley of the Sandusky." But Butterfield never says where he got his text.
It represents an interesting conundrum. It seems to have been widely reproduced, although I don't think there is any evidence of preservation as a traditional song. It clearly represents the attitude taken by many Americans in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But it is factually wrong at many points, most of them the result of a racist, anti-Indian bias. The slow process of stripping history of its biases can be shown by the comments of various writers about William Crawford, the subject of the poem. I'll start with the older sources.
The biases of Butterfield, who wrote in the 1870s, are instantly obvious: "Painted and plumed warriors were early upon the war-path, carrying death and destruction to the dismayed borderers -- the direct result of a most ferocious policy inaugurated by England" (Butterfield, pp. 1-2). Butterfield is clearly intent of glorifying Crawford, even telling stories of George Washington engaging in youthful sports such as wrestling and racing with Crawford and his brothers (Butterfield, p. 82),
Jameson, writing in the late nineteenth century, also displays the traditional attitude: "Crawford, William (1732-1782), participated in Braddock's expedition against Fort Duquense, fought at Long Island, Trenton and Princeton during the Revolutionary War, and was captured and put to death in an expedition against the Wyandot and Delaware Indians."
In the first half of the twentieth century, DAB, p. 527, paints a slightly darker picture of Crawford's activities. It (incorrectly) gives his dates as 1732-June 11, 1782. He grew up in Frederick County, Virginia (the area around the town of Winchester, in the Shenandoah Valley), the son of a farmer. He himself was a surveyor as well as a farmer. He survived Braddock's Defeat (for which see the song of the same name). In later years he continued to hold military office, serving at Fort Duquesne in 1758 during the French and Indian War as well as in the Pontiac War; despite Butterfield, it is probable that it was the process of this service that he and George Washington came to know each other. In 1774, during Lord Dunmore's War, he destroyed two Iroquois villages in Ohio. Thus his record against Indians was very dubious indeed.
At the start of the American Revolution, he helped raise a regiment, and became Lieutenant Colonel of the 5th Virginia, then Colonel of the 7th Virginia. He fought at Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, and Germantown.
But then he headed again for the western frontier, where he raised troops to defend the frontier; he served under Gen. Lachlan McIntosh until retiring from the army in 1781. His retirement did not last. In 1782, General William Irvine asked him to serve against Indians in Ohio. This is the event summarized in this song. His force numbered some 400 men, not well organized or equipped but with a reputation for atrocities. Battle began on June 4, 1782, and by June 5 had turned against Crawford's force. On the advice of his guides, he retreated, and in the retreat, he and the army's surgeon Dr. Knight became separated from their forces and were captured. Crawford was tortured and then burned to death; Knight survived, and his report formed the basis for most accounts of the tragedy.
It is only in the late twentieth century that authors like Thompson started to note the true nature of Crawford's activities.
The man blamed in many early sources, including this song, for Crawford's death was Simon Girty, who according to Thompson, p. 100, was born in 1741 in western Pennsylvania. In 1756, his family was taken captive by the French and turned over to a coalition of Indian tribes. Girty's stepfather was burned at the state and the rest of the family broken up; Girty ended up living with the Seneca (Thompson, p. 101). Indeed, he would have liked to stay with them; Thompson, p. 102, says he was "devastated" when returned to British custody -- though he was very useful to the British, as he supposedly knew the languages, and probably some of the customs, of nine different tribes (Thompson, p. 103). He was Lord Dunmore's ambassador to the chief Tahgahute, or Logan, for whom see "Logan's Lament." The British made him an officer after that (Hoffman, p. 85).
When the American Revolution started, Girty did the Americans a tremendous service; he managed to convince five of the six nations of the Iroquois to stay neutral rather than favoring the British (Hoffman, pp. 107-109). But the Indian Affairs agent, George Morgan, promptly cut him loose as a result (Hoffman, pp. 110-111; Hoffman suspects that Morgan coveted the Indian lands and didn't want to have to be bound by Girty;s treaty). Girty then managed to raise a company for American service. That should have let him command it and gain the rank of Captain. But the authorities refused to let him command it (ironically, appointing Crawford's half-brother John Stephenson instead). They made him lieutenant -- but then transferred the company and left him behind (Hoffman, p. 114). Girty then went back to being an interpreter and agent for General Hand (of whom more below). But as the conflict on the frontier became sharper and the Seneca grew closer to the British, the Seneca too disowned him. Indeed, they were going to turn him over to the British; he had to secretly escape them (Hoffman, pp. 116-117; Thompson, pp. 142-143).
Since the DAB article was written, it has been established (by Scholl, for whom see below) that Crawford was born in 1722, not 1732 (Thompson, p. 1; the 1832 date goes back to Butterfield, p. 81). His father, William Crawford III, died young; the fourth William Crawford was only about three. His mother Honora then married an indentured servant, who helped raise the younger William (Thompson, pp. 1-2). Soon after, the family moved to the only-recently-explored Shenandoah Valley (Thompson, p. 2). It is not clear how Crawford received his education -- his parents were illiterate, and there were no schools in the sparsely settled area -- but he was able to write good letters and to do the mathematics of surveying (Thompson, p. 4). He was apprenticed to a surveyor named John Vance, whose daughter Hanna he would later marry (Thompson, pp. 4-5). He farmed for some years, until George Washington came to survey the area; Crawford worked with him on this, and they became friends (Thompson, pp. 8-9).
When Washington was appointed in 1754 to move against the French base at Fort Duquesne near what is now Pittsburg, Crawford for some reason decided to join the expedition; this was his first experience as a soldier (Thompson, pp. 18-19). After Washington's move failed, the company Crawford belonged to was attached to Braddock's army; after Braddock's Defeat, the company helped hold off the French who were trying to destroy the remnants of the British army (Thompson, pp. 44-45). In the aftermath of this, Washington was tasked with reorganizing the Virginia Regiment of what had been Braddock's force; in the process, he named Crawford an ensign, the bottom rank of officer (Thompson, p. 50). Not long after, Washington made Crafford the regiment's provost marshal -- which put him in charge of pursuing deserters, e.g., which he did with efficiency. As a result, Washington promoted him to Lieutenant (Thompson, p. 52). After Fort Duquesne was finally captured and turned into Fort Pitt, Washington made Crawford a Captain (Thompson, p. 62). I have no idea if Crawford was actually better than the other Continental officers, but it is clear that he owed a lot to Washington's patronage. He retired from the military (for the first time) and went home in 1760 (Thompson, p. 64).
The Winchester areas if generally good farming country, but Crawford did not stay. In 1765 he moved his family to a place near what is now Connellsville, Pennsylvania, southeast of Pittsburgh and very near Braddock's Road. They built a tiny cabin and cleared the local forest to create a farm (Thompson, pp. 66-67).
Lest all this make Crawford sound too respectable, it should be noted that he bought and owned two slaves to help him with this (Thompson, p. 68). This was before the Revolution, so slavery was "legal." It doesn't change the fact that Crawford was a slaveowner.
In 1767, after the British government had declared void all land claims west of the Appalachians -- including Crawford's holding -- George Washington contacted Crawford to discuss a land speculation scheme, with Crawford asked to survey the land and (I suspect) be the man-on-the-spot (Thompson, pp. 70-71). Thompson points out on p. 79 that Washington and Crawford had absolutely no scruples about forcing Indians off their land if there was a profit in it. Furthermore, it appears Crawford kept a mistress (his wife's niece!) who lived near his home and whom he shared with several other relatives; she eventually had four illegitimate children whom he apparently did not provide for (Thompson, pp. 85-88). No matter how you feel about the sanctity of marriage, his treatment of the children who may have been his seems pretty beastly. (I find it interesting that the two biographies of George Washington that I own never mention Crawford. They can't hide Washington's slave-holding or his money-grubbing, but at least they can whitewash away Crawford....)
Crawford gained several offices in the years after that. When the British opened the west to settlement, Crawford (due probably to Washington's influence) was appointed an official surveyor. In Pennsylvania, he became Justice of the Peace in several counties, then a judge of several courts (Thompson, p. 75). This arguably makes him guilty of double-dealing, because Pennsylvania and Virginia were still disputing which one of them had the rights to the areas west of the mountains, and Crawford was taking public offices under Pennsylvania law while working for George Washington's Virginia land company (Thompson, pp. 90-91).
Then came Lord Dunmore's War. This forced Crawford to pick one colony or the other; he chose Virginia, and lost his Pennsylvania posts. It didn't cost Crawford much; Dunmore promoted him to colonel and gave him command of a (badly under-strength) regiment (Thompson, pp. 96-97). This gave Crawford his first chance to go from a racist to a committer of genocide: In the aftermath of the Battle of Point Pleasant (for which see "The Battle of Point Pleasant"), most Indian tribes started negotiating with the invaders, but the Mingo refused. Lord Dunmore ordered Crawford to take 240 men to change their minds by force. There were few defenders present, but Crawford managed to kill six Mingo, wound others, and capture fourteen (Thompson, pp. 106-108). He referred to the Indians' "villainy and weakness" (Mustful, p. 20), not realizing that the pot was calling the kettle black.
In Lord Dunmore's War, Crawford had fought for the British, but when the American Revolution began, he immediately changed sides. In 1775, the states began authorizing regiments, and on February 13, 1776, Crawford was appointed lieutenant colonel (and hence second-in-command) of the Fifth Virginia (Thompson, p. 115). Soon after, he was made Colonel and given command of the Seventh Virginia (Thompson, p. 116). Then, in an odd lateral move, he was transferred from being colonel of the Seventh Virginia to being colonel of the Thirteenth Virginia (Thompson, pp. 116-117) -- I would guess this was because the Thirteenth was intended to guard the Virginia frontier, and Crawford knew the frontiers. Eventually, though, the Thirteenth was transferred into Washington's army, where it became part of Peter Muhlenberg's brigade of Nathaniel Greene's division (Thompson, p. 118). The unit's first battle under Washington was Brandywine, where Thompson, pp. 124-130, report that Crawford's men were part of the rearguard that held off the British after Washington was defeated. At Germantown, the regiment refused an order to advance, costing the Americans heavily (Thompson, p. 136) and indicating a lack of discipline. I can't help but think that, in a professional army, Crawford would have taken a lot of heat and very likely lost his command. But Crawford was a friend of the boss. Washington instead gave him command of a brigade of Virginia militia -- only for him to be sent back to the frontier about a month later (Thompson, pp. 136-137). Many of the Indian tribes were siding with the British (after all the British weren't killing them and taking their land!) -- so somebody had to be appointed to make sure the Indian-killing and land-taking continued. That was theoretically the responsibility of General Edward Hand, who was in charge in the area, but it was felt that someone should do something about the British base at Fort Detroit, and Crawford was sent (Thompson, pp. 138-141), and soon set to recruiting (Thompson, p. 144).
Hand doesn't seem to have trusted Crawford, though. Perhaps it was just his inexperience; Hand had no background in Indian fighting, and had been bumped up from lieutenant colonel to brigadier general to take the job (Hoffman, p. 113), so the locals may not have trusted him. Thompson, p. 145, speculates that Hand knew that Crawford was close to Washington, and didn't want to give Washington the chance to promote Crawford into his place. In any case, Hand decided to take command of the Fort Detroit expedition itself, bringing Crawford along as an advisor but not giving him troops to command. Hand also brought Simon Girty along as a translator (Thompson, pp. 145-146).
Hand proceeded to make things worse. He didn't have the supplies or transport to pull off the attack he had planned; he set out and soon had to turn back. But rather than simply return home, he attacked a camp of the Delaware Indians -- the one tribe still friendly to the Colonials (Thompson, pp. 146-147, who says that not even the bloodthirsty Crawford approved this bit of stupidity, known as the "Squaw Campaign"). Hand asked Girty to guide the army back to Fort Pitt, which he successfully did (Hoffman, p. 128). But Girty had had it. He had been lied to, betrayed, mistrusted. He was surrounded by a bunch of money-grubbing land-stealers who engaged in random genocide. Simon Girty was none of those things -- and so her turned against the Americans permanently (Thompson, pp. 148-149; Hoffman, pp. 129-130). He bade his mother farewell, turned his land over to his half-brother, and with a small party of other disenchanted men headed for the Ohio country (Hoffman, pp. 130-133). He became famous, and feared, as an organizer of British and Indian raids against pro-American settlements.
Girty probably gained at least a little satisfaction when he learned that Hand was out of a job; he was recalled in April 1778 (Thompson, p. 152). Lachlin McIntosh took command of Fort Pitt and the Western Department of the Continental States thereafter (Butterfield, p. 5). Lest we think that McIntosh's purpose was entirely defensive, early on, "McIntosh was ordered to proceed against any Indian towns, the destruction of which, in his opinion, would tend most effectually to intimidate the hostile savages. After due consideration, McIntosh decided to move against Sandusky -- a Wyandot town upon the upper waters of the river of that name -- and contiguous villages and settlements" (Butterfield, p. 6). McIntosh eventually gave up his expedition -- indeed, the Continental forces soon withdrew from Indian country (Butterfield, p. 8) -- but the idea didn't go away.
At about the time of the change of commanders, Washington sent the Thirteenth Virginia west -- but he'd appointed a different Colonel. That cost Crawford his commission in the Continental army; he ended up as a militia officer, but still took part in McIntosh's campaign (Thompson, p. 153). Crawford seems to have been getting tired or disillusioned, though; in 1781, he seems to have ceased fighting for promotion and went home (Thompson, p. 163). It might have been better had he stayed retired.
1781 was the year of the Battle of Yorktown and the functional end of the American Revolution; although it took two more years for the British to agree to terms, they were no longer willing to fight. This brought peace to the east -- but not to the areas west of the Appalachians. For starters, it took a long time for word of the truce to reach Fort Detroit, the center of the British campaign in the west. But, more to the point, the fight in the west was conducted not by British troops but by the Indians, and they saw no reason to stop fighting (Thompson, p. 165) -- indeed, the fact that the Americans were no longer fighting the British just made harder for the original inhabitants of the region.
In 1781, Colonel Daniel Brodhead led an expedition against the Delawares with about 300 men. He destroyed two towns, killing at least fifteen warriors and taking twenty prisoner (Butterfield, pp. 8-9). To this point, note, it was the Americans doing the attacking. The Indians did slaughter a force in Indiana on August 24, 1781 (Butterfield, p. 10), and there had been smaller atrocities, but the Americans struck first! The forces that were to defend the Pennsylvania/Ohio region, however, were small and ill-equipped; they needed help (Butterfield, p. 12).
Then came Gnadenhuten. Colonel David Williamson (one of the ultra-racist "Paxton Boys" who were also responsible for the Wyoming Massacre mentioned in the song of that name) attacked a group of unarmed Delawares who were in the area desperately seeking food. They were Christians, and pacifists! They even handed over their hunting weapons when asked. It didn't matter; WIlliamson and his soldiers raped the women and slaughtered them all (Thompson, pp. 168-171, who believes there were 96 dead, including 35 children).
It was not just a genocide; it was stupid: "More than any other event, this atrocity would become the catalyst to unite the western and northern tribes against the United States. The Indians concluded that if the Americans were capable of slaughtering Christian converts (the only natives still friendly to their cause), there could be little doubt of what was in store for everyone else if the rebels won their independence from the English king" (Hoffman, p. 212).
Rather than having Williamson hung, drawn, and quartered, which would hardly be sufficient to make up for his crimes, George Washington chose William Irvine of Pennsylvania to take charge in the area, and gave him the Second Brigade of Pennsylvania troops (Butterfield, p. 13). Thus the stage was set.
Irvine was in a difficult situation. The Indians naturally struck back after Gnadenhuten. And Irvine couldn't hand over Williamson, but the public wanted something done. Williamson and others wanted to attack the Indians on the Sandusky (Thompson, p. 174). Irvine wanted to limit what such an expedition could do -- e.g. he didn't want it to claim land or commit another massacre. The idea Williamson had was to call out the militia and have Williamson lead them to war. Irvine instead decided to enlist troops for a regular military expedition. He hoped that this would prevent Williamson from getting the command. So he needed an alternative commander -- and he called on Crawford (Thompson, p. 175).
Hoffman, p. 215, prints part of Irvine's instructions for the expedition. They open, "The object of your command is, to destroy with fire and sword (if practicable) the Indian town and settlement at Sandusky, by which we hope to give ease and safety to the inhabitants of this country." In other words, slaughter them if you can -- and if you can't, then "perform such other services in your power as will, in their consequences, have a tendency to answer this greater end." It goes on to say that British lives are to be preserved. But no quarter is to be offered to traitors, and there are no instructions to protect Indian lives. They are instructions to commit a war crime.
It is Thompson's opinion that Crawford did not want the job, but he agreed to join the force and in the hope that they would elect him commander -- and, for the first time in his military career, he made up his will (Thompson, p. 176).
Crawford won the election for colonel, but he won only 235 votes, with Williamson receiving 230 (Thompson, p. 180).
It's worth noting that Crawford had little experience with independent command. Not even the one professional officer in the organization, John Rose, thought Crawford very competent (Thompson, pp. 180-181).
I can't help but think how irregular it all sounds. The men brought their own horses and rifles, and not even General Irvine knew how many there were! (Butterfield, p. 68), though one of their officers claimed 480 (Butterfield, p. 73). Like most continental forces, they were vastly over-officered -- 480 men should be commanded by a major or lieutenant colonel, but Crawford was a colonel, and he had four majors under him (Butterfield, p. 77). The seniormost, and hence Crawford's second-in-command, was David Williamson, the murderer of Gnadenhuten, whom Crawford had foolishly accepted as his second-in-command. The others were Thomas Gaddis, John McClelland, and "Major Brinton" (mentioned in the song).
It was a mounted force, so the idea was to move fast to get to the Sandusky. The plan was to cover about 25 miles a day. They managed about ten (Thompson, p. 183). The main reason for this was the rough country they moved through, although one of Crawford's officers said that the troops generally brought their worst horses, not their best (Thompson, p. 182). They were trying to maintain surprise, but some time after they passed the site of the slaughter at Gnadenhuten, a couple of Indians spotted them and got away (Thompson, p. 187).
As more horses were lost, the little army got slower and slower. Finally Crawford concluded that they could not reach the Sandusky and get back. At this point he made a fatal mistake. He could have ordered his men to turn back. But -- perhaps fearing the hit to his reputation if he turned around without fighting -- he convened a council of his officers, and they demanded that the army continue toward the Sandusky. Where the Indians, who were quite aware of his approach, were waiting (Thompson, pp. 188-189). Several tribes had formed a coalition: about 400 Wyandots, 200 Delawares, more from other tribes -- plus Simon Girty and some British troops from Fort Detroit commanded by Captain William Caldwell assisted by Captain Matthew Elliot (Thompson, pp. 193-195). Thus Crawford would face a force that was larger, that had artillery, that was ready -- and that didn't have a bunch of undisciplined fools undermining it.
What little hope of tactical surprise Crawford had was blown on the morning of June 4; many soldiers fired off their weapons to make sure they were not fouled after it had rained the day before (Thompson, p. 196). They marched to an Indian town nearby, only to find that it had been abandoned as they approached. Crawford called another council. Williamson wanted to go after the Indians with a small force; Crawford turned him down (Thompson, p. 197). Crawford did send another officer with a strong scouting force -- and the Indians sprang their trap (Thompson, p. 198). The scouts conducted a fighting withdrawal and sent back to Crawford for help (Thompson, p. 199). Because of indiscipline, it took time for Crawford to get his troops moving, but eventually they reached a place that came to be called "Battle Island." According to Hoffman, p. 218. this is in what is now Upper Sandusky, Ohio (which, note, is nowhere near the town of Sandusky, Ohio); there is an historical martker for the battle along County Highway 47 north of that city. (The marker is not particularly close to the Sandusky River, but I don't know how accurate its placement is.)
The fighting on June 4 was fierce and lasted most of the day, but Crawford's casualties were relatively light -- eight killed or mortally wounded, sixteen with lesser wounds (Thompson, pp. 203-206). But Crawford's troops were now dangerously short of ammunition, and they had very nearly been surrounded, plus they were short of water. And while they had inflicted significant casualties on the enemy, more troops -- including British soldiers with modern equipment -- were coming (Thompson, p. 207). The British sent out Simon Girty to request a surrender (Thompson, p. 209; Hoffman, pp. 220-221), but Crawford's troops did not agree. Crawford called a final council of officers to declare that they must try to escape (Thompson, p. 210). They would try to break out that night.
This was undoubtedly the best choice, but what followed showed how feeble was Crawford's control over his men. At least three substantial bodies of troops broke out and fled on their own, leaving Crawford behind with the wounded and only a fraction of the troops. The largest group of deserters was led by none other than David Williamson (Thompson, p. 211). Eventually, Williamson managed to gather about 300 of the survivors (Thompson, p. 214). Williamson did not manage his command very well; the Indians caught up again, and there was a battle at Olentangy, where Williamson's rearguard succeeded in holding off the pursuers (Thompson, p. 215).
Eventually, by the count of Major Rose, Crawford's aide and de facto chief of staff, the only really professional soldier in the whole army, 380 survivors made it to safety after a two and a half week campaign (Thompson, p. 216). Crawford had lost more than 20% of his force. And he himself was missing.
From what we can tell, when the army disintegrated, Crawford tried to find his son John, his nephew William, and his son-in-law William Harrison before finally leaving the area (Thompson, p. 218. According to Hoffman, p. 223, the two Williams were already dead). He and the company doctor, John Knight, set out with a very few companions who had also been left behind (Thompson, p. 219). A few of the latter escaped; several ended up dead; Crawford and Knight were taken prisoner by the Delaware (Thompson, p. 220) -- an important point, because the Wyandots were ransoming captives to the British but the Delawares were killing them (Hoffman, p. 222). They were beaten (Crawford in particular) and hauled off. When Simon Girty heard that they had taken high officers of the American force, he rode off to meet them. Girty apparently thought they had brought in Williamson. He was shocked to find that it was Crawford instead (Hoffman, p. 222).
Girty told Crawford that the Indians intended to execute him and suggested he try to escape. The weary Crawford refused, though he apparently tried to buy his way out, with information and perhaps money (Hoffman, p. 223). He and Dr. Knight were made to run a gauntlet of Indians (Thompson, pp. 222-223). All indications are that, contrary to the song, Girty tried to contact the British to try to help Crawford, and he certainly tried to talk the Delawares around, but it didn't help. The Indians placed Crawford on trial. They charged him with being responsible for Gnadenhuten. Crawford denied it, but the Indians felt that he was responsible for Williamson. And he had been responsible for other crimes against them (Thompson, pp. 224-225). Girty tried to offer a ransom, but the Indians sentenced Crawford to death by burning (Thompson, p. 226; Hoffman, pp. 224-226, says that Girty tried very hard but was told that the only way he could ransom Crawford was to be burned to death himself).
The way Crawford was killed was so brutal -- fire was only the last part -- that I will not describe it. Reading those pages of Thompson made me so sick that, for the first and only time, I sympathized with Crawford. No people who do what those Indians did deserves the word "civilized." (To be sure, David Williamson was not civilized, either; he was a war criminal.)
Dr. Knight eventually escaped; on July 4, he managed to get back to American territory and tell his story (Thompson, p. 233). There were calls for revenge, but there was no actual punitive expedition. (Although, in the long run, many of the survivors on the Indian side would live to see the Americans steal their land.) The British significantly reduced their cooperation with the Indians after they heard of what they had done (Thompson, p. 234).
David Williamson got away with murder and desertion; he never suffered punishment for his deeds, but, like many right-wing extremists, he found electoral success, being elected Washington County sherif in 1787. But, also like many right-wing extremists, he wasn't actually very smart; his businesses failed and he died an alcoholic (Thompson, p. 236). The Federal government, having learned its lesson, would not employ him again.
Hannah Crawford, William's widow, found it difficult to collect the many debts owed to her husband, and she had debts of her own; she spent much of the rest of a long life trying to get help from George Washington and the Federal government before dying in 1818 (Thompson, pp. 240-243).
Dr. Knight's account of events was first published in a heavily edited, and heavily slanted, account, which among other things aimed much calumny at Simon Girty, who had tried to prevent Crawford's execution. As a result, he was thought to be a murderer, and Stephen Vincent Benet cast him as one in "The Devil and Daniel Webster." He ended up in Canada, where he gradually lost his sight and died, entirely blind, in 1818 (Thompson, pp. 237-238), but regarded as a hero.
The whole story is, to me, quite depressing. Thompson, pp. 248-250, concludes, "It is also clear that William Crawford was no military genius, nor a charismatic leader.... It might be easy to dismiss William Crawford as an unprincipled adulterer, a greedy land speculator, and ambitious expansionist who was motivated entirely by personal gain, and a man ill-suited to a military leadership position.... It is tragically ironic that he died in an act of revenge for the very thing he was determined to thwart [i.e. another unprovoked massacre], and even more so, that his death prompted calls for more acts of bloodthirsty barbarism. This is not the legacy William Crawford would have wanted, nor is it the one he deserves." I am not sure I agree. Crawford was a bad man (a slaveowner, an oppressor of Indians, an adulterer, and not entirely honest in his business) who got caught up trying to clean up for a worse man, and paid for it. There is no real justice in the tale; Crawford, in a time when capital punishment was the norm, deserved death, but not death by torture, and the man who deserved it most (Williamson) got off, and the one man in the whole story who looks fairly good (Girty) ended up widely condemned.
Although Crawford was not an admirable man, he was originally seen as a martyr and widely memorialized -- e.g. Crawford County, Pennsylvania, and Crawford County, Ohio, are both named for Crawford (Butterfield, p. iv).
There is no reason to think this was actually traditional, but it has been reprinted quite a few times, even though, as Thompson says on p. 247, it is "filled with historical inaccuracies" as well as being thoroughly prejudiced. I'll try to comment on the facts as given in Eddy's text and the full version printed by Thompson.
-- Verse 1 (Thompson verse 1): (Colonel) Crafford: Crawford (Thompson's text spells it correctly)
-- Verse 2 (Thompson verse 2): 489 men -- we don't know the exact number, but it's about right
-- Verse 3 (Thompson verse 3): May 26, 1782... They crossed the Ohio: The expedition started from Mingo Bottom on the Ohio. To cross the Ohio (from south to north) was to enter Indian territory; the natives had been barred from the south side after the Battle of Point Pleasant
-- Verse 4 (Thompson verse 4): Nicholas Slover (also mentioned in verses 14, 18) and Jonathan Deans. Called "Nicholson Slover and Jonathan Zeans" in Thompson.: Butterfield, p. 77, says that John Slover and Jonathan Zane were Crawford's pilots (guides); Thompson, p. 184, also calls them Slover and Zane and says that they were, respectively, 29 and about 32.
-- Verse 5 (Thompson verse 5): June 4... on the plains of Sandusky. Crawford's army actually reached the Sandusky Plains on June 3 (Thompson, p. 189) -- but June 4 was when the British started preparing for battle (Thompson, p. 191)
-- Verse 6 (Thompson verse 6): Girtee (also mentioned in verses 15, 16) gave them command: Simon Girty did not give the orders; the Indian chiefs did it themselves. But Girty was present, and was present at Crawford's trial, and his was the name that everyone remembered (and knew how to pronounce!) Contrary to the song, Girty, as we have seen, tried to rescue Crawford; he did not arrange his death.
-- Verse 8 (Thompson verse 8): Brave Colonel Williamson, who, if given 200 men, would have put the Indians to "rout": Williamson was Crawford's second-in-command (Butterfield, p. 77), and a large fraction of the men were more loyal to him than to Crawford. It is surely true that, if he had the chance, he would have massacred more Indians; this was why General Irvine didn't want him in charge! But the word "brave" is probably mis-applied; most bullies are cowards when confronted, and it's worth remembering that Williamson fled from the battle at the Sandusky, leaving Crawford behind. Williamson did not represent the best but the worst of the American army. But then, Americans like populist jerks....
-- (Thompson verse 9, not in Eddy): "This brave commander" (probably Williamson, not Crawford) "Behaved like David of old... He returned home without ever a scar." Williamson did in fact make it home safe -- and Williamson did behave like David, in that he abandoned his boss at the time of his decisive battle. And he behaved in a racist way toward his enemies. But Williamson, unlike David, abandoned his commander without cause and behaved like a coward. He does not deserve any credit for his behavior,
-- Verse 9 (Thompson verse 10): Major Light: There was no Major Light in Crawford's force, but this is an understandable error for Major Daniel Leet, who ended up in command of several dozen men in the rout. One of those who went with him was Crawford's son John, the only survivor of the members of Crawford's family who joined the army. Most of Leet's force escaped (Thompson, p. 216); it was one of the largest bands to get away.
-- Verse 10 (Thompson verse 11): Major Briston, the fourth in command: Butterfield, p. 77, calls him "Major Brinton" but admits that there is dispute about his name. Butterfield makes him the fifth-in-command, but he was the fourth Major, which might explain the difference. Brinton, according to Thompson, p. 210, was to command the rearguard during the breakout attempt. He was soon wounded, so that Major Leet took command (Thompson, pp. 212-213).
The correct name, according to Hoffman, p. 124, is James Brenton. In the course of Edward Hand's "Squaw Campaign," Brenton's horse wandered off. He asked Simon Girty to help him find it -- and while they were seeking the horse, Hand and his men committed their massacre (Hoffman, pp. 127-130). Unlike Girty, though, he seems to have approved of genocide.
-- Verse 11 (Thompson verse 13): Brave Bibbs and Ogle. I wonder if "Bibbs" is an error for Captain John Biggs. He was one of those who initially left the field with Crawford, but they were separated, and he was eventually killed and scalped (Thompson, pp, 219-221). Butterfield, p. 76, mentions that someone named Ogle was appointed a captain, but that is the only time he is mentioned in the book. Thompson never mentions someone named Ogle.
-- (Thompson verse 14, not in Eddy): Brave Captain Mun... Captain Rase... received each a ball. Captain James Munn, during the main contest at Battle Island, crept forward from the American line to try to get a better view; a bullet broke his leg and a tomahawk injured his face; he was rescued by William Brady, one of his men. Captain Ezekiel Rose took a non-fatal bullet in the chest at about the same time (Thompson, p. 203). N.B. Crawford's chief-of-staff (more or less) was a different man named Rose, Major John Rose, mentioned several times above, who seems to have been the only really competent officer in the entire army. He would be responsible for most of the official reports on the debacle. Major Rose and Captain Rose ("Rase") were different men, and Major Rose is not mentioned in the song (perhaps because he was foreign-born, perhaps because he was competent, perhaps because, unlike the rest of these far-right types, he was civilized), but memory of him might have caused Captain Rose to be mentioned sooner than he would otherwise have been.
-- (Thompson verse 15, not in Eddy): Captain Hogland (whose fate was unknown). Butterfield, p. 75, says that "Hoagland" was elected a captain, and on p. 281 says that he was "among those who were never heard of" after the battle.
-- (Thompson verse 17, not in Eddy): The commander says "Since we have lost ground...." This is basically correct: Crawford saw that his force was in peril, and tried to arrange to retreat and bring out the wounded. What isn't mentioned is the way the army fell to pieces as soon as the retreat started.
-- (Thompson verse 17, not in Eddy): "There was brave Ensign Majaster": the name should be McMasters, according to Butterfield, p. 76, but Butterfield doesn't say anything else about him.
-- Verse 14 (Thompson verse 18): Colonel Crafford (Crawford), Major Harrison, Doctor Knight, Slover (also mentioned in verse 18). There was no major named Harrison, but William Harrison was Crawford's son-in-law and was with the army (Butterfield's index calls him "Colonel," but only Crawford was a colonel, and Butterfield refers to him frequently but with no hint that he was an officer. John Knight was the army's surgeon and witnessed Crawford's execution. For Slover, see above. He and Knight did escape, eventually.
Thus we see that the song, in its original form, did have access to some good information about who was present in Crawford's army, though much of this was distorted by tradition. But its perspective is one of a radical Indian-hater, approving of the dreadful Williamson and blaming the innocent Girty for what happened.
In addition to Thompson, which was obviously the main source for this entry, there is a biography of William Crawford and his brother, Allen W. Scholl, The Brothers Crawford: Colonel William, 1722-1782 and Valentine Jr., 1724-1777, 2 volumes, Heritage Books, 1995. This is apparently highly authoritative but expensive. More manageable is James H. Anderson, Colonel William Crawford, Ohio Archaeological and Historical Publications, Ohio, which is only 32 pages long.
That seems to be it for modern books -- and the older sources are not to be trusted. The most important, available on Google Books, is Butterfield's, An Historical Account, cited above; this has been "re-created" by C. Stephen Badgley, but obviously this turns a secondary source into a tertiary. It should be noted that Butterfield's goal was to place all the blame on the British and Indians; it is a heavily biased source, Butterfield also edited and published The Washington-Crawford Letters: Being the Correspondence Between George Washington and William Crawford, from 1767 to 1781, Concerning Western Lands, 1877; this 102 page book is also on Google Books. Other books on the topic include Robert A. Sherrard and James Paul, A Narrative of the Wonderful Escape and Dreadful Sufferings of Colonel James Paul, After the Defeat of Col. Crawford, When That Unfortunate Commander, and Many of His Men, Were Inhumanly Burnt at the Stake, J, Drake, 1869, available on Google Books and various cheap reprints; this is more a pamphlet than a book (22 pages), and the introduction is so self-exculpatory that I decided not to cite it. Another old, probably biased, volume, also on Google Books, is Indian Atrocities. Narratives of the perils and sufferings of Dr. Knight and John Slover, among the Indians, during the revolutionary war, with short memoirs of Col. Crawford & John Slover. And a letter from H. Brackinridge (sic.) on the rights of the Indians, etc. edited by H. H. Brackenridge, 1867, based on a volume from 1843; this is another short book, of 72 pages.
Simon Girty is the subject of Phillip W. Hoffman, Simon Girty: Turncoat Hero, American History Press, 2009, which is cited here and seems reliable, and a book by Butterfield which certainly isn't. - RBW
Bibliography Last updated in version 7.0
File: E115

Go to the Ballad Search form
Go to the Ballad Index Song List

Go to the Ballad Index Instructions
Go to the Ballad Index Bibliography or Discography

The Ballad Index Copyright 2025 by Robert B. Waltz and David G. Engle.