Simon Girty

[dlemaster]

In the past we have discussed several notorious people from the 18th century frontier period including Simon Girty to a small degree. Simon Girty was evedently a very complex man. He is probably most famous as history has come down to us as a vicious renegade who turned on his own people.
His infamous reputation began when he deserted to the British from Ft. Pitt in 1778. It really exploded after the accounts of Dr. Knight and John Slover were published in 1782 of the burning at the stake of Col. Crawford at Upper Sandusky.
Knight said that Girty was there during the torture and taunted Crawford even though they had known each other and lived together previously at Ft Pitt.
What I offer here is another view of the man as given by people who knew him in the period. Hopefully it will help give a better understanding of the man.

Kenton says in the Judge James manuscript interview: "First knew of Girty in 1774. Had seen him passing about before. Simon lived with Crawford-sometimes at Pitt and wherever he could get a living."
"Simon Girty was taken prisoner at the Little Cove at six years old, and in 1764 was brought back under Bouquet's treaty, when he was nineteen. The father and mother were killed - five sons, jack, Thomas, Simon, George and James - the last three were prisoners and all raised as indians - James more of an indian than Simon."

Kenton had this to say about Girty when he had been captured in 1778: "He was good to me, when he came up to me when th ingins had me painted black, I knew him at first; he asked me a good many questions, but I thought it best not to be too forard, and I held back from telling him my name, but when I did tell him, O, he was mighty glad to see me; he flung his arms round me and cried like a child; I never did see one man so glad to see another yet. He made a speech to the ingins - he knew the ingin tongue, and knew how to speak - and told them that if ever they meant to do him a favor they must do it now and save my life. Girty afterwards when we were together, cried often to me, and told me he was sorry of the part he took against the whites, that he was too hasty. Yes, Girty was good to me."

Kenton told F. W. Thomas of the Cincinnati Mirror of Dec. 7, 1833 in "A Days Ramble: A visit to Simon Kenton, the Old Pioneer": "Girty and I, two lonely men on the banks of the Ohio, pledged ourselves one to the other, hand in hand, for life or death, when there was nobody in the wilderness but God and us."
"James Girty had known me as well as any man could know another; but when he saw me a captive and about to be bound, he did not know me; while Simon was very kind to me and never ceased his efforts.

On Monday I will give the accounts of Mrs Mccormick and Solomon McCulloch.

Regards, Dave

 

[dlemaster]

In the Draper Manuscripts is the acount of Mrs. McCormick who was also a prisoner with Dr. Knight and also witnessed the burning at the stake of Col. Crawford. Girty acted the same in Crawford's case as he did in Kenton's. Mrs. McCormick defended Girty for the rest of her life. She said Girty tried to buy Crawford and offered property in exchange for him in the indian councils, and when that was refused he tried to plan for his escape the night before he was burned. She says "Girty really did do everything a mortal man could do to save Crawford."

Jonathan Alder who was prisoner in a slightly later period says: "I have known Simon Girty to purchase at his own expense several boys who were prisoners, take them to the British, and have them educated. He certainly was a friend to many prisoners."

Solomon McCulloch knew Girty in Detroit from about 1800 to 1804. Draper says in his interviews with McCulloch about Girty "Girty often talked to him about his adventures, and tears would roll down his cheeks and his voice be choked at a recurrence to some of the events in which he had been an actor. He had saved the lives of hundreds by diverting and restraining the indians.
"Girty was anxious to see his brother Thomas who lived near Pittsburg. McCulloch proposed to take him in disguise, but the dread of being hanged restrained him.
"The reason assigned for his becoming an enemy of the whites was the injustice done him in promoting an officer over him and refusing him the advancement to which he claimed of right to be entitled. The refusal was coupled with charges of secret intercourse with the indians, and afterwards he was in some way imprisoned and guarded to prevent an escape, after which he told him he would certainly join them and be an enemy of his countrymen.
"Girty was a short thick-set man; piercing black eyes, black hair. He claimed that he had made every effort in his power to save Col. Crawford; and was finally answered by the Shawanoe chief, that it could be on one condition, that he should take Crawford's place at the stake. He then went for McKee, who had more influence than any other, but McKee was not in reach, and he went away to avoid seeing the sacrifice. But Dr. Knight says he was there and must be believed in preference."

So it would appear that Simon Girty may not have been as much of a villian as he has been portrayed to be. He did desert to the British in a fit of rage and became a renegade against the people he felt had wronged him, which says he was probably a hot head, but he later came to regret that decision. He did use his influence with the indians to save the lives of many of the whites who fell into the indian hands and became prisoners. The fact of the matter is the indian were enraged at the invading army Crawford was leading and they wanted revenge for the christian indians who were brutally murdered by the border men, many of whom were in Crawford's army, at Gnadenhutten.

I wonder.. if Girty hadn't been there what would the death toll have been for those unfortunate prisoners.

Regards, Dave

 

[mikelange]

Simon Girty is, in my opinion, an even better example than Lew Wetzel, of why we ought not try to apply the standards by which we live today to persons in the past.

Many people were willing to regard him as a renegade and a traitor -- not only to his country, but to his race. Problem with that is, at the time, "traitor" and "loyalist" were synonymous terms; if you opted for loyalty to King, Crown, and Country, you were a traitor, despite the lack of an actual country to commit this supposed act of treason against. And, the question of whether or not the human race is, in fact, one race, is probably best left undiscussed. Suffice to say that it certainly wasn't seen as such in 18th-century America. Girty and all but one of his brothers chose loyalty to England -- for whatever reasons, valid or otherwise -- and to the Indians, among whom they'd lived for a number of years and for whom they and quite a few other people felt a great deal of respect and affection. Both these loyalties, particularly that which they acted on toward the Indians, were considered abominations in the years that followed the Revolution.

If it's true, as I've read, that Girty died a miserable drunk, it's not surprising. He likely lived with more regrets than most over the choices he made in his life and the acts those choices led him to -- not to mention having wound up on the losing side, in circumstances that made it impossible to ever reconcile with his former friends and countrymen, or even, as mentioned in another post, to simply visit his brother. I doubt he ever felt the sense of righteous purpose and accomplishment which seems to have motivated Lew Wetzel, or that at least is assigned Wetzel's actions by his present-day fans. Neither the circumstances in which he lived or the choices he found himself forced to make are remotely similar to situations we find ourselves in today (just as an extreme example, it would be ridiculous to somehow compare his defection to and loyalty toward the Indians to Jane Fonda's collaboration with the North Vietnamese during the 1960's).

I know some of you will differ with me on this, but more than anything I tend to feel sorry for the "brutal, depraved, and wicked wretch." He was less brutal, depraved, and wicked than men who today are admired, if not revered, simply because they happened to wind up on the right or at least winning side.

 

[Tommy Bruce]

Excellent posts gentlemen! I'm sure there were many others who agonized over which side to fight on during the Revolutionary War. I'm sure those who sided with the crown thought they were the ones who were acting as Patriots in defense of the crown. I imagine it would be very hard to risk everything if you were a succesful merchant, farmer or tradesman to fight for independence.