SOME PERSPECTIVES ON ITS PURPOSE FROM PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS PRESTON E. PIERCE ONTARIO COUNTY HISTORIAN DEPARTMENT OF RECORDS, ARCHIVES AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ERVICES CANANDAIGUA, NEW YORK 2019 (REPRINTED, UPDATED, AND REVISED 2005, 1985) 1 Front cover image: Sullivan monument erected at the entrance to City Pier on Lake Shore Drive, Canandaigua. Sullivan-Clinton Sesquicentennial Commission, 1929. Bronze tablet was a common feature of all monuments erected by the Commission. Image from original postcard negative, circa 1929, in possession of the author. Above: Sullivan-Clinton Sesquicentennial Commission tablet erected at Kashong (Yates County), Rt. 14, south of Geneva near the Ontario County boundary. 1929. Image by the author. 2004 2 Gen. John Sullivan. Image from Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution. v. I. 1860. p. 272. 3 Sullivan-Clinton Campaign monument (front and back) erected in 1929 in Honeoye. Moved several times, it commemorates the location of Ft. Cummings, a temporary base established by Sullivan as he began the final leg of his march to the Genesee River. Images by the author. Forward 4 1979 marked the 200th anniversary of the Sullivan-Clinton expedition against those Iroquois nations that allied themselves with Britain and the Loyalists during the American Revolution. It is a little-understood (more often misunderstood) military incursion with diplomatic, economic, and decided geo-political consequences. Unfortunately, most people, including most municipal historians, know little about the expedition beyond what is recorded on roadside markers. In 1929, during the sesquicentennial celebrations of the American Revolution, the states of New York and Pennsylvania established a special commission that produced a booklet, sponsored local pageants, and erected many commemorative tablets in both states. Pageants were held to celebrate Sullivan’s success and tell the story of the frontier warfare of the 1770’s. Several booklets and journal articles on the subject were produced that year and a commemorative postage stamp was issued. In 1979, little was done to commemorate the expedition or interpret its significance. A few local publications were produced as well as a small number of articles in journals such as New York History. Hardly any of those publications provided any real insights into the reasons for the expedition or the way in which it was carried out. The New York State American Revolution Bicentennial Commission published a booklet written by historian, William T. Hagen. That publication reviewed the events of the campaign within the context of the frontier warfare. A group of twelve New York County Historians also produced a booklet solely on the Sullivan- Clinton Campaign. Well-illustrated, it shows almost every historical marker related to the subject; relates the facts of the campaign; and provides a bit more insight than the Bicentennial Commission publication that was much broader in scope. There was a small body of literature produced about the Sullivan expedition during the Bicentennial Era even though there has been a virtual information explosion in the social sciences; publications are more easily published than ever before; and the public seemed to thirst for anything related to the war. Expedition observance gatherings numbered even fewer than publications in 1979. The only postal commemorative of the frontier warfare in New York honored General Herkimer and the parrticipants in the battle at Oriskany—where the local militia “won” by enduring the bloodiest losses of the war and left the field after the British-Loyalist-Indian force that ambushed them. There are few facts to support any contentions about the true reasons for the lack of interest in the Sullivan expedition in 1979. It is probably safe to assume that several factors played a role in every local decision. By 1979, most of the American public was no longer willing to celebrate a military victory over Native Americans. The expedition was seen then, and now, as a tragedy as well as a triumph. In fact, the title of a 1997 book by Joseph Fischer labels the campaign A Well- Executed Failure. Indeed, scholars such as Barbara Graymont have documented the fact that although the economy of the Iroquois was dealt a severe blow by Sullivan’s troops, their military might re-bounded almost immediately. The state Bicentennial Commission, undoubtedly mindful of the political consequences, seemed to steer clear of any publications or celebrations that seemed to pit one group of citizens against another. Local committees had a difficult time finding authors willing and able to produce new 5 local histories. Then too, by 1979, money to support commemorations was getting scarce and any pageantry seemed like an after-thought compared to the nationwide activity just three years earlier. Indeed, pageants were a much less popular way to celebrate historical events than they had been a half-century earlier. The Sullivan expedition, nevertheless, needs to be understood. At the time of this writing, we are looking forward to another period of remembrance; the “semiquincentennial” (250th anniversary in 2026) as the New York State Education Department now calls to it. There will be many new opportunities to explore the story of our revolution during this period. As a possible part of those opportunities, the Sullivan expedition needs to be placed within the context of the times and accepted as part of the process by which a new nation-state was created. At a time when Indian land claims are still sometimes front page news in western New York; and past treatment Native people is a subject of frequent discussion and condemnation; it is important to have a deeper understanding of Indian-white relations at the start of our national history. This publication is an attempt to enhance our understanding. This publication is a brief review of the literature on the Sullivan expedition. It is not an in- depth examination of primary sources supporting a particular historical thesis. Its purpose is to broaden the perspectives of local residents, historical society members, and municipal historians. The original version of this publication was written in 1979. It has been revised and updated several times since then. Readers’ contributions of newly published sources are welcome and encouraged. Route of march of Sullivan’s army, late summer 1779. The Susquehanna River valley near Wyalusing, PA, looking north toward the Iroquois homeland. This river had long been a transportation route for diplomats, warriors, and Moravian missionaries. It was also a route used by patriot militia, Loyalist refugees and rangers. Image by the author. 6 Setting the Stage The Sullivan campaign was, in reality, only an episode in the “border,” or frontier, wars of the Revolution. While it is not given a great deal of attention in the general histories of the Revolution, there exists a sizeable literature on the expedition. A thorough bibliography on the campaign would not list almost 200 entries. Some of these, particularly the primary sources, are well done and valuable. Much of the writing is heroic and nationalistic, however. Most of the Sullivan material available falls into two general categories: narratives of the expedition, and explanations of its effect.1 A third dimension, the rationale for the campaign, has been strangely unexplored until recently. An examination of the motives for the Sullivan expedition is, therefore, the subject of this essay. It is my purpose, moreover, to offer some explanations rarely discussed in previous work. Such an undertaking in an essay of this size is difficult at best. It is my hope that this effort will provide the impetus for more lengthy discussion and scholarly research. In 1975, Donald R. McAdams, writing for the New York Historical Society, clearly stated the need for studies of this kind: “A study of the setting of the expedition within the larger strategic picture of the Revolutionary War, a study of the immediate events that convinced Washington of the need for an expedition, as well as careful consideration of Washington’s goals and objectives are all necessary for understanding the scope and importance of the expedition.”2 Taking our cue from McAdams, we must examine three things. First, we will look at the strategic picture up to 1779. Second, we will examine the events of the years preceding 1779. Lastly, we will discuss Washington’s goals for the operation, and, necessarily, the goals of others. That should make it possible for local historians, in particular, to synthesize a broad explanation for the campaign against the Iroquois. While a broad explanation may sound like no real explanation, it must be remembered that neither Sullivan, nor any of the other people involved in the expedition, acted in a vacuum. The expedition was the product of many motivating factors interacting. A continuing problem, nevertheless, is the dearth of sources on the subject from either the Iroquois or British perspective. [That has improved somewhat since this essay was originally written in 1985.] By 1779, the British command had shifted its focus to the southern states. Cornwallis, Tarleton and Sir Henry Clinton were devastating Georgia and the Carolinas. They were encouraging the rise of numerous loyalists in that area and threatening Virginia (which they did, eventually 1 The most complete treatment of expedition narratives can be found in the three editions of the “Journals” published after 1887. Both narrative and effects were