The Whitman massacres.—Narratives of, by J. B. A. Brouillet and J. Ross Browne.—Extract from the New York Evangelist.—Statements of Father Brouillet criticised.—Testimony of John Kimzey.—Dr. Whitman at Umatilla.—Returns home.

We have before us two works purporting to give a true and authentic account of the Whitman massacre,—the one prepared by a Jesuit priest, J. B. A. Brouillet; the other by one J. Ross Browne, special agent of the United States revenue department. As this part of our history was written before that of J. Ross Browne (purporting to be an official report to the 35th Congress, 1st session, House of Representatives, Executive Document No. 38) came into our hands, it is proper that we should give this report a passing notice.

Mr. Browne, upon the second page of his report, says: “In view of the fact, however, that objections might be made to any testimony coming from the citizens of the Territory, and believing also that it is the duty of a public agent to present, as far as practicable, unprejudiced statements, I did not permit myself to be governed by any representations unsupported by reliable historical data.”

One would naturally conclude, from such a statement, that a candid, unprejudiced, and truthful report would be given; but, to our astonishment, we find that fifty-three of the sixty-six pages of this official document are an exact copy of the Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet’s work, thus indorsing, and placing in an official document, one of the most maliciously false and unreliable accounts that a prejudiced and deeply implicated sectarian could give, claiming such to be “reliable historical data,”—thus showing both his prejudice and ignorance in the conclusion he arrived at as to the causes of the Indian wars.

Had J. Ross Browne been willing to lay aside his unreasonable sectarian prejudice, and listen to the positive testimony then in the country, he could easily have learned who were the prime cause of all the Indian wars in it; or, had he made himself familiar (as he flippantly claims to have done) with the history of the English and American people, the policy of the English political and sectarian powers, and the commercial policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company, he would have escaped the folly of placing in an official document such palpable errors, and showing such willful ignorance of the subject he was commissioned to investigate.

He says, on page 2, “It was a war of destiny,—bound to take place whenever the causes reached their culminating point.” The “destiny” and culminating point of that war was fixed by the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Jesuit priests, as also the second and third wars with the Indians that followed, as we shall show by positive testimony of witnesses who are unimpeachable.

Had J. Ross Browne carefully examined the tissue of statements prepared by Father Brouillet, he could have found statements like this on page 53 (38 of J. R. B.), “I knew that the Indians were angry with all Americans;” page 54 (39 of J. R. B.), “All that I know is that the Indians say the order to kill Americans has been sent in all directions.”

There was but one party in the country that could issue such an order, which Brouillet well knew, and the testimony we shall give will prove.

On his third page, he says: “The same primary causes existed in every case,—encroachments of a superior upon an inferior race.” He then refers to the agitation of the Oregon question in the Senate in 1840-41; to Mr. Thurston’s course as a delegate; the treaties with the Indians, etc.,—showing conclusively the sources of his information, and his ignorance of the causes he professed to give a truthful and impartial account of,—barely alluding to the unwarranted assumptions of the British Hudson’s Bay Company of an exclusive right to trade with the Indians. In fact, the whole report appears to be a studied effort to cover the prime causes of the difficulty, and of the Indian wars he was commissioned to investigate and report upon.

It is not surprising that with the foreign emissaries then in the country, and the stupid ignorance or malicious bigotry of the United States agent, that such reports should be made; but that the government should adopt, and act upon, or publish them, is indeed surprising; unless, as the history of the late rebellion shows, it was the design of those agents to involve the whole nation in an ultimate dismemberment, and distinct, separate nationalities, under the auspices of African, Indian, and religious slavery. We regret the necessity of prefacing a chapter in this work with so severe a stricture upon a government official, yet his report is so manifestly false and malicious, and without the evidence of truth or candor toward the Protestant missionaries, to whom is due, more than to any other influence, the settlement of the country by the American people,—that, in justice to them, and the truth of history, we can say no less, while we proceed with the account of the murder of Dr. Whitman and those at his station.

The necessity and importance of an extended and particular account becomes still more important from the fact that the Roman Jesuits in the country have succeeded in placing through such an agent their false account of the massacre in a permanent government document,—thus slandering not only the dead, but the living, whose duty it becomes to refute such vile slanders by publishing the whole truth in the case. Besides, the very Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet, in a second edition of his false and absurd production, refers to this report of J. R. Browne as additional official evidence of the truth of his own false statements, previously made through such agents, and such men as Sir James Douglas,—compelling us, in vindicating the truth of history, to place before the reader more of the statements of parties implicated than was our original design.

Since this work has been in press, we have an article in the New York Evangelist of 6th of January, 1870, from the pen of Rev. Mr. Treat, D. D., containing a brief statement of the Whitman massacre, and the following as the result of the investigations as had in several religious bodies in Oregon; the conclusion is as follows:—

“It so happens, however, that men who are more competent to adjudicate the case have not hesitated to do so. The Congregational Association of Oregon adopted a report in June last, which condemns the ‘prominent and absolute falsehoods’ of Father Brouillet’s pamphlet, and expresses the belief, ‘from evidence, clear and sufficient to them, that the Roman Catholic priests did themselves instigate violence to the missions, resulting in massacre.’ Similar action was taken by the Old School Presbytery, the Cumberland Presbytery, and the U. P. Presbytery. The Methodist Conference, composed of more than seventy preachers, and under the presidency of Bishop Kingsley, adopted a comprehensive and able report, which was published at Portland, September 25, 1869, in which the massacre at Wailatpu is declared to have been ‘wholly unprovoked by Dr. Whitman or any other member of the mission,’ and to have arisen from the policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company ‘to exclude American settlers,’ and the ‘efforts of Roman priests directed against the establishment of Protestantism in the country.’ It is believed that the other evangelical denominations in Oregon have spoken with the same distinctness and the same confidence.

“Valuable testimony is borne to the character of the missionaries who survived Dr. Whitman, and who have been residents of Oregon to this day, as also to the fidelity and success of their labors, but there is not space for it in the present article. Suffice it to say, that, while the motives of Hon. J. Ross Browne, in appending Father Brouillet’s pamphlet to his ‘Letter,’ and the reasons of the House of Representative for publishing the same, are open to grave suspicion, facts and opinions have been elicited, which throw additional light upon the manifold bearings and uses of the missionary enterprise.”

On page 40 of Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet’s “Protestantism in Oregon” and page 33 of J. Ross Browne’s report, we find, under date of September 5, 1847, that “the Right Rev. Bishop Blanchet arrived at old Fort Wallawalla (now called Wallula), where he was cordially received by Mr. McBean, clerk in charge of said fort. He was accompanied by the superior of Oblates and two other clergymen. He had the intention of remaining but a few days at the fort, for he knew that Tawatowe (or Young Chief), one of the Cayuse chiefs, had a house which he had designed for the Catholic missionaries, and he intended to go and occupy it without delay; but the absence of the Young Chief, who was hunting buffalo, created a difficulty in regard to the occupation of the house, and in consequence of it he had to wait longer than he wished.”

The house here spoken of was erected during the summer of 1837, before any Catholic missionaries were thought of, at least among the Indians, or by the American missionaries, and it was late in the fall of 1838 that Revs. Blanchet and Demerse passed down the Columbia River. These first missionaries of the Society of Jesus, wishing to do Mr. P. C. Pambrun, then clerk of the post, a special favor, baptized the infant son of the Young Chief, for whose benefit and occupation, Mr. Pambrun said, the company had ordered that house to be built. If it was designed for these priests, who was the designer?

Mr. Brouillet, in his narrative, says:—

“On the 23d of September, Dr. Whitman, on his way from the Dalles, stopped at Fort Wallawalla. His countenance bore sufficient testimony to the agitation of his heart. He soon showed by his words that he was deeply wounded by the arrival of the bishop. ‘I know very well,’ said he, ‘for what purpose you have come.’ ‘All is known,’ replied the bishop; ‘I come to labor for the conversion of the Indians, and even of Americans, if they are willing to listen to me.’ The doctor then continued, in the same tone, to speak of many things. He attributed the coming of the bishop to the Young Chief’s influence! made a furious charge against the Catholics, accusing them of having persecuted Protestants and even of having shed their blood wherever they had prevailed. He said he did not like Catholics ? ? ? that he should oppose the missionaries to the extent of his power. ? ? ? He spoke against the Catholic Ladder![12] and said that he would cover it with blood, to show the persecution of Protestants by Catholics. He refused to sell provisions to the bishop, and protested he would not assist the missionaries unless he saw them in starvation.”

It is barely possible that Dr. Whitman said all that this priest says he did. In that case, did he forfeit his own and the lives of all that fell with him? This narrative of Protestantism reveals a dark page in our history,—one that should be thoroughly investigated as well as understood by all.

On the 24th page, 33d of Ross Browne’s report, this priest says:—

“After such a manifestation of sentiment toward Catholics in general and priests in particular, the bishop was not astonished in hearing some hours after that Dr. Whitman, on leaving the fort, went to the lodge of Piopiomoxmox (Yellow Serpent); that he had spoken a great deal against the priests; that he had wished to prevail upon this chief to co-operate with him, in order that by the aid of his influence with the Cayuses, Des Chutes, and Dalles Indians, he might be enabled to excite these nations against them, etc.”

That Dr. Whitman did as he is represented to have done no one acquainted with him will believe for a moment. But Bishop Blanchet’s letter to Governor Abernethy is evidence conclusive that he and his priests had done exactly what they here say Dr. Whitman attempted to do.

“During the months of October and November,” Brouillet says. “the Doctor came to the fort several times to render his professional services to Mrs. Maxwell and Mr. Thomas McKay; he was a little more reserved than at the first interview, but it was always visible enough that the sight of the bishop and his clergy was far from being agreeable to him.”

It will be remembered that Mr. Brouillet is giving this narrative and speaking of a man whose blood had been shod in the cause of “Protestantism in Oregon,” as he calls the title of his work, which he is writing to correct the impression that he and his associates were in some way concerned in bringing it about. In his allusions and statements, he seems to be anxious to prove that Dr. Whitman and all Protestants and Americans in the country are guilty of the crime laid to the influence of the priests, and by giving these statements expects everybody will believe them to be wholly innocent. J. Ross Browne, in his report, 3d page, agrees with this priest, and refers to supposed transactions (that did not occur) in 1835. At that time there was not a band or tribe of Indians west of the Rocky Mountains but was ready to give land to any white man that would come and live in their country. This land question, as stated by Brouillet and Ross Browne, or the “encroachments of a superior upon an inferior race,” had no part in the matter. It was a foreign national question, as we have already shown, and we now propose to quote these statements from his narrative, to show the intimate connection there was between the Jesuit priests, the Hudson’s Bay Company, the Indians, and the Whitman massacre.

According to Brouillet, the bishop and his priests remained at Fort Wallawalla from the 5th of September till the 26th of October (fifty days), enjoying the hospitality of Mr. McBean, and seeing Dr. Whitman occasionally, till, on the 26th, the Young Chief arrived. “The bishop wished to know of him if he wanted a priest for him and his young men, telling him that he could only give him one for the whole nation, and if the Cayuses wished to avail themselves of his services they would do well to come to an understanding together concerning the location of the mission. The chief told the bishop he wished a priest, and that he could have his house and as much land as he wanted.” So far this statement bears the natural impress of truth, but mark the words here put into the chief’s mouth, “but as a means of reuniting the Cayuses who had been heretofore divided, and in order to facilitate their religious instruction, he suggested the idea of establishing the mission near Dr. Whitman’s, at the camp of Tilokaikt.”

The previous history of this chief, as given by Revs. Hines, Perkins, and Dr. White, all goes to prove that he never made such a suggestion, and no one acquainted with Indian character will believe for a moment that he did. But the suggestion was without doubt made to him to impress upon his mind the importance of uniting with other bands of his tribe to get rid of Dr. Whitman, as shown by this priest in the council that was held on the 4th of November, by special request of the bishop sent to Tilokaikt on the 29th October, purporting to be by request of the Young Chief. The dates show, as per Brouillet, that the Young Chief was with the bishop on the 26th; on the 29th the bishop sent for Tilokaikt; and on the 4th of November the council was held, “at the bishop’s request,” who opened the meeting in the fort. At this meeting the proposition is said to have been made to the bishop to give him Dr. Whitman’s station, first driving him away. Says T. McKay, in his statement to acquit these priests, speaking of this meeting on the 4th of November: “One of the chiefs told the bishop that they would send the Doctor off very soon; they would give him his house if he wished. The bishop answered that he would not take the Doctor’s house, that he did not wish him to send the Doctor away, and that there was room enough for two missions.” This was, as understood by the Indians, “The bishop intends to have a place near Dr. Whitman’s, and he wishes us to dispose of the Doctor in some way so that he can have a place where all the Cayuses can be instructed together in his religion.”

In accordance with the understanding had with the bishop and Cayuses in this council on the 4th, this priest says (see p. 44 of Brouillet, 34 of J. R. Browne): “On the 8th of November I went by order of the bishop to Wailatpu to look at the land which Tilokaikt had offered; but he had changed his mind, and refused to show it to me, saying that it was too small. He told me that he had no place to give me but that of Dr. Whitman, whom he intended to send away. I declared to him a second time the same as the bishop had done at the meeting, that I would not have the place of Dr. Whitman. I then went immediately to the camp of Young Chief, to notify him that I would take his house, since I was unable to procure a place from Tilokaikt.” He further says he returned to the fort on the 10th, and on the 11th, an associate, Rev. Mr. Rousseau, left with his men to repair the house, which was ready by the 26th, and on the 27th of November the bishop and his party started for the house, said to have been designed for them (of which there is no doubt). On their first arrival at Wallawalla, it would have been the wiser course for them to have accepted of it, instead of attempting, through the influence of the company, to get possession of Dr. Whitman’s station, or the consent of the Indians, as they say they did, to locate near the station. But we have positive proof of the design of Mr. McBean, the agent of the company, and the bishop, as given in the testimony of Mr. John Kimzey.

He says: “On my way to this country with my family last fall (1847), I called at Fort Wallawalla to exchange my team and wagon for horses. There were at the fort two Roman Catholic priests. During my stay of about two days, Mr. McBean, in the presence of my wife, said, ‘The fathers have offered to purchase Dr. Whitman’s station, but Dr. Whitman has refused to sell.’ He said they had requested the Doctor to fix his own price and they would meet it, but the Doctor had refused to sell on any conditions, I asked him who he meant by the fathers? He said ‘The holy fathers, the Catholic priests.’ He said the holy fathers were about to commence a mission at the mouth of the Umatilla,—one in the upper part of the Umatilla, one near Dr. Whitman’s station, if they could not get hold of the station, one in several other places which I can not name. They hired Mr. Marsh, whose tools I brought, to do off a room for the priests at the fort. He said, ‘Dr. Whitman had better leave the country or the Indians would kill him; we are determined to have his station.’ He further said, ‘Mr. Spalding will also have to leave this country soon.’ As I was about leaving, Mr. McBean said: ‘If you could pass as an Englishman, the Indians would not injure you; if they do disturb you, show them the horses and the marks, and they will know my horses; show them by signs that you are from the fort, and they will let you pass.’ The Indians noticed the marks on the horses and did not disturb me.

“John Kimzey.”

“Subscribed and sworn to before me, at my office in Tualatin Plains [now Washington County], this 28th day of August, 1848.

“David T. Lenox, Justice of the Peace.”

This is fully confirmed by the oath of R. S. Wilcox, as having heard the statement from Mr. Kimzey the night after he left the fort, in camp at the mouth of the Umatilla, before the same justice of the peace. Mr. Wilcox says Mr. Kimzey was much alarmed, and really believed that it was the design of the priests’ party to kill Dr. Whitman and drive the American missionaries out of the country. His reply was, “The Catholics have not got that station yet.”

Had we not the best English testimony, Fitzgerald’s, and the statements of P. J. De Smet and Hoikin in their letters to their missionary society in Brussels, to show the connection of the Hudson’s Bay Company with this transaction, the facts above stated would fasten the conviction of a strong and outspoken determination to overthrow the Protestant missions. It will be remembered that these threats and efforts to get rid of Dr. Whitman were made before the appearance of any sickness or measles among the Cayuses.

Mr. Brouillet, on the 84th page of his narrative, says, “But I affirm that such a demand has never been made to Dr. Whitman by any one of us.” We are not disposed to dispute Mr. Brouillet’s affirmation, be it true or false. The truth is all we seek to know.

The reader will not be particularly interested in the long details of statements made by this priest to show that they had no part in bringing about the destruction of the Protestant missions and the Whitman massacre. Mr. McBean and Sir James Douglas have written extensively, together with P. H. Burnett, Esq., and this Rev. Vicar-General Brouillet, to show that nobody is responsible for that crime but the missionaries who were murdered and the Indians, while Rev. Messrs. Griffin and Spalding have attempted to fasten the whole crime upon the Roman priests alone. It appears from Mr. Spalding’s account that he met Mr. Brouillet and the bishop at Wallawalla on the 26th of November, and had a sectarian discussion with them, which he thought was friendly, yet from the fact that this priest barely alludes to the visit, and not a word of the discussion is mentioned, we infer that Mr. Spalding had the best of the argument, and that he was entirely mistaken as to the friendly manner in which they could conduct their missions in the same section of country. We will not attempt to reconcile the conflicting statements of these missionary parties, but will collect the most reliable facts and particulars of the tragic events in which these parties and the whole country became so deeply involved,—a part of them so strongly implicated.

That the massacre was expected to take place in a short time, and that all the Americans at the station, and all in any way connected with, or favoring, the Protestant missions and American settlements in the country, were to be included in the ultimate overthrow of those upper, or middle Oregon missions, there can be no doubt; as shown in the quotations we have given from our English Hudson’s Bay Company’s historian and Sir Edward Belcher, and the efforts of the company to colonize the country with English subjects from Red River, instead of encouraging them to come direct from England.

It appears from the dates and accounts we have, that Dr. Whitman was sent for to visit Five Crow’s lodge on the Umatilla, not far from the house to be occupied by the bishop and his priests; that Mr. Spalding accompanied the doctor to visit some of the Protestant Indians in that vicinity; that the same day (the 27th of November), the bishop and his priests started from Wallawalla to go to their station and occupy the house of Young Chief. They arrived at their places and learned that Dr. Whitman and Mr. Spalding were in the neighborhood. On the next day, Sunday, 28th, Dr. Whitman made a short call on them, and hastened home to attend on the sick about his place. While at the lodge of a French half-breed named Nicholas Finlay, the Indians were holding a council, to decide and arrange the preliminaries of the massacre, with Joe Lewis, a Canadian-Indian, and Joe Stanfield, a Frenchman. Of this last-named man, Mr. Brouillet says: “As to Joseph Stanfield, I admit that he was born and has been educated a Catholic.” He lays great stress on the fact that this fellow had been tried and acquitted. He says: “Why should we pretend now to be more enlightened and wiser than the tribunals have been, and judge him more severely than they have done.”

Dr. Whitman arrived at his station about twelve o’clock at night, attended upon the sick, and retired. That night an Indian had died. In the morning, the Doctor, as usual, had a coffin and a winding-sheet prepared, and assisted the friends in burying their dead. He observed, on returning to the house, that but two or three attended at the grave. As he returned, great numbers of Indians were seen gathering about the station; but an ox had been killed, and was being dressed, which was supposed to be the cause, as the Indians on such occasions always collected in great numbers, and often from a distance.