SIR WILLIAM JOHNSON

The following lengthy collection is presented that the reader may better be able to judge for himself the relative merits of Sir William Johnson, whom Johnson's biographer, Mr. Stone, highly praises, and George Klock, whom he and others represent as a very bad character.

From Simms' Trappers of New York, we have:-

Sir William Johnson, after establishing himself at his Hall in Johnstown, no doubt lived in greater affluence or more in the style of a European nobleman of that day than any other citizen of New York. His household was quite numerous at all times and not infrequently increased by distinguished quests. He had a secretary named Lafferty, a good lawyer who did his legal business. He had a Bouw-Master, an Irishman named Flood. Bouw is a German word signifying harvest, or, as here used, an overseer or manager of the laboring interest of the Hall farm. From ten to fifteen slaves usually performed the labor on the farm, and they were under the immediate direction of the bouw-master. The slaves, some of whom had families, lived across the Cayadutta creek from the Hall in small dwellings erected for them. They dressed much as did their Indian neighbours, except that a kind of coat was made of their blankets by the Hall tailor.

''He had a family physician named Daly, who practiced but little out of his own household. Doctor Daly was a very companionable man, and often accompanied Sir William in his pleasure excursions. He had a musician, a dwarf some thirty years old, who answered to the name of Billy. He played a violin well and was always on hand to entertain guests. He had a gardener, who cultivated a large garden and kept that and the grounds about the Hall as neat as a pin. He had a butler named Frank, an active young German, who was with him a number of years, and who made himself very useful to his master. Frank remained about the Hall until the Revolution began, when he went to Albany county. He had a waiter named Pontioch, a sprightly, well disposed lad of mixed blood, Negro and Indian, who was generally with him when from home. He had a pair of white, dwarfish looking waiters, who catered to his own and his guests' comfort; their surname was Bartholomew, and they are believed to have been brothers.

"The secretary, physician, bouwmaster and all the waiters remained after the death of Sir William with his son, Sir John Johnson, until the Revolution began, and then followed his fortunes to Canada. The Baronet had also his own mechanics. His blacksmith, and his tailor had each a shop just across the road from the Hall. They did very little work for any one out of the royal household. Sir William was a large, good-looking and full-favored man. "Laugh and grow fat" is a maxim of which his neighbors were reminded when they beheld this fun-loving man. He was well read for the times and uncommonly well-versed in the study of human nature. Near the Hall he erected two detached wings of stone, the west one used by his attorney Lafferty as an office, and the other contained a philosophical apparatus, of which he died possessed. The room in which the apparatus was kept was called his own private study. On seeing him enter it, Pontioch would say -"Now massa gone into his study to tink ob somesin me know not what.*

"He had six children at that time by his handsome brown housekeeper, Molly Brant.

"Traversing the forest in the French war from Ticonderoga to Fort Johnson, his then residence, no doubt first made Sir William Johnson familiar with the country adjoining the Sacandaga river; and soon after the close of that war he erected a lodge for his convenience, while hunting and fishing, on the south side of the river, nearly eighteen miles distant frpm his own dwelling. The lodge was ever after called The Fish House. (Now Northampton)

"Sir William Johnson was no doubt Induced to locate in Johnstown, partly on account of the greater facilities it would afford him for hunting and fishing about the Sacandaga river, over a residence in the Mohawk Valley, and partly to obtain more favorable grounds to accomodate the numerous Indians, who at times came to receive presents from the royal bounty. North of the hall was a forest, in which these visitors were occasionally encamped In great numbers.

"Opposite Cranberry Point the water in Vlaie creek is said to be very deep. One of the interesting features about the Vlaie is the fact that a little knoll or table of hard land elevated some ten or twelve feet extends into it toward the upper or western end. The tongue of land is called Summer House point, from the fact that Sir William Johnson erected a beautiful cottage in the center of it in 1772 and there spent much of his time in the summer for several seasons.

"Near the mouth of Hauss creek and about half way from Summer House point to Fish House (they were four miles apart), dwelt before the Revolution the family of Henry Wormwood. He had three daughters and two sons. The oldest daughter, whose name is now forgotten, married and went to Schoharie; the other two, Susannah and Elizabeth, lived at home; Susannah, the oldest of the two, was a beautiful girl, of middling stature, charmingly formed, with a complexion fair as a water lily - contrasting with which she had a melting dark eye and raven hair. Elizabeth much resembled her sister but was not quite so fair. An Irishman named Robert or Alexander Dunbar, a good looking fellow, paid his addresses to Susannah, and soon after married her. The match, in some manner brought about by the Baronet, was an unhappy one, and they soon after parted. She, however, retained as her stock in trade a Dunbar. What became of Dunbar is unknown.

"Sir William was on very intimate terms with both the Wormwood girls but the most so with Susannah, after she became a grass widow - at which time she was about twenty years old. Those girls were often at the cottage on the point, and not unfrequently at the fish house. As the latter place was not furnished, when Sir William went down there, intending to stay overnight, he took down a bed from the point, which 'as the evening shades prevailed'; was made up on the floor. In passing Wormwood's dwelling, some half a mile distant from his boat at the nearest point, if he desired an agreeable companion for the night, he discharged his double barreled gun, and the two shots in quick succession was a signal that never failed to bring him a temporary housekeeper. Susannah was his favorite, and so pleased was she with his attentions that she often arrived on foot at the Fish House before he did, especially if he lingered to fish on the way."

Mr. Stone says:- It is believed that he married young, probably about 1740 - certainly in the earlier years of his residence in the Mohawk country - and the object of his choice is supposed to have been a young German woman by the name of Catherine Wisenberg, a plain country girl of no social position but gifted with good sound sense and a mild and gentle disposition."

Now here is Simms' account of this "marriage" (Vol. I, page 203 Frontiersman) "Johnson had not been long in the valley when his friend Lewis Groat residing across the river, familiarly asked him why he did not get married. He replied that he wanted to marry a girl in Ireland, but his parents broke up the match, and that as he could not marry the girl of his choice he had resolved never to marry, a resolution he kept for some time notwithstanding his libidinous habits, which the customs and morals of the time greatly favored. Near the two canal locks below Port Jackson (South Amsterdam) and a mile or two from Johnson's residence, two brothers - Alexander and Hamilton Phillips had previously located; and living with them in capacity of a servant girl was Catherine Wesenberg, a German girl, said however to have been born in Madagascar, who on arriving at New York was sold into servitude to pay her passage. She was an uncommonly fair and wholesome-looking maid. Groat, knowing his friend's determination not to marry, asked him why he did not go and get that pretty High Dutch girl for a housekeeper? He replied, I will do it! and they parted."

Not long after this Interview, Groat was at Phillip's on business and not seeing her, inquired of one of the brothers where that High Dutch girl was? Said Phillips, Johnson, that d--d Irishman, came the other day and offered me five pounds for her, threatening to horse whip me and steal her if I would not sell her. I thought five pounds better than a flogging and took it and he's got the girl." Johnson obtained the girl in the precise manner he had assured his friend he would use. The German girl was the mother of Sir John Johnson and the wives of Col. Guy Johnson - a nephew of Sir William and Daniel Claus. (page 205) ''Sir William was never married to her until on her death bed and then he did it only with a view to legitimize his children by her. *

Lossing in his Field Book of the Revolution (Vol. II, p. 287) tells us that: ''Sir William is said to have been the father of a hundred children, chiefly by native mothers, who were young squaws, or the wives of Indians who thought it an honor to have them intimate with the distinguished king's agent. He availed himself of a custom which Colden says was then prevalent among the Six Nations. They carried their hospitality so far as to allow distinguished strangers' he says, 'the choice of a young squaw from among the prettiest in the neighborhood, washed clean and dressed in her best apparel, as a companion during his sojourn with them.' Sir William had two wives, although they were not made so until they had lived long with the baronet." Let us now examine some of Johnson's own letters. As to the traffic in scalps the following letter written in May 7, 1747 to Gov. Clinton has these passages:

"We shall soon have abundance of prisoners and scalps, whereupon will require a great deal of money, which they expect will be ready here at their return.

"I have paid the first who came here 60 pounds for the six scalps, brot from Crown Point. * * I would desire one favor of your excellency for the dispatch of business, good of the cause in hand and my greater ease, that an act be passed to prevent selling any kind of liquor to any Indian in the Mohawk country or at Canajoharie.*** It is impossible to do anything with them they being forever drunk. The worst of all is Joseph Clement who sells liquor within 20 yards of my house. ** There is another grand villian George Clock lives by Canajoharie Castle who robs the Indians of all their clothes which they get of me, had several complains of Hendrick Etc of which I wrote him twice, the answer was he gave the bearer I might hang myself." (Colonial Doc. VI, p. 361)

Since Johnson chose to forbid others from rum selling a letter written by himself August 23, 1764 (Johnson Papers, Vol. 4, p. 511) reveals his own practices as follows:

"The Senecas have give up all the land from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie 4 miles in depth on each side of strait. ** the islands some of which is very large they insisted on my acceptance of." - to Cadwalder Colden.

If you believe Sir William was averse to the use of rum in obtaining these deeds turn to the Johnson Manuscripts and read his conference at Niagara and immediately following note the bill of Messrs. Duncan and Phinn of Schenectady
*Rev. W. N. P. Dailey, a present day authority, says extant Ft. Hunter records of Baptism reveal the three children by Catharine Weisenberg were baptized Weisenberg. This, and the fact that no documentary evidence of her marriage to Johnson has been found, contradict both Stone's and Simms' stories of the marriage.

for five barrels of rum (190 gal.) delivered at Niagara. Also the following letter to Colden:

To Colden, Johnson Hall, Oct. 8, 1764:

"I have recommended in a strong light the necessity of allowing the sale of rum. I was obliged to promise it to them when at Niagara and without it they will never be contented, besides that, they can supply themselves with other articles on a much smaller quantity of peltry and will gladly purchase that liquor at any rate wh may enable us to increase the Duty thereon and the ill consequence of that liquor will be guarded against by the steps now to be taken.'

WM. JOHNSON

His real regard for the Indians is probably best revealed in another letter in which he expressed the hope that in a short time they would "go at each others throats'' and thereby relieve him of much expense (of buying scalps) and ridding the country of them.

Regarding a suit with George Klock, on March 2,1763 John Tabor Kempe, Attorney General wrote Sir Wm. Johnson as follows from New York: ''Klock is charged with fraud in making the Indians drunk and then procuring them to sign the Deeds, a copy of which I believe you have. There is no other charge against him but that.'

And again on May 9, 1763:

That you may be the better able to judge what proofs maybe wanting on the part of the crown I have enclosed a copy of a list of papers read in Council on Behalf of George Klock, by which you will see he has collected among other things a good deal of proofs tending to show the Indians were sober when they executed the deeds he is prosecuted for unfairly obtaining. It will lie on us to prove the Indians were drunk when they executed the deeds with equal weight of proof at least, more indeed we ought to have, or the weight of evidence will be equal if not against us. etc.

We ought also by all means to strengthen our proofs with relation to the fraud in the first purchase and the surreptituous survey of Collins, for there I think our proof is weak. *** I should not choose to be drawn to the necessity of making use of Indian testimony if it can be avoided, because they are interested in the Lands *** If we are obliged to make use of any of them, we must prove them to be Christians or they cannot be sworn."

Johnson's notes in anticipation of this suit are found in Vol. IV, page 144 of the Johnson papers. They are very interesting but too lengthy to be herein inserted. That he never proved his charges is sufficient.

With reference to the charge that King Hendrick had complained against George Klock refer to Hendrick speaking in council at Fort George in the city of New York on June 16, 1753, at which Johnson was present, as follows:

"We desire that Jerry Klock here present may have a Licence to purchase the Land we have agreed with him for." When this and other matters were deferred he added "All what we have desired to be done for our Good is not granted which makes our hearts ache very much"- - - -

"By & By you'l expect to see the Nations down which you shall not see, for as soon as we come home we will send up a Belt of Wampum to our Brothers the 5 Nations to acquaint them the Covenant Chain is broken between you & us. So brother you are not to expect to hear of me any more, and Brother we desire to hear no more of you. And we shall no longer acquaint you with any news or affairs as we used to do; and as to Jerry Klock there are people who want to do him some harm but we will not agree to it' - (Colonial Documents, Vol. VI, pages 783-4)

As an example of Johnson's method of curbing opposition we have the following:

On July 24, 1763 there was an alarm at German Flatts. This alarm was subsequent to the renewal of Johnson's attack on George Klock. Whether this land trouble had anything to do with the failure of George Klock's son and Lieut. William Dillenbeck for responding to this false alarm or not we can only conjecture but in their failure to do so Sir Wm. Johnson saw a new opportunity to make an example of his enemies and he sought to establish the principle of heavy fines (see Johnson to Colden Vol. IV, page 229-30 Johnson Manuscripts)

As a sequel to this we have the report of Capt. Jacob Klock August 3, 1763 relating story of abuse and violence inflicted on his four sergeants sent to enforce a fine against George Klock's son, and in a letter from Johnson October 28, 1763 (see Catalogue of Johnson Manuscripts, p. 184) to Sergeant William Laux (Loucks) and John Sootes (Suits) an order to levy on the goods of Lieutenant William Dillenbeck or in default of property to Imprison him in Albany jail to recover a fine of 300 pounds, for avoidance of military service.

Dominie Lappins had led in the charges of fraud against George Klock while William Dillenbeck had supported KLock and thereby been removed as Justice through Johnson's solicitation. Also these two men had control of Dominie Lappins' salary which they accordingly withheld forcing him to fall back on Johnson for support. It therefore appears that these attempted heavy fines were as much or more in retaliation than they were in the interests of the military service and that their failure to report was probably resentment to Johnson rather than avoidance of service.

April 25, 1755 George Klock with his associates, 50 in all, presented a petition for all the land between East* and West Canada Creeks 25 miles in depth from the Mohawk River estimating it as 50,000 acres. (See Johnson Papers, Vol. Ill, p. 289) This license was never granted. Sir William Johnson with his usual alertness having forestalled it; as early as October 12, 1754 he wrote Goldsbrow Banyar concerning both this and the Klock and Nellis patents accusing George Klock of "very villainous intent."

March 28, 1760 Johnson wrote Banyar that "Klock in 1755 obtained a Lycence to purchase lands. He did not proceed, he has now applied to renew his Lycence." (Johnson Papers, Vol. Ill, p. 289)

In this same letter Johnson says "Mr. Colden and myself were concerned in the Lycence of Klock" 'and concludes as follows,''! make it a rule to be concerned where I can because I look upon this to be the principal advantage arising from the office I sustain."

It would appear that herein lay the difficulty that started the long battle between Klock and Johnson. It looks like a reasonable conclusion that Johnson demanded a greater share for his office than Klock was willing to be bullied into giving.

Johnson was well intrenched by his official position and he had in 1748-9 (Stone's Johnson, Vol. 1, p. 327) taken Molly Brant, granddaughter of Indian King Hendrick, as his mistress and had thereby established himself in high position among the Indians of the upper Mohawk Castle, the immediate neighbors and long time friends of George Klock and his people. He therefore broked no impudence or resistance from George Klock but sought to make an example of him by acquiring the whole tract himself and setting himself at work among the tribe soon gained apparent advantage among them. On January 6, 1761 Johnson wrote to Banyar that the Indians had refused to sell to Ury Klock and had unanimously resolved to make him a present of this very tract estimating it 40,000 acres and requesting Banyar to grant him a patent as soon as possible. (Johnson Papers, Vol. Ill, p. 296-7 and footnotes). He later admitted paying the Indians $1200 as soon as the deed of gift was executed.

A letter from Banyar to Johnson dated December 15, 1760 advised Johnson that "All petitions for large tracts are at a stand; the council seems determined to grant no more than 20,006 acres in one patent.''' (Johnson Papers, Vol. Ill, p. 286) Johnson had also laid claim to 100,000 acres of Susquehanna lands under an Indian deed dated 1751 (see Smith's Four Great Rivers, Page LVII.) In this same letter Banyar says: ''I have no Indian deed among my papers that I know of relative to your Susquehanna Purchase.''

On June 5 Johnson wrote Banyar "I am surprised to find so much trifling and little low means used by some people in order to retard my getting a patent for that Tract of Land * * * I am sorry to hear that the gentlemen who are my opponents in this affair have been pleased to say that I have and I am engrossing too much land in these parts. * * * I think I have at least as good a right to purchase and add to what I already have perilously acquired, and maintained In these parts as any man in it. (Vol. in, p. 400)

On June 17 Johnson wrote: "I don't see what it will avail them Gentlemen to contend unless they do it to give me trouble, which I believe will be more their interest to let alone."

In June 1756 Sir Charles Hardy had proposed to his assembly an act for annulling the patents of Kayaderosseros, Canajoharie and Oriskany, on the ground of their having been fraudulently obtained from the Indians and Johnson was universally regarded as their author (see Stone's Life of Johnson, Vol. 2, p. 41) and Johnson's letter to Gov. Shirley of Mass. Dec. 17,1754 confirms this opinion (Johnson Papers, Vol. 1, p. 432).

It is therefore not unlikely that the 'gentlemen' interested in those patents who were in general among the members of the assembly and high officials viz: Cadwallader Colden, Philip Livingston, Gen. Philip Schuyler, etc., were now getting even with Johnson in retaliation for Johnson's charges of fraud in the Ned Collins survey of 1733 of lands around the Canajoharie Castle which George Klock had purchased of the Livingston heirs.

Banyar replied: Nobody can deny that you deserve the favour of the Government even () to others, but is it right that they should break through () rules to give this preference. How much reason then have the Parties interested to expect in you (when you have no) Disposition to compromise a natter, where the Balance of Equity is so clearly against you. For it is denyed flatly, that you or any one else have a right to purchase Lands without Lycense from the Government (or) that there is the least essential difference between a deed of purchase and a deed of gift. Besides if we admit a right in the Indians to give their lands to whom they please, what becomes of the right of the Crown Bounty.

This bitter controversy continued to February 1767 when, after he had been visited by Sir Adam Gordon and had offered bribes in the form of shares in the land to Governor Sir Henry Moore and General Gage, the board of trade reported favorably and the king granted the land to Sir William Johnson by royal letters patent which passed the Royal Seal in June 1769. (Stone's Life of Johnson, Vol. II, p. 325-6) The grant however was for much less land than originally applied for. A map of part of these lands willed by Johnson to his Indian children accounts for but 15,000 acres (Benton's History of Herkimer County, Page 204). For complete copy of the will dated January 27, 1744 see Stone's Life of Johnson, p. 490.

But

'The boast of heraldry, the pomp of pow'r,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Await alike the inevitable hour:
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.'

Gray's Elegy in a Country Churchyard.

Only four months later, September 4, 1769, Sir Henry Moore died, followed five years later, July 11, 1774, by Sir William Johnson.

George Klock bought no scalps, lived normally with his married wife, was never accused of fathering Indian children nor of uttering retaliatory remarks against Johnson. His frame house which he built in 1760 still stands near busy route 5, unmarked and unnoticed.

Col. Jacob Klock and the vigilance committee secured the promise of the neutrality of the Indians which was nullified by the Johnsons and Brant. Having survived Oriskany's bloody encounter he accepted that fallen hero's mantle and tragically held his ground through the seven terrible years that followed. When he died in 1798 at a great age he was supporting not only his own widow but the widows of his son Jacob and his grandson Jacob, also two young daughters of his deceased son Jacob. His only surviving son, Adam, in disrepute and scorn with his neighbours moved away and the Colonel's home which had been the real Fort Klock of the Revolution was confused by subsequent historians with his brother Johannes' stone house and his personal history was also confused and merged into that of his nephew Jacob G. KLock whose name they inscribed on the Oriskany monument prefixed with the title Colonel and the real Colonel's name omitted.

No tombstone marks the grave of any of these heroes. No public effort has ever been made to rescue their deeds from oblivion or even to refer to them other than to quote Johnson's diatribes against them in building a ficticious character of church builder and prohibitionist for this ambitious, scalp buying, land grabbing, rum dispensing libertine whose three mansions at Ft. Johnson, Johnstown and Amsterdam are elaborately maintained as museums at public expense.

Sir William is greatly praised for his influence over the Indians, an influence that had its stronghold in his licentious practices among them. He and his family and his historians attacked George Klock, and their intrigues and charges have been handed down to posterity unchallenged and unanswered. The KLock, Snell, Nellis, Timmerman and other families in this vicinity were completely wrecked by the war. Their loss paid much of the price of American freedom, neglect of even their memory has been the reward.

Hugh Hastings, state historian under date of November 5, 1900, in the preface to Vol. IV of the Clinton Papers thus expresses himself: 'While the grand operations of the war, during the period involved in this volume (Sept. 1778 to June 1779) were conducted in other parts of the country, New York occupied a strategic position of great importance and was forced to endure a number of Indian atrocities along her unprotected frontiers, that stand without a parallel in the history of the war. Many of the details now appear for the first time in print and are so largely at variance with generally accepted statements that have stood unchallenged for one hundred years and more that the historians in the future will be compelled in the interest of accuracy and trust to revise and remodel all of the standard histories so far as those histories touch upon the border wars of New York state."

The reader can now form his own opinion.