562 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Introductory Note
For some months there has been in
contemplation by inter-
ested parties a series of publications
entitled Ohio Historical Col-
lections. It was first thought that the monographs of this
series,
should be limited to political history.
Upon mature deliberation,
however, it was decided to adopt a title
more comprehensive in
scope.
Volumes 1 and 2 of the series are
political history and Vol-
ume 3 will be political and
biographical. The first two originally
appeared in the Ohio Archaeological
and Historical Quarterly.
With slight modifications and
corrections they are now presented
in separate form. A number of the
succeeding monographs will
appear only in this series.
These contributions, almost without
exception, will be the
work of graduate students and professors
in the departments of
American history in universities and
colleges of Ohio and other
states. In manuscript form they will
have the benefit of criticism
and suggestion of specialists in these
educational institutions, be-
fore they are printed in the series.
A Committee on Cooperation appointed
pursuant to the ac-
tion of the Ohio History Conference held
in Columbus, Febru-
ary 7, 1930, met on November 1, 1930, in
the Museum and Li-
brary Building at Columbus, and approved
a plan presented by
the Secretary of the Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical
Society for the immediate publication of
the "first volume of a
regular series of historical collections
relating to the history of
Ohio."
An editorial committee, at the
suggestion of the Secretary,
was appointed, consisting of the
Secretary, Mr. C. B. Galbreath,
Dr. Carl Wittke and Dr. William T.
Utter. The plan proposed
was approved and this study marks Volume
I of the series. It is
hoped that others will follow in regular
order.
WHO KILLED TECUMSEH?
On this moot question, Mr. William M.
Pettit com-
ments as follows:
Since 1813 the controversy has raged
over the question of
"who killed Tecumseh?"
Numerous writers of history, and sol-
diers who were in the battle of the
Thames, have asserted that it
was Cave Johnson, while a contingent
equally as large have as-