Ohio History Journal

OLD FORT SANDOSKI OF 1745.

G. FREDERICK WRIGHT,

President Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society.

Mr. Charles A. Hanna's criticism of the inscription on the

tablets placed on the site of Old Fort Sandusky and of the ad-

dresses made at the unveiling of these tablets, are too serious

to be permitted to pass without correction.

First-Mr. Hanna's loose habit of observation (?) may be

inferred from his first statement that the bronze tablet on the

West Face was "erected under the direction of the Ohio State

Historical Society," quoting the inscription in full, all but the

concluding sentence which Mr. Hanna fails to quote, but which

reads, "Erected by the Ohio Society Colonial Dames of

America." The inscription is correct in every detail.

Second-His carelessness in observing the facts in the case

appears in his next statement that, "The first and only Fort

erected near this spot or on the north shore of Sandusky Bay

was built by the French in the winter of 1750 and 1751, as

stated-in De Lery's Journal of 1754," and that "The British

never built a Fort on the north side of Sandusky Bay."

What De Lery really wrote in his diary August ₄th, 1754,

(See Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, Vol. 17,

page 377), was, "I did not know where the portage was. I

imagine that some vestiges still remain of the Fort the French

(sic) had built in 1751, and which was afterwards evacuated. To

find it, I followed the shore on the north side of said lake which

runs east and west, after proceeding about three leagues, I

found a clearing where I landed at noon and discovered the

ruins of the old Fort."

There is here no denial of the previous occupation of the

Fort by the English.

The tablet further reads, "Rebuilt by British in 1750 and

usurped by the French in 1751." The authority for this is found

(371)

Old Fort Sandoski of 1745 and The Sandusky Forts. 373

in Mitchell's map published in 1755 which locates the Fort at

the point where the tablet is erected, and adds, "Usurped by the

French in 1751." Who, but the British, does Mr. Hanna sup-

pose, was in possession of this place, in 1751, when the French

"usurped" it? With reference to the authority of Mitchell's

map, it is sufficient to say that its correctness was certified to

by John Pownall, Secretary of the Board of Trade of Virginia,

July 1st, 1755, and that it is the map used by Commissioners of

the United States and Great Britain in the Treaty of Peace

in 1783.

Third-The next mistake of Mr. Hanna is his statement

that "The first British Sandusky Fort was built on the south side

of the Bay by a company of British soldiers and artisans under

command of Lieutenant Elias Meyer, in 1761."    This shows

both Mr. Hanna's ignorance of the locality of which he is wri-

ting, and his lack of close attention to the authorities which he

quotes. If he had noted carefully the statement in DeLery's

Journal, printed in Vol. 17, page 357, he would have learned

that during high water, the Portage across the neck of the

Marblehead Peninsula, was under water much of the time, thus

making an island "almost in the middle of the little Lake San-

dusky." DeLery's first notes were made on his westward

journey on August ₄th, 1754. On his return from Detroit about

the middle of March, 1755, he writes, after crossing the River

Portage, "I went on to Lake Sandoske to see whether we could

cross it either in a canoe or on the ice. I arrived there at half-

past six o'clock, after walking continually in the water of which

the Portage is full at that season. I found the lake clear of ice."

This was the place "almost in the middle of the little Lake San-

dusky," where Lieutenant Elias Meyer writes that, "The block-

houses and palisades were finished Nov. 29, 1761," and where

the men under Ensign Pauli were massacred by Pontiac's

minions May 18, 1763, in the British Fort Sandoski on the north

side of Lac Sanduski, which now is marked by enduring bronze

tablets.

Fourth-Mr. Hanna's statement that, "The White River"

from which the five French traders were returning when they

were massacred by Nicholas in the spring of 1747, was the Cuya-

Old Fort Sandoski of 1745 and The Sandusky Forts. 375

hoga River is a mere assertion without any foundation in fact.

Neither Colonel Whittlesey, Mr. A. T. Goodman nor Judge Bald-

win, long officers of the Western Reserve Historical Society at

Cleveland, on the Cuyahoga River, and all extremely anxious to

prove the importance of their own locality, ever thought of

claiming the Cuyahoga River for the White River.

From the foregoing, it appears that Mr. Hanna's criticism

betrays such carelessness in the use of data which were plainly

before his eyes that no confidence can be placed in his general

statements when unsupported by definite references and that,

when definite references are made, it is not likely that he has

considered them carefully enough to give them proper interpre-

tation.

The experiences of Secretary Randall in his "History of

Ohio," in dealing with the sophistries of Mr. Hanna in trying

to prove that LaSalle did not discover the Ohio, brings out Mr.

Hanna's defects of historical judgment. Reviewing Hanna's

argument in the case of LaSalle, Randall says, "they are mainly

negative and leave LaSalle's claim still unrefuted with the pre-

ponderance of evidence decidedly in his favor, and the judgment

of Parkman still unreversed that LaSalle discovered the Ohio."

A critic who can in a nonchalant manner dismiss the con-

clusions of Parkman, discredit the conversations published by

Margry, doubt the correctness of LaSalle's "Memorial to Fron-

tenac," think that Joliet's map was a species of forgery, and

that the opinion of Whittlesey, Goodman and Baldwin of the

Western Reserve Historical Society, are of no value in the

history of the regions to which they each give their close atten-

tion, is not one whose opinions are to be taken without investiga-

tion.

STATEMENT BY THE EDITOR OF THE QUARTERLY.

The Editor is responsible for the publication, without cor-

rection, or comment, in the last QUARTERLY of the article

by Charles A. Hanna making severe reflection on the Presi-

dent and Trustees of the Ohio State Archaeological and His-