University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
  
  
  
  
  

 I. 
 II. 
 III. 
 IV. 
 V. 
 VI. 
 VII. 
 VIII. 
 IX. 
 X. 
 XI. 
 XII. 
 XIII. 
 XIV. 
 XV. 
 XVI. 
 XVII. 
 XVIII. 
 XIX. 
 XX. 
 XXI. 
 XXII. 
 XXIII. 
 XXIV. 
 XXV. 
 XXVI. 
 XXVII. 
 XXVIII. 
 XXIX. 
 XXX. 
 XXXI. 
 XXXII. 
 XXXIII. 
 XXXIV. 
 XXXV. 
 XXXVI. 
 XXXVII. 
 XXXVIII. 
 XXXIX. 
 XL. 
 XLI. 
 XLII. 
 XLIII. 
 XLIV. 
 XLV. 
 XLVI. 
CHAPTER XLVI

  
expand section 

370

Page 370

CHAPTER XLVI

ADMINISTRATION OF FRANCIS FAUQUIER

When Dinwiddie's administration terminated, the Earl of
Loudon nominally succeeded him, but John Blair, the President
of the Council, really filled the lieutenant-governor's seat
during the interval that preceded the arrival of Francis
Fauquier.

After the duties of the office had been taken up by the
latter, the raids of the French and Indians were renewed with
a ferocity that led to the destruction of many lives on the
frontiers. Two regiments were now ready to march—one
under the command of Colonel Washington; the other, under
the command of Colonel William Byrd. The supreme command,
however, was possessed by General Forbes, who had
been entrusted with the defense of the middle and southern
colonies. An expedition was now organized for the capture
of Fort Duquesne. By June, 1758, the regiment that was
under Washington's orders had reached Fort Cumberland. In
opposition to his advice, Forbes decided—through the influence
of the Pennsylvanians, who desired a second road to
the West—not to pursue the one still in existence that had
been opened up by Braddock and his army, but to cut a new
highway through the forests by a different route. This determination
necessarily entailed delay in the advance of the main
body of his troops.

Again in the teeth of Washington's advice, Forbes sent a
detachment of eight hundred men, under Major Grant, ahead
of the principal column, to attack the garrison in occupation
or Fort Duquesne. This detachment was overtaken by the
same fatality as Braddock's army—it fell into a similar


371

Page 371
ambush; its commander was captured; and two hundred and
seventy-three of his soldiers were slain. Of the eight Virginian
officers present, five lost their lives; and it was due to
the bravery of a Virginian company alone that the baggage
was prevented from falling into the enemy's hands.

When the report of this catastrophe was brought to the
main column, Washington at once advanced at the head of
seven thousand men; but two months were consumed in the
slow march to the Ohio River; and that stream was also
reached at a point that lay fifty miles from the fort. Owing
to the fatigue of the long journey and the approach of winter,
it was somewhat ingloriously decided by a council of war to

abandon the expedition for that season. At this moment,
information was received through scouts that the garrison at
Fort Duquesne had been reduced to five hundred men, and that
their Indian allies had returned to their towns. The advance
of the troops was resumed, and when they arrived in sight of
the stronghold—the attempted capture of which had already
cost so much blood—the structure was found to be vacant
and on fire. The Frenchmen had retreated down the Ohio.
This was in September (1758). The fortification was soon
repaired and renamed Fort Pitt. Not long afterwards, General
Forbes died in Philadelphia.

Washington returned with his forces to Winchester, and
taking up his residence again at Mt. Vernon, accepted an
election to the General Assembly. That body, soon after
convening, passed a resolution of thanks for his recent military
services. In responding, Washington could only falter
out his gratitude for the honor. "Sit down, Mr. Washington,"
said the speaker noticing his confusion. "Sit down. Your


372

Page 372
modesty equals your valour, and that surpasses the power of
any language I possess."

Washington had recently married the widow of John
Parke Custis, who was the daughter of John Dandridge, a
lady destined to become, with the possible exception of Pocahontas,
the most famous woman in American history.

In 1755, there was a failure of the tobacco crop. This fell
heavily on the Colony, as the debts incurred during the French
and Indian war were now pressing for payment. To afford
some relief, the General Assembly passed a law that all debts
payable in tobacco should thereafter be settled either in
tobacco or in money, at the rate of eight shillings and eightpence
the one hundred pounds. This law was reenacted in
1758—with the further provision that it was to continue on
the statute book one year longer. The clergy alone resisted
its requirements. Up to 1754, they had received as their
annual salary sixteen thousand pounds of tobacco. During
this long interval, the price of this commodity had been high,
and they had offered no objection to that amount.

Whenever the King approved an act of Assembly, this act
could not be repealed unless a clause was inserted in the
repealing act to the effect that the act repealed was simply
suspended until the King should have an opportunity to pass
upon this suspension. As the act of 1758, already referred
to, was a repealing act, it required that the rule just mentioned
should be followed, but it was not so followed, and
the clergy, therefore, claimed that, through this failure, that
act was invalid.

Rev. John Camm, of York Hampton Parish, took up the
cudgels for his fellows. He was sent to England by them, and
was successful in obtaining an order of Council declaring the
act of 1758 illegal; and returning home with the document in
his pocket he brought suit for the market value of the tobacco
which had been assigned to him as his salary. He lost in
both the County and the General Court. Appealing to the
King and Privy Council, his petition was dismissed on a


373

Page 373
technicality, but, in reality, because the Colony was in a state
of great excitement over the recent repeal of the unpopular
Stamp Act. Other ministers of the Gospel, however, had
followed Camm's example and sued for their salaries. The
most famous of these suits was the Parson's Cause, the
argument in which by Patrick Henry sounded the first note
from the firebell of the Revolution.



No Page Number