News

Comic Relief

Comic Relief

     Hugh Henry Brackenridge's satiric novel, Modern Chivalry, initially appeared in a 1792 version, but the lighter side of Ohio Country's tragic history is also found in the following recent communications:

From: William Campbell
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: Crohan's 1749 purchase

Jim,
I don't suppose you have a rough idea of Croghan's personal finances up until 1763?  

WC


On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Jim Greenwood <green605@comcast.net> wrote:

WC,
 
    Quite good.  There was his L200 pound yearly salary, which did not cover his expenses, and as you know he could not profit from his position through business dealings, in which as in all the previous reverses his investments in trade were wiped out by Pontiac's Rebellion.  Obviously from his warnings, he anticipated  it, remembered the earlier disasters on the frontier and provided for his trip to London and on his return bought and luxuriously appointed Monkton Hall.
  Still making corrections to the marker text.  If you look at Critical Comments on ohiocoutry you will see the responses of Calloway, Richard Aquila, and Pittsburgh Ph.D.s who replied at some length to the previous version of the text:
 
 

Pittsburgh's Founding Father

George Croghan (circa 1718-1782)
     An Irish immigrant and Pennsylvania fur trader in 1741, Croghan nearly engrossed Fort Detroit trade, fomented an Indian rebellion, and joined William Johnson on the Onondaga Council during King George's War.  He organized and led the Ohio Confederation at Logstown that Pennsylvania recognized as independent of the Six Nations, appointing Croghan colonial agent.  A few days before Celeron's 1749 expedition reached Logstown, Croghan purchased 200,000 acres from the Iroquois, later learning that his deeds would be void if in Pennsylvania.
     Late in 1750 Croghan guided Virginia's Ohio Company scout Christopher Gist and arranged its Logstown treaty in 1752 after sabotaging Pennsylvania plans for a fort at the Forks of the Ohio. Virginia's fort was commanded by Croghan's business partner William Trent and surrendered by half-brother Edward Ward.  As a captain in charge of Indians under Col. Washington then under Gen. Braddock, Croghan could do little to capture Fort Duquesne, but as William Johnson's Deputy Indian Agent in 1758 he hurried from negotiating the Easton Treaties to his Indian scouts at the head of Gen. Forbes' column for its fall.  He worked with Col. Bouquet and built the first Croghan Hall, burnt during Pontiac's Rebellion.  Croghan brought Pontiac to Detroit in 1765 and except for the Shawnees during Dunmore's War kept the Ohio tribes pacified thereafter.
     Pittsburgh's president judge, Committee of Safety of Chairman, and the person keeping the Ohio tribes neutral was declared a traitor in 1777 by General Hand, who prevented Croghan's return when cleared in a 1778 Philadelphia trial.  The frontier lost its shield and Vandalia, the fourteenth colony with Pittsburgh as capital and Croghan its largest land owner and Indian agent.
     Schenley Park is part of his 1749 Indian purchase.  The park, Carnegie Mellon campus, and the Point's Blockhouse became the property of James O'Hara and later donations by granddaughter Mary Croghan Schenley, whose paternal grandfather William Croghan emigrated from Ireland at sixteen into George Croghan's care.
 
 
 
Katie Molnar of the Historic Preservations felt there was no interpretation in the previous version, so I added Pittsburgh's Founding Father, which I know you disagree with.   As Patrick Moynahan is credited with saying, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.  I also say that there were two  results of Croghan not being allowed to return to his home, business, and frontier influence, the region lost its shield and Vandalia, but the biggest loss was a truthful Western Pennsylvania history.

    Colin Calloway deferred to you, as the Croghan expert.  Is the text factual and the interpretation backed by evidence?  The Critical Comments page of ohiocountry.us will record the your answer.
 
Best wishes,
Jim
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: Crohan's 1749 purchase

Dear Jim,
I will have time to get the marker text next week, at the earliest. Are you on a deadline?
In the meantime, I will have to ask you kindly, but sternly, to remove my email communications from your webpage. At no time have you asked to post/publish our communication exchanges, nor was I under the impression you intended to do so. Please remove the noted material by the end of week.  Just so we are clear, you do not have permission to reproduce, print, or publish these "informal" discussions.  If you would like an official statement, please refer to my publications or, at least, let me know if you intend to quote me.  I will be happy to continue with our correspondence about Croghan, but before doing so, this matter requires immediate attention.
best,
WC   

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Jim Greenwood <green605@comcast.net> wrote:
Dear William,
 
   I am in shock.  The story of Croghan's story takes another turn.  What is this about? 
 
Jim
 
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: Crohan's 1749 purchase
Dear Jim,

I didn't mean to shock you, and it's not about Croghan.  It's just professional courtesy to let someone know if you intend quote them.  I am still new at this, and assumed our email exchanges were not destine for your webpage or any other medium for that matter.  Asking me to contribute to your project and webpage is one thing, but taking the liberty to post my comments without informing me is another. So please, I am respectfully asking you to take down my emails so we can move forward with all-things-Croghan.
WC



On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Jim Greenwood <green605@comcast.net> wrote:
Dear William,
 
    I'm still trying to understand why you don't want the critical comments you made about my histories and my responses posted.   All things Croghan is an interest of yours, not mine.  How taking down your critique of my work moves anything forward is a mystery.  Croghan was suppressed, his story continues to be suppressed, and your wanting to delete what you have e-mailed me seems like more of the same.  As an historian, I will  need a very good reason to remove from the website what the acknowledged Croghan expert has said about my work.  We both know that all e-mail messages are being recorded for historical purposes.  That is my purpose as well.  Why isn't it yours?
 
Jim
 

From: William Campbell
Sent:
Thursday, September 02, 2010 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Crohan's 1749 purchase
Jim,

As mentioned, I would be happy to provide commentary on your work - a professional critique that includes much of what I have already said in the emails, but written knowing it is intended for a public forum. Had I known you intended to post the emails on the webpage, I would have, at the very least, had an opportunity to refine some of the narrative, not to mention correct some grammatical errors, before sending my reply.  It doesn't bother me if you keep records of the email exchanges we have (I do the same), but what does is your willingness to publish/post my comments without even asking, let alone with my consent.  
So, professional courtesy is my "reason" and whether you accept that as "a very good reason" has nothing to do with the below mentioned points.
WC

From: Jim Greenwood Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 12:31 PM To: William Campbell Subject: Re: Croghan's 1749 puchase

Dear William,
    and I am sincere, I consider you a friend.  I am sorry that you are hurt by my necessity to record the story of Croghan's story.  Future historians interested in Croghan and Western Pennsylvania history are not likely to find employment and may find it interesting, otherwise who will take time to read our remarks?  I think our e-mails are entirely about Croghan and my effort to get his story told in a public place.  If there is anything you regard as personal, I will strike it, correct mistakes, refine and otherwise edit your remarks.  You are the only person who says he read the histories on the website, what are the odds of anyone reading the Critical Comments? 
 
Best wishes,
Jim
 

From: Brown, Morton

Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 11:00 AM

To: Jim Greenwood

Subject: Croghan Marker

 

Dear Mr. Greenwood,

 

I am writing today in response to your queries regarding your potential proposal for an historic marker signifying George Croghan.

 

I have met with the Directors of Public Works, City Planning, and Parks and Recreation and we agree on the following:

 

We would prefer that you utilize the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission marker program and once completed, propose a standard PHMC sign marker for an appropriate location—either on City property or private property—that connects to the content of the marker. In this way, the City would feel most comfortable as the Commonwealth, in its PHMC marker program, has a specific program in place to formally vet the historical significance and accuracy of the assertions made within the content of the marker. The City has no such formal program nor does it have a specific policy or process in which it can appropriately measure or vet these issues, therefore, it is preferred that you would utilize the PHMC program for this purpose.

 

I did present you with this option early on in our discussions and at the time, you stated that the PHMC marker program was defunct due to state budget cuts. I have spoken recently to our local PHMC contact and have confirmed that while it is true that the PHMC marker program does not offer partial funding for its signs, the marker program—the review and approval of content and the markers themselves—still exists and is functioning. The only caveat is that you would bear the full cost of the sign, which I understand is approximately $1,000.00 (or less). I would strongly assert that the stone marker that you were in favor of would cost very near or more than this amount, once designed, created and installed to a quality befitting Art Commission standards. If you choose to go this route, we would still need to vet the placement of the PHMC marker through Public Works Director, Art Commission, Parks Director, and the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy but at least in concept this option is strongly preferred by all that have been consulted on this issue thus far.

 

If you are dissatisfied with this option, and are determined to move forward with the stone marker, you may submit your proposal to the Art Commission for review. As required by the Art Commission application, you will need to secure letters of support/preliminary approval from the Directors of Public Works and Parks and Recreation. In this case, since I believe you wish to propose the piece for Schenley Plaza/Schenley Park area, you will also need a letter of support from the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy as they are in partnership as park steward with the City of Pittsburgh for that location. As I stated early in our discussions, the largest hurdle you will have absent the PHMC process, is to provide clear evidence that the assertions made within the proposed content or text of the marker is fully vetted and validated by a recognized entity or entities. Since the City has no formal process to validate historical references such as this, the onus would be upon the applicant to provide validation from an external source such as the Heinz History Center, PHMC, Pittsburgh History and Landmarks, etc.

 

The Art Commission application and hearing schedule is located here: http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/cp/html/art_commission.html. Applications are due 2 weeks prior to each scheduled hearing. The application is self explanatory, but please note its requirements for both conceptual and final review. The requirement for final review consists of full construction drawings as well as clear indication of materials to be used, grading/footer plan if applicable, site plan, budget, maintenance plan, rationale as to the choice of location, etc.  If you chose to go through the Art Commission process, I would suggest that you submit for conceptual review first. In this way, you could present photos of the existing markers you have created in other areas, the content of the marker proposed, as well as a simple site plan, material selection, maintenance and so forth and gain feedback and/or initial approval or denial BEFORE you potentially expend monies on construction drawings. We have this process in place out of respect to the applicant, so that we can avoid a situation where one is forced to “go back to the drawing board” and pay a designer, architect, or engineer to remake plans.

 

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

 

Thank you

 

Morton Brown

Public Art Manager
Department of City Planning
200 Ross Street, 4th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

 

morton.brown@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

office: 412.255.8996

cell: 412.901.1546

fax: 412.255.2838


From: Jim Greenwood [mailto:green605@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:15 PM
To: Brown, Morton
Subject: Re: Croghan Marker

 

Dear Mr. Brown,

   Thank you for your reply.  Yes or no would have been preferred, but as things remain open, two pieces of granite for the historical marker have been ordered, the black granite will have an engraving of Croghan's 200,000 acre purchase in 1749 over a satellite image of our area.  Pittsburgh's Founding Father was interpretation asked for by the City historian at the time, but it will remain true forever, whereas the current version of our history featuring George Washington is wrong  It's a hard choice; on one side is tradition, inertia, and willful ignorance; on the other, honoring Pittsburgh's Founding Father with an historical marker.  Greater Monessen Historical Society is sponsoring the marker, I've asked for Lawrenceville Historical Society's support, and D.A.R. Regent Laura Smith found the Jan. 20 presentation for them informative.  You were right that Point Park is a more appropriate place for the marker.  The D.A.R. related Fort Pitt Society oversees the Block House and will be asked to permit the Croghan marker on the grounds.  PHMC found my text and narrative confusing, but could not be more specific.  A Pennsylvania official declined the offer for Point Park because of the potential for too many signs.  The City's historian vetted the marker's text, asked for and approved additional interpretation knowing all that.  If you would be kind enough to relay her assessment to Pittsburgh D.A.R., they well might provide the most appropriate site.

 

Best wishes,

Jim Greenwood 





  Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:41 AM To: Jim Greenwood Subject: RE: Croghan Marker

Mr. Greenwood,

 

There is no “City Historian”. If you are referring to the Historic Preservation Planner, Katie Molnar, she no longer works with the City. She resigned her position in the fall of last year, but to my knowledge, never “approved” anything regarding the marker. If you have any correspondence from her to the contrary, please forward to me for my review.

 

For my part I this, I would not forward anything to Pittsburgh D.A.R. in any case, as in my opinion the validity and accuracy of your marker text has received questionable status from all entities that you have presented to—by your own account. This is the crux of the problem that the City has with this proposal. We need vetting from experts in the field outside of City staff in order to consider the marker for City property.

 

The City does not prefer to simply deny your request outright, but would rather offer alternatives to you such as the PHMC marker program. In this way, if a constituent such as yourself does have legitimate claims regarding an historical narrative, the City could accommodate the request in a reasonable and appropriate manner.

 

I appreciate your thoughts on seeking appropriate locations in Point State Park. However, in my previous conversations with you and others on the subject it appeared that the Park has an existing signage program and a policy against any new types of signs or markers. I would go on record at this time as stating that the City has not and will not request that you pursue this course of action as it is not within our purview to do so. Any actions you undertake in that regard are your own, and should not be considered the direction of the City.

 

When you and I spoke of this before, I advised you to speak to the Ft. Pitt Museum and see if they were willing to discuss existing interpretive panels within the museum in order to perhaps include additional language that you had presented. In my opinion, the Museum is the most logical venue to display language of George Croghan as it is a known destination point for persons seeking historical knowledge of the area. I believed that this would have a greater effect than placing a stone slab in Schenley ever would, simply because persons entering a park are there to recreate while persons entering the museum are there to learn. Again, this is just my personal opinion which should not be taken as a mandate from the City.

 

I hope the above clarifies the issue at hand. Please let me know if you intend to pursue any option under my purview. If you do not, I wish you well on your project and future endeavors.

 

Sincerely, 

Morton Brown

Public Art Manager
Department of City Planning
200 Ross Street, 4th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

morton.brown@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

office: 412.255.8996

cell: 412.901.1546

fax: 412.255.2838

From: Jim Greenwood Sent: Monday, February 2, 2011 5:19 PM To: Morton Brown Subject: RE: Croghan Marker

Mr. Brown,

      Since you speak for the City, should the marker for Pittsburgh's Founding Father be sited elsewhere, your name will be engraved in granite as the reason why.

       Note in Katie Holmes' last e-mail  to me September 16, 2010 her thanks for my historical work on Croghan:

   Dear Jim,   I did not write you back because I know that you have been in correspondence with Morton Brown, who has been helping you understand the city processes and various hurdles we have here at City Planning.  Though it may seem like a straightforward project to you, there are many "approvals" that must be sought before a project like this may be entertained.  Through the course of any reviews that occur, the City will decide whether or not it wants to accept your donation.   Please know that I have accepted another position, and will be leaving the City at the end of this week.  Your future correspondence on this subject will be with Morton, who has good advice and a patient demeanor; please work with him accordingly.   Thank you for your commitment to Croghan's story,
 
Katie  

Historic Preservation Planner

City of Pittsburgh

Department of City Planning

200 Ross St, 3rd Floor

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Ph: 412.255.2243

Fx: 412.255.2561

katherine.molnar@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

   
    You seem to have forgotten that the accuracy and  validity of the marker text was reviewed for your benefit by Duquesne, CMU, and Pitt history professors as well as by knowledgeable historians last summer.  Fort Pitt Museum declined to look at it.  Katie wanted more interpretation, which was easy to do.  Confusion or Katie's "so what?" are the range of problems found with the text.  The PHMC said my 70 word text and short narrative were confusing without ever being specific, but tentatively approved a state marker.  Fort Pitt Museum began mentioning Croghan's name last spring, a nod in the right direction.  A Pennsylvania official cited the potential for too many signs in Point Park in refusing the historical marker, but so far no one can point to an error of fact or interpretation in the marker text.  Your view of its questionable status does not alter the historical reality of Croghan's life and what he did.  Fort Pitt Museum and its parent Heinz History Center have adopted an attitude of willful ignorance, as have you.

        You are misinformed about the no new signs policy at Point Park.  That may be what is happening, but the authorizing restriction is for inappropriate or aesthetically displeasing historical markers, like the state's.  Croghan's marker is appropriate and tasteful, his story essential to a fundamental mission of Point Park, preserving its early history.  The D.A.R.'s Fort Pitt Society may not agree or decline for other reasons, but there is no legal or rational restraint if they wish to inform the public about Croghan's story by allowing Greater Monessen Historical Society to place a marker on Blockhouse grounds.

        There is a Critical Comments page on ohiocountry.us where a record is kept, mostly copies of e-mails, of reactions to Croghan's story and the struggle to get an historical marker placed for him.  Noam Chomsky finds updates "very interesting" when taking time from his pressing obligations.  You have inspired a new ohiocountry.us page, Comic Relief, where you will find your most recent e-mail, but I will begin with e-mails from the leading professional historian in Croghan scholarship, William Campbell, demanding then pleading to delete months of back and forth about Croghan and the marker.  By the way, "The City does not prefer to simply deny your request outright" is how you will be quoted on the marker?  How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?   Any more material for Ohio Country comic relief will be appreciated.   Best wishes, Jim Greenwood  Mr. Brown,      Since you speak for the City, should the marker for Pittsburgh's Founding Father be sited elsewhere, your name will be engraved in granite as the reason why.       Note in Katie Holmes' last e-mail  to me September 16, 2010 her thanks for my historical work on Croghan:   Dear Jim,   I did not write you back because I know that you have been in correspondence with Morton Brown, who has been helping you understand the city processes and various hurdles we have here at City Planning.  Though it may seem like a straightforward project to you, there are many "approvals" that must be sought before a project like this may be entertained.  Through the course of any reviews that occur, the City will decide whether or not it wants to accept your donation.   Please know that I have accepted another position, and will be leaving the City at the end of this week.  Your future correspondence on this subject will be with Morton, who has good advice and a patient demeanor; please work with him accordingly.   Thank you for your commitment to Croghan's story,

Katie  

Katherine Molnar

Historic Preservation Planner

City of Pittsburgh

Department of City Planning

200 Ross St, 3rd Floor

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Ph: 412.255.2243

Fx: 412.255.2561

katherine.molnar@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

   
    You seem to have forgotten that the accuracy and  validity of the marker text was reviewed for your benefit by Duquesne, CMU, and Pitt history professors as well as by knowledgeable historians last summer.  Fort Pitt Museum declined to look at it.  Katie wanted more interpretation, which was easy to do.  Confusion or Katie's "so what?" are the range of problems found with the text.  The PHMC said my 70 word text and short narrative were confusing without ever being specific, but tentatively approved a state marker.  Fort Pitt Museum began mentioning Croghan's name last spring, a nod in the right direction.  A Pennsylvania official cited the potential for too many signs in Point Park in refusing the historical marker, but so far no one can point to an error of fact or interpretation in the marker text.  Your view of its questionable status does not alter the historical reality of Croghan's life and what he did.  Fort Pitt Museum and its parent Heinz History Center have adopted an attitude of willful ignorance, as have you.

        You are misinformed about the no new signs policy at Point Park.  That may be what is happening, but the authorizing restriction is for inappropriate or aesthetically displeasing historical markers, like the state's.  Croghan's marker is appropriate and tasteful, his story essential to a fundamental mission of Point Park, preserving its early history.  The D.A.R.'s Fort Pitt Society may not agree or decline for other reasons, but there is no legal or rational restraint if they wish to inform the public about Croghan's story by allowing Greater Monessen Historical Society to place a marker on Blockhouse grounds.

        There is a Critical Comments page on ohiocountry.us where a record is kept, mostly copies of e-mails, of reactions to Croghan's story and the struggle to get an historical marker placed for him.  Noam Chomsky finds updates "very interesting" when taking time from his pressing obligations.  You have inspired a new ohiocountry.us page, Comic Relief, where you will find your most recent e-mail, but I will begin with e-mails from the leading professional historian in Croghan scholarship, William Campbell, demanding then pleading to delete months of back and forth about Croghan and the marker.  By the way, "The City does not prefer to simply deny your request outright" is how you will be quoted on the marker?  How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?   Any more material for Ohio Country comic relief will be appreciated. 

Best wishes,
Jim Greenwood    


From: Brown, Morton Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:48 AM To: Jim Greenwood Subject: RE: Croghan Marker

Mr. Greenwood,

 

I have given you the City’s position on this which offers two very fair options for you to consider.

 

As you have pointed out, we have concerns about the monument and its content but do not wish to deny the piece (“outright”) without appropriate consideration.

 

To be clear—once again---consideration, and/or approval or denial of the proposal is not going to occur over a series of email exchanges, but must be accomplished through the Art Commission (and depending on the proposed location of the piece, the Historic Review Commission) and its public hearing process.

 

Whether you decide to pursue the PHMC marker or the original stone piece, you must submit a complete application to the Art Commission which includes letters of support/ prelim approval from those entities I have mentioned before.

 

Furthermore, I do not appreciate your disrespectful tone and I will not continue to engage with you via email so that you can continue to attempt to defame my character on your illustrious blog.

 

You have been given very fair options to pursue. This the end of my discourse with you on the matter. The rest is up to you.

 

Morton Brown

Public Art Manager
Department of City Planning
200 Ross Street, 4th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

 

morton.brown@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

office: 412.255.8996

cell: 412.901.1546

fax: 412.255.2838

 

Jim Greewood

605 Allison Avenue

Washington, PA 15301

724/206-0744

green605@comcast.net

May 1, 2011

Larry Flynt
9211 Robin Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90069

Dear Mr. Flynt:

You may have read the letter from Garth Johnson that began as above and ended with Fuck You registering disgust with how lame Hustler has become and (heartlessly) you to a lesser extent. His idea of cutting edge, “more gaping beavers, with more things pentetrating them,” speaks for itself, as does his choice for you, “continue being a washed-up old man, or you can regrow some balls and start pissing people off again.” Like you did him. 

Your senior by half a year, exactly, sexual matters, except perhaps for 69, have given way to more mature interests, such as the suppression of history and trying to make a buck.

Enclosed find the text for an historical marker telling George Croghan's story. It was written for the Pittsburgh D.A.R.'s Fort Pitt Society in a request to reconsider siting a marker near their Blockhouse in Point Park, also declined by Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, and Westmoreland County officals in slightly different versions.

The Croghan historical marker is sponsored by Greater Monessen Historical Society, we take our name seriously, with support from Pittsburgh's Lawrenceville (once Croganville) Historical Society.

For more than thirty years Croghan was the key figure in Ohio Country events, beginning with King George's War and ending in 1777, when he was suppressed and his story forgotten. A few e
arly twentieth century historians and two good biographers accumulated enough facts for me to write George Croghan; A Reappraisal, found on the website ohiocountry.us., but except for Noam Chomsky, its importance has not been obvious. Are you interested in publishing Croghan's story for your readers? They need it as much as anyone and would probably better appreciate the new evidence of how big a prick George Washington was; even if, as Washington scholars Ron Chernow and Edward Lendle recently assert, Washington had no interest in the gaping beavers of his many mistresses.

 

Best wishes,

Jim Greenwood

 

 


George Croghan (circa 1718-1782)
The Blockhouse built by Col. Bouquet in response to Pontiac's Rebellion proved unnecessary, for in 1764 George Croghan convinced the British Board of Trade to free the Indian Department from military control and he kept the peace for a decade, even after resigning in 1771.

An Irish immigrant and Pennsylvania fur trader in 1741, during King George's War he nearly engrossed Fort Detroit trade, fomented an Indian rebellion, and joined William Johnson on the Onondaga Council.  Croghan organized and led the Ohio Confederation at Logstown that Pennsylvania recognized as independent of the Six Nations and appointed him as its colonial agent.  Days before Celeron's 1749 expedition reached Logstown, Croghan purchased 200,000 acres from the Iroquois, later learning that his deeds would be void if in Pennsylvania.

Late in 1750 Croghan guided Virginia's Ohio Company scout Christopher Gist and in 1752 arranged its Logstown treaty after sabotaging Pennsylvania plans for a fort at the Forks of the Ohio. Virginia's fort was commanded by Croghan's business partner William Trent and surrendered by half-brother Edward Ward.

As a captain in charge of Indians under Col. Washington, then Gen. Braddock, Croghan could do little to capture Fort Duquesne, but as William Johnson's Deputy Indian Agent in 1758 he hurried from negotiating the Easton Treaties to his Indian scouts at the head of Gen. Forbes column for its fall.  He worked with Col. Bouquet and built the first Croghan Hall, burned in 1763.  Croghan brought Pontiac to Detroit in 1765 and, except for the Shawnees during Dunmore's War, kept the Ohio tribes pacified thereafter.

Pittsburgh's president judge, Committee of Safety of Chairman, and the person keeping the Ohio tribes neutral was declared a traitor in 1777 by General Hand, who prevented Croghan's return when cleared in a 1778 Philadelphia trial.  The frontier lost its shield and Vandalia, the fourteenth colony with Pittsburgh as capital and Croghan its largest land owner, Indian agent, and likely governor.

 

Placed with Fort Pitt Society's permission

by Greater Monessen Historical Society

July, 2011