Source:Fleming-last-battle
George T. Fleming. "Name of street recalls last battle: Maj. James Grant defeated after bloody battle on hill now in heart of city: Follies of leader." Pittsburgh Gazette Times, Mar. 14, 1915, sec. 3, p. 5. Newspapers.com 85900316.
GRANT STREET, of all the downtown streets, and the man it commemorates, have not been given proper mention or order in these stories. It is a strange story—all too true.
Six weeks before the dying Forbes came to take possession of the forks of the Ohio and found Pittsburgh Maj. James Grant was here with his reconnoitering party to make the site of our city a battleground and leave his name to abide with us. It is not a name to arouse admiration.
We of Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania most naturally are interested in what historians have said of Forbes and the founding of Pittsburgh. The actual wording of their accounts, and the estimate they have put on this great event to us, must ever interest us.
George Bancroft deservedly ranks among the foremost American writers of history. Tracing the course of events of Forbes' expedition, with Bouquet encamped at Loyal Hanna, Bancroft says in his account of Grant's expedition:
Bouquet received intelligence that Fort Duquesne was defended by but 800 men, of whom 300 were Indians. Bouquet without the knowledge of his superior officer (Forbes) entrusted to Maj. Grant of Montgomery's battalion a party of 800, chiefly Highlanders and Virginians, with orders to reconnoiter the enemy's position.
The men easily scaled the successive ridges and took post on a hill near Fort Duquesne, not knowing that Aubry had arrived with a reinforcement of 400 men from Illinois.
Grant divided his troops in order to tempt the enemy into an ambuscade, and at daybreak on September 14 discovered himself by beating his drums.
Attack Comes Quickly.
A large body of French and Indians commanded by the gallant Aubry immediately poured out of the fort, and with surprising celerity attacked his troops in detail, never allowing him time to get them together. They gave way and ran, leaving 295 killed and prisoners.
Even Grant, who, in the folly of his vanity, had but a few moments before been confident of an easy victory, gave himself up to capture, but a small party of Virginians under the command of Thomas Bullitt arrested the precipitate flight, and saved the detachment from utter ruin. On their return to camp, their coolness and courage were publicly extolled by Forbes and in the opinion of the army, regulars as well as provincials, their superiority of discipline, reflected honor on Washington.
Bullitt, sometimes found spelled Bullett, was a captain in one of the Virginia regiments in Washington's command. Aubry was a noted French officer who was prominent in all the border warfare in the struggle for the region about us. With Ligneris, Marm and our old friend DeVilliers he was captured at Niagara by the English forces under Gen. Johnson in July, 1759.
The facts of Grant's ill-timed battle on the historic "Hump" are well and succinctly told in one of the few colonial newspapers of the times, The Pennsylvania Gazette, published in Philadelphia. It is a letter written from Annapolis, Md., dated October 5, 1758, and reads:
We are informed by a letter from Frederick county, (Maryland) that on Monday the 11th of September, Major Grant of the Highland regiment, marched from our camp on the waters of the Kiskiminitas, with 37 officers and 805 privates taken from the different regiments that compose the Western army on an expedition against Fort Duquesne.
The third day after their march they arrived within eleven miles of Fort Duquesne, and halted till 3 o'clock in the afternoon; then marched within two miles of Fort Duquesne, and left their baggage there, guarded by a captain, two subalterns, and 50 men, and marched with the rest of the troops, and arrived at 11 o'clock at night upon a hill, a quarter of a mile from the fort.
Points to Remember.
Pittsburghers will agree that it is more than a quarter of a mile from the site of Fort Duquesne at the Point to Grants' [sic] Hill, at the Court House. It is well to remember also that the Camp of Bouquet was about the site of Ligonier on the Loyal Hanna, a branch of the Kiskiminitas.
Resuming the letter:
Maj. Grant sent to officers and 50 men to the Fort, to attack all the Indians, &c., they should find lying out of the Fort; they saw none, nor were they challenged by the sentries. As they returned, they set fire to a large storehouse, which was put out as soon as they left it.
At break of day, Maj. Lewis was sent with 400 men, (Royal Americans and Virginians) to lie in ambush, a mile and a half from the main body on the path on which they left their baggage, imagining the French would send to attack the baggage guard and seize it. Four hundred men were posted along the hill facing the Fort, to cover the retreat of Capt. McDonald's company, who marched with drums beating towards the Fort; in order to draw a party out of the Fort, as Maj. Grant had some reason to believe there were not above 200 men in the Fort including Indians, but as soon as they heard the drums, they sallied out in great numbers, both French and Indians, and fell upon Capt. McDonald, and two columns that were posted lower on the hill to receive them.
The Highlanders exposed themselves without any cover and were shot down in great numbers and soon forced to retreat.
The Carolinians, Marylanders and Lower Countrymen, concealing themselves behind trees and the brush, made a good defence; but were overpowered and not being supported, were obliged to follow the rest. Maj. Grant exposed himself in the thickest of the fire, and endeavored to rally his men, but all to no purpose, as they were by this time flanked on all sides.
Maj. Lewis and his party came up, and engaged, but were soon obliged to give way, the enemy having the hill on him. A number were driven into the Ohio, most of whom were drowned. Maj. Grant retreated to the baggage where Capt. Bullett was posted with 50 men, and again endeavored to rally the flying soldiers, by entreating them in the most pathetic manner to stand by him, but all in vain, as the enemy were close at their heels.
As soon as the enemy came up to Capt. Bullitt, he attacked them very furiously for some time, but not being supported, and most of his men killed, was obliged to give way. However, his attacking them stopped the pursuit, so as to give many the opportunity of escaping.
The enemy followed Major Grant, and at last separated them, and Capt. Bullitt was obliged to make off. He imagines the major must be taken as he was surrounded on all sides, but the enemy would not kill him, and often called to him to surrender. The French gave quarter to all that would accept it.
By the Ohio the Allegheny is meant, the rivers then considered one.
The major was a sure enough prisoner, and again we behold the magnanimity of the French. Grant was a brave man, but inordinately vain. His positive instructions were not to approach too near the fort and to avoid the risk of an attack.
It is incomprehensible that the French with many spies constantly watching the progress of Forbes and Bouquet were without notice of Grant's movements. At his bivouac on the hill which for many years bore his name, deceived by the apparent stillness of the enemy's quarters, and having met neither French nor Indians on the march, Grant concluded the forces within the fort must be comparatively small.
Orders Disregarded.
He, therefore, determined to disregard his orders and make an attack.
The sending of Maj. Lewis to lie in ambush was designed to get him out of the way.
Lewis at the height of the action came up to the support of the hard-pressed force under Grant, to no avail and Lewis, too, was made a prisoner.
Grant and Bullitt were the last to leave the field. Bullitt escaped capture. Had Grant remained with him both would have escaped.
The late George H. Thurston, well known in Pittsburgh as the directory publisher for several years before and many after the Civil War, was a man of considerable literary merit. His researches in the field of local history are of more than ordinary value. He tells us that the Highlanders under Capt. McDonald were passing or had passed the base of Grant's Hill, at the present line of Smithfield street, between Fifth and Third avenues.
A series of ponds that lasted for years skirted the base of the hill and in this swampy ground many of the Highlanders were hopelessly mired and lost their scalps in consequence.
Maj. Andrew Lewis was one of the most conspicuous provincial officers of those eventful years. In Lord Dunmore's border war of 1774, he figures as Gen. Andrew Lewis. He was every inch a man, upwards of six feet in height, of uncommon strength, agility, and endurance, magnificent in proportions and of exact symmetry of form. He was of stern countenance, reserved and distant in manner, and not altogether engaging.
He was an old campaigner with Washington. He was a captain under Washington at Port [sic] Necessity, and also served under Washington with Braddock. In fact, Washington had so great an opinion of Lewis' abilities that when the chief command of the Revolutionary armies was offered Washington, he recommended Lewis in his place.
No Street for Lewis.
Previous to the consolidation of the North Side, there were two Lewis streets in Pittsburgh, neither named for this worthy soldier and patriot. Both were of local origin. We have however Grant street in honor of one of the colonies' basest enemies.
And what manner of man James Grant was can be inferred from the fact that, while Grant and Lewis were confined in Fort Duquesne, Grant addressed a letter to Gen. Forbes attributing his defeat to Lewis. This letter, on being inspected by the French censor, who knowing the falsehood and unable to express his disgust in any other way, handed the letter to Lewis, who immediately waited upon Grant and challenged him to a duel. Grant refused, whereupon Lewis spat in his face in the French officers' presence.
James Grant for whom one of our main thoroughfares, one of our first street, has been named, has come down to us in history distinguished, not only for baseness but also for gluttony. "He was the greatest hog of his day." Notoriously so in his later years.
Grant in Ranks Early.
He was born in Ballendalloch, Banffshire, Scotland, in 1720, and entered the military service of Great Britain at an early age. The year before his defeat in Pittsburgh he had reached the rank of major in Montgomery's regiment of Highlanders.
Two years later, 1760, he was governor of East Florida, leading an expedition against the Cherokees and defeating them in May, 1761. At the outbreak of the Revolutionary War in America he acted as brigadier general and commanded two brigades in the battle of Long Island in 1776. One year later he was promoted to be major general. He was in command of the Second Brigade of Lord Howe's army. Howe gave him command in New Jersey at a critical period in the war. Washington's victories at Trenton and Princeton followed.
Grant continued to serve under Howe and was actively engaged with his command at the Brandywine and Germantown, where he forced the American left to give way. He endeavored to cut off Lafayette on the Schuylkill, but failed. He defeated the wing under Gen. Charles Lee at Monmouth. For this defeat Lee was courtmartialed.
In November, 1778, Grant as major general, was given command of an expedition against the French in the West Indies and in December of that year took St. Lucia. In 1791 he was made governor of Stirling Castle. In 1782 he had been promoted to lieutenant general. In 1796 he was made a general, the highest rank in the British army. He did not reach the rank of colonel until 1772, 14 years after his ignominious defeat on Grant's Hill, Pittsburgh.
At different periods he served in Parliament. It is needless to say that he stood well with that monumental grouch, His Royal Majesty, George III, of Hanover and Great Britain.
Man With Iron Stomach.
Grant died April 13, 1806, aged 86 years. It is a safe prediction that when the news of his passing away reached Pittsburgh there were no flags at half mast, or anywhere else in America. A great beef had gone.
He had grown to be so great a gourmand that he required his cook to sleep in the same room with him for "instant service if the greed of victuals" came on him.
If John Forbes, his fellow-countryman, was a man with a "Head of Iron," and justly so-called in history, James Grant has as justly earned the distinction of "The Man with the Iron Stomach." He set all known principles of hygiene at defiance in eating, and died full of years—and food—let us so believe; we cannot justly say honors.
He was an enemy to everything American except something good to eat. In commemorating his name we have honored an enemy and a man of low principles.
Fiske and Parkman, in their respective accounts of the events transpiring here September 14, 1758, give us additional facts that ordinary historians omit. Fiske says Grant conducted the enterprise with the foolhardiness of a man eager for notoriety.
He instances the setting fire to the log house near the walls of the fort, and observes:
As if this were not sufficient to put the enemy on the alert, he ordered the reveille to be beaten in the morning in several places, then posting Major Lewis in the rear, he marshalled his regulars in battle array and sent an engineer with a covering party to take a plan of the works in full view of the garrison. Not a gun was fired by the fort; the silence was mistaken for fear and increased the blind security of the British commander.
Fiske notes that the scene that occurred was similar to that at the defeat of Braddock. He relates that Lewis fought hand to hand with an Indian brave whom he laid dead at his feet.
Bullitt had made a barricade of the baggage wagons and posted his men behind them. When the enemy approached Bullitt repulsed them with a volley. Pressing forward agin in greater numbers, Bullitt signaling the desire to surrender allowed the foe to come close up, and then delivered a second volley with deadly effect, and then charged with the bayonet. The Indians fled in dismay. Bayonets and cannon they would not face.
Bullitt by these tactics saved all that was saved. He was soon after promoted to major.
We may have a Bullitt street. Who knows without looking at the directory?
The account of Parkman is in his usual inimitable vein. He states that Grant urged Bouquet to send him forward to reconnoiter Fort Duquesne, and that Bouquet forgot his usual prudence when he consented. Grant's arguments had succeeded. In reaching the hill, the darkness of night and the forest had hid Grant from the enemy.
It was near dawn when Lewis, who had been despatched in the night to the open plain below the hill, returned, reporting that his men had lost their way in the dark woods and that the attempt to attack and then feign retreat was impracticable. Grant became furious.
Account of Parkman.
The historian says:
The morning twilight now began, but the country was wrapped in thick fog. Grant abandoned his first plan and sent a few Highlanders into the cleared ground to burn a warehouse he had seen there. Infatuated with the idea that the French and their Indians were too few to attack him, though their numbers were far greater, he had the uncredible rashness to divide his force in such a way that the several parts could not support each other. Lewis with 200 men was sent two miles to the rear where Capt. Bullitt was already stationed. A hundred Pennsylvanians were posted far off to the right towards the Allegheny, while Capt. McKenzie with a detachment of Highlanders, was sent to the left, towards the Monongahela.
Parkman recites all the facts, stating Grant remained on the hill with 100 of his own regiment and a Maryland company. He quotes from Grant's report to Forbes:
In order to put on a good countenance, and convince our men they had no reason to be afraid, I gave directions to our drums to beat the reveille. The troops were in an advantageous post and I thought we had nothing to fear.
Few people think of Pittsburgh as the scene of a battle, yet many of us tread daily a battleground unthinkingly.
Two main thoroughfares commemorate Forbes and Grant. All honor to Forbes; Grant—let's forget him again.
The pictures of the old novelty works at Grant street and First and Second avenues was made in 1856. The works burned May 9, 1873.
Somewhere in the voluminous history written in many books, and pertaining to our region there is an old-time wood cut of Grant. An exasperating memory fails to respond to the demands of the writer hereof. It does picture a man of fluffy face and beady eyes, arrayed in all the finery of his rank, with a frame of wide girth, and with a protuberant stomach that would arouse Falstaff's undying envy.
Who has seen it?
