|
|
|
Victory at Kittanning? Reevaluating the Impact of Armstrong's Raid on the Seven Years' War in Pennsylvania
| On September 8, 1756, Lieutenant Colonel John Armstrong led 307 men from the Second Battalion of the Pennsylvania Regiment in a daring raid against Kittanning, an important Delaware Indian village situated along the Allegheny River approximately forty miles upriver from the forks of the Ohio. During a fierce engagement, Armstrong's force burned the eastern portion of Kittanning and several surrounding cornfields, destroyed a significant cache of gunpowder and ammunition, and killed several Delaware warriors, including the notorious war leader Captain Jacobs. The assault was hailed as a grand success by Pennsylvania authorities and Armstrong was honored as a conquering hero, yet 250 years later, historians are uncertain what to make of the attack on Kittanning. For example, Fred Anderson's magisterial Crucible of War, widely hailed as the definitive account of the Seven Years' War in North America, notes that Armstrong's raid was "the only successful Anglo-American offensive to be mounted in America in 1756," but in the same breath concedes that the alleged victory "cost the Pennsylvanians more lives than it took and probably aggravated the situation on the province's frontier."1 |
1
|
|
Even among those accounts that offer a more definitive take of the importance of Armstrong's raid, there is no consensus of opinion. Favorable interpretations conclude that the raid on Kittanning was "a measured success," whose significance is not found in the battle itself, but rather in its impact upon the Seven Years' War in Pennsylvania. One avenue of reasoning along this line of thought emphasizes that the success of the Kittanning raid lies "in its effect upon the people of the province," because in the aftermath of the attack "the Indians' confidence was badly shaken and they did not resume their warfare with the old vigor and effectiveness."2 One variation even asserts that "the Kittanning raid had a lasting effect on the Delawares" and credits Armstrong's attack as directly responsible for the emergence of a political faction among the Delawares, led by Tamaqua (the Beaver), that sought to make peace with the British and their colonists.3 A related contention, although one that does not emphasize the impact upon the province's native enemies, suggests that the attack on Kittanning did "immediately raise the morale of the Pennsylvania backcountry," which in effect ultimately provided "a clear victory for British America in general and for the Commonwealth in particular." This argument rests upon the interpretive foundation that Armstrong's raid "for morale purposes ... was a tremendous success, boosting spirits throughout the frontier."4 The Kittanning raid is not without its critics, although they are fewer in number and more restrained in their assertions. Detractors tend to reverse the assertions of Kittanning's supporters, arguing that "the attack set Kittanning's residents to flight and the townsite was abandoned, but the raids against Pennsylvania only grew worse."5 However, they support their central assertion that the raid "only served to strengthen Indian morale" and that "long term futility of the punitive expedition soon became evident" with very little direct evidence.6 More convincing are criticisms of the military side of the battle at Kittanning, which stress that "the Kittanning expedition ... proved that the colonies remained incapable of undertaking serious offensive measures against the Indians."7 |
. . . |
There are about 10974 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
