|
Battle
of Point Pleasant
"Manufactured
History": Re-Fighting the Battle of Point Pleasant1
- From
West Virginia History, Vol. 56, pp. 76-87
The
Battle of Point Pleasant in 1774 has been the subject of a long-running
debate in West Virginia history. Was Point Pleasant the first battle
of the American Revolution?
The Battle
of Point Pleasant was the culmination of Lord Dunmore's War. In
response to increased violence between settlers and Native Americans
in western Virginia in 1774, Virginia Governor John Murray, the
Earl of Dunmore, tried to impose peace on the Ohio Valley. Lord
Dunmore created two armies, personally leading seventeen hundred
men from the north, while Andrew Lewis directed eight hundred troops
through the Kanawha Valley. Shawnee chief Keigh-tugh-qua, or Cornstalk,
elected to strike the southern regiment before it united with Dunmore's
force. On October 10 Cornstalk's force of approximately twelve hundred
men attacked Lewis's troops at the confluence of the Kanawha and
Ohio rivers at present-day Point Pleasant. The battle resulted in
significant losses on both sides and forced the Shawnee to retreat
to protect their settlements in the Scioto Valley of present-day
Ohio. As a condition of the subsequent Treaty of Camp Charlotte,
Native Americans relinquished property and hunting claims on land
south of the Ohio River. Consequently, the Battle of Point Pleasant
eliminated Native Americans as a threat on the frontier for the
first three years of the Revolutionary War and cleared the way for
more rapid settlement of the region.2
Efforts
to commemorate the battle began as early as 1848. However, it was
a Point Pleasant newspaper editor and publisher who led the most
ambitious campaign fifty years later. In 1899 Livia Nye Simpson
Poffenbarger began a crusade in the State Gazette to have
Point Pleasant officially designated the "first battle of the
American Revolution," despite most historical interpretations
which pointed to the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts,
on April 19, 1775. In 1901 Poffenbarger organized the Colonel Charles
Lewis Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR),
which lobbied the state to acquire the battlefield site. The following
year, the site was dedicated as Tu-Endie-Wei Park. Poffenbarger's
efforts resulted in an act passed by Congress on February 17, 1908,
entitled, "A Bill to aid in the erection of a monument or memorial
at Point Pleasant to commemorate the Battle of the Revolution fought
at that point between the Colonial troops and Indians, October tenth,
seventeen hundred and seventy-four." The bill appropriated
ten thousand dollars to supplement funding for a monument at Tu-Endie-Wei.
The eighty-four-foot granite obelisk was dedicated in 1909 and still
stands in the park, which became Point Pleasant Battle Monument
State Park in 1956.3
Poffenbarger's
thesis is based, in part, on the claims of some settlers that Dunmore
and the Shawnee were in collusion. After the Revolutionary War began
and Lord Dunmore was no longer Virginia's colonial governor, even
Andrew Lewis expressed the notion that Dunmore had never intended
to join the southern forces, setting them up for annihilation. Lewis
felt that Dunmore, anticipating the Revolution, intended to weaken
the citizen militia.4
Poffenbarger
presented her arguments in a speech to the Colonel Charles Lewis
Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution at the dedication
of Tu-Endie-Wei Park in 1902.
Mr.
Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:
It
has been deemed fitting and appropriate, that, by some means,
this beautiful and historic spot of ground be dedicated to the
noble purpose for which it has been purchased, and given a name
by which it may be known in the future. This important duty
has not been sought by the organization I have the honor to
represent. I wish to emphasize the fact, without going into
explanation or detail, that it has been rather thrust upon us.
We are simply doing that which is denied to others who have
been invited to do it, by their situation and present circumstances.
We have accepted the trust and assumed the duty in the absence
of others who might, and we sincerely believe, would have performed
it better.
However,
I wish to premise that it is not at all inappropriate that the
Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution performed
this most important function. Ours is purely a patriotic organization
and this work is carried on in the name of patriotism and inspired
by love of country. The objects and purposes of our society
are set forth in our constitution, Article I, as follows:
(1)
To perpetuate the memory of the spirit of the men and women
who achieved American Independence, by the acquisition and protection
of historical spots, and the erection of monuments; by the encouragement
of historical research in relation to the Revolution and the
publication of its results; by the preservation of documents
and relics, and of the records of the individual services of
Revolutionary soldiers and patriots, and by the promotion of
celebrations of all patriotic anniversaries.
(2)
To carry out the injunction of Washington in his farewell address
to the American people, 'To promote, as an object of primary
importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge,'
thus developing an enlightened opinion, and affording to young
and old such advantages as shall develop in them the largest
capacity for performing the duties of American citizens.
(3)
To cherish, maintain, and to extend the institutions of American
freedom, to foster true patriotism and love of country, and
to aid in securing for mankind all the blessings of liberty."
Another thing I wish to impress upon all here today is the fact
that ours is the only society professing to be founded exclusively
upon our Revoutionary struggle that recognizes the Battle of
Point Pleasant as a part of the war for American independence.
Reputable historians, including Bancroft, President Roosevelt
and others, have asserted that it was the initial, the first
battle of the Revolutionary war. Moreover, they have produced
the indisputable evidence upon which the assertion is based.
What the consensus of American opinion will be as the years
shall roll on and historical research shall bring to light the
whole truth, we cannot say. If the verdict shall be the affirmative
of that proposition then the first battle will not be lacking
in display of heroism and patriotism, exhibited in the midst
of an almost interminable wilderness and hand to hand with a
savage and at the same time valorous foe.
The
memory of that great struggle, will, we think, be well and fittingly
preserved upon these grounds. A splendid and enduring monument
is to be erected commemorative of the battle. On some part of
it will be a bronze statue of the heroic Andrew Lewis, the commanding
general. On it will be inscribed in imperishable letters the
names of the brave Col. Chas. Lewis and Col. Fields and all
those who fell with them in defense of liberty and the homes
of our race. On these grounds will be laid down and preserved
the outlines of old Fort Randolph.
Without
some reference to the stubborn foe which drew the brilliant
flash of fire from the steel of these heroes, in the shades
of primeval forests, far from the abode of any white man, this
history written in grounds, stone, marble and bronze would be
incomplete. These red men were fighting for their homes and
hunting grounds. From their standpoint, their conduct was patriotic.
They were defending the graves of their fathers.
To
the end therefore that history, as far as possible, may be fully
preserved and patriotism, in its broadest sense may be recognized,
it has been decided to give this park the oldest first name
it has ever been known to possess—its Indian name. By authority
of the Monument Commission appointed by the Governor of this
state, and in the name of the Society of the Daughters of the
American Revolution, we now dedicate this park the property
of the state of West Virginia, to patriotism and the preservation
of history and name it "Tu-Endie-Wei Park," which
signifies in the Shawnee tongue "the mingling of the waters,"
this being the junction of two rivers.5
In
The Battle of Point Pleasant: A Battle of the Revolution October
10, 1774, published in 1909, Poffenbarger again contended
Point Pleasant was the first battle of the American Revolution.
She quoted a number of historians, including Theodore Roosevelt,
who noted the significance of the battle in relation to the Revolution.
However, none of the historians stated Point Pleasant was part
of the Revolution. In the 1930s Poffenbarger authored a pamphlet
again defending her argument. In "Battle of Point Pleasant:
First Battle of the American Revolution, October 10, 1774"
(2d edition), she compiled documentation from the Point Pleasant
Battle Monument Commission, the state legislature, and Congress.
Poffenbarger also quoted an article by historian Virgil A. Lewis,
published in the West Virginia Historical Magazine in April
1902. Like the historians referenced in Poffenbarger's 1909 book,
Lewis pointed out the battle's significance but stopped short
of calling it the first of the Revolution. Rather, he described
Point Pleasant as the "connecting link between two of the
greatest periods in all American history—closing, as it does
the one [the colonial] and opening the other [the Revolutionary]."6
Lewis
was incensed at Poffenbarger's "perversion" of history
and was adamant that Point Pleasant was not a battle of the Revolutionary
War. His 1909 book, History of the Battle of Point Pleasant,
discusses Point Pleasant's place in history but never states outright
that it was not a battle of the Revolution. The following is the
text of a 1909 speech found in Lewis's collected papers and believed
to be his most forthright pronouncement on the subject. It is
unknown whether this speech was ever presented publicly.
THE
BATTLE OF POINT PLEASANT
NOT THE FIRST BATTLE OF THE REVOLUTION
IT'S
TRUE PLACE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
CHIEF
EVENT OF THE LAST AMERICAN COLONIAL WAR.
A
Mail reporter called upon Hon. Virgil A. Lewis, the State Historian,
and asked him if he had read the Article of Colonel Henry Haymond,
which recently appeared in the Wheeling Intelligencer, in which
he asserts that the battle of Point Pleasant was not the first
battle of the Revolution. Yes, said the historian, enthusiastically,
and I most fully endorse, as does every other student of history,
all he has said upon this subject.
NOT
A REVOLUTIONARY BATTLE
State
pride—a love for my native State—has for many years,
and now prompts me to claim for her all the honors to which
she rightfully belongs, but never have I, nor can I now do this,
when it means a sacrifice of historic truth. In an address delivered
before the Ohio Valley Historical Association, at Marietta,
in 1908, I attempted to explain that the battle of Point Pleasant
was in nowise the first, nor any other battle of the Revolution.
Since then I have done all I could to eliminate from that struggles
[sic] the fiction, myths and legends which have gathered around
it, that truth alone might be known concerning it. A great monument
has now been reared upon this battlefield, and in connection
therewith has gone out far and wide the statement that the battle
fought thereon between Virginians and Indians, October 10, 1774,
was the first in the war for American Independence. Many students
of history and school men have asked me if I endorse the statement,
to all I say, most certainly not, and as a more complete answer
to this I now have in preparation a monograph containing my
views as to the proper place in American history to which this
battle of Point Pleasant properly belongs. This is in the last
American Colonial War.
In
1774 there were probably forty thousand white men, women and
children, living on the west side of the Blue Ridge, on a frontier
stretching from Pittsburg to the source of the Tennessee river.
While men were pushing down into the Ohio Valley, the Indian
nations northwest of the Ohio had formed a Confederacy and a
race war, was at hand. Hostilities began. Messengers bore tidings
of the horrors on the border to Williamsburg, and Lord Dunmore,
the Colonial Governor by special message, dated May 13, 1774,
informed the House of Burgesses, of these. That body the next
day by enactment, directed him to prosecute the war against
the Indians. This he hastened to do, and leaving Williamsburg,
Sunday, July 10, 1774, crossed the Blue Ridge, and having fixed
his headquarters at, "Greenway Court," the home of
Lord Fairfax in the Shenandoah Valley, he mustered an army of
one thousand men in the counties of Berkeley, Frederick, Hampshire
and Dunmore, and at its head proceeded, on foot to the Ohio
river. 7
THE
SOUTHERN DIVISION OF THE ARMY
Before
leaving the Shenandoah Valley, Dunmore issued orders to General
Andrew Lewis of Botetourt, to collect as many men as possible
in Augusta, Botetourt and Fincastle counties, and join him,
the Governor, either at Wheeling or the mouth of the Great Kanawha.
Lewis chose the latter, again, August 30th, writing from the
mouth of the South Branch of the Potomac, [Dunmore] requested
General Lewis to meet him at the mouth of the Little Kanawha—now
Parkersburg, West Virginia. Lewis declared to do this, and having
collected about fifteen hundred men, at Camp Union—now
Lewisburg, West Virginia—proceeded to the mouth of the
Great Kanawha—now Point Pleasant, West Virginia, where
October 10, 1774, he was attacked by an Indian army and that
day there was waged the most desperate battle ever waged between
white men and Indians in America.
FOR
WHAT THE CONTESTANTS WAGED BATTLE
The
Indian warriors of the Confederated nations of the Ohio Wilderness,
waged battle at Point Pleasant, not as the allies of England,
but to drive back the white invaders from their hunting grounds
in the Ohio Valley. On the part of the Virginians, the battle
was the crowning event of an offensive movement, not in defense
of American liberty or Colonial independence, on their part,
but to protect the inhabitants of pioneer homes west of the
Blue Ridege [sic],—men, women and children—from the
rifle, tomahawk and scalping-knife in the hands of barbarian
warriors. The Military movements known as Lord Dunmore's War,
would have taken place just they did [sic], and the battle of
Point Pleasant, fought just the same, if there had never been
an American Revolution. These two wars were entirely distinct,
the one from the other.
THE
AMERICAN CONGRESS AND THE
FIRST BATTLE OF THE REVOLUTION.
The
battle of Lexington, Massachusetts, was fought April 19, 1775—the
next year after Dunmore's War had ended. Affidavits regarding
it were read in the Provincial Congress on the 26th, and that
body that day prepared an "Address to the Inhabitants of
Great Britain," in which it was said: "Hostilities
are at length commenced in this Colony by the troops under General
Gage." (See "Journals of the Continental Congress,"
Vol. 1, pp. 79-89.) The second mention of the battle of Lexington
by the Continental Congress, is in the "Declaration by
the Representatives of the United Colonies of North America,
now met in Congress at Philadelphia, July 5, 1775." In
this it was set forth that on the 19th of April (1775) General
Gage sent out from Boston a detachment of his army which made
an unwarraned [sic] attack upon the inhabitants of Lexington,
in Massachusetts. (See "Journals of the Continental Congress,"
Vol. 1. p. 137.) Soon after, the date of the beginning of the
American Revolution was fixed as follows: "The Revolutionary
War in opposition to the encroachments of Great Britain on the
civil rights of the American Colonies commenced April 19, 1775."
(See Saffell's "Records of the Revolutionary War,"
p. 440.) Upon this, rests all the pension legislation relating
to Revolutionary pensions by Congress for a hundred years.
THE
MEN AT POINT PLEASANT NOT PENSIONERS
The
Revolution finally closed with evacuation of New York by the
British, November 25, 1783. All battles fought between these
dates—April 19, 1775 and November 25, 1785 [sic]—one
[sic] Revolutionary battles, and all Americans participating
therein were classed as Revolutionary soldiers. Ample provision
was made for them by bounties, half-pay, land-warrants and pensions
for invalids; but in the provisions of these laws no soldier
in the battle of Point Pleasant was ever included for services
therein. The valiant yoemanry [sic] whose courageous bearing
achieved victory on that battle day, wounded and all left that
battle field, never to be the recipients of rewards, from a
nation yet unborn, for they were never included in any pension
legislation pertaining to the soldiers of the Revolution. Joseph
Mayse, a nineteen year old boy whose home was in the valley
of the Cowpasture river then in Augusta county, was shot through
the knee at Point Pleasant; the ball ranged downward and for
want of proper surgical attention was not removed. When news
of his condition was received at home, his mother with a family
servant, rode on horse-back two hundred miles through the Allegheny
wilderness, to Point Pleasant and took the boy home. There he
discovered the ball between the bones near the ankle and removed
it himself. But the calf of the leg withered and shrank away
and he was a cripple. Forty years afterward inflamation [sic]
set in and in 1821, the limb was amputated above the knee. The
old veteran of Point Pleasant survived this for twenty-one years
on crutches; but he could not obtain a pension or land warrant
from the National Government, because his services had been
mustered and wound received in a Colonial War, and not in connection
with the Revolution. So it was with all the men who fought the
Battle of Point Pleasant. It was because of this, as Colonel
John Stuart, the historian of Dunmore's War, writing twenty-four
years after the battle, says: "that it could not be [sic]
hardly be considered as connected with the Revolution, and that
because of this, neither the heirs of General Lewis nor those
of any of his officers, ever made claims for services in lands
or otherwise." Thus it was that the men who fought the
battle of Point Pleasant were never regarded as Revolutionary
soldiers, that is because of their participation in it.
WHAT
THE STUDENT OF HISTORY KNOWS.
Every
student of American history who has made research for truth
in the sources of information, at this time readily available,
is aware of the falsity of this statement. That Point Pleasant
is the scene of the first battle of the Revolution. He regrets
the perversion of historic truth in connection with it. When
that battle was fought there was no revolution in progress;
there were no United Colonies, or United States. Dunmore's War
was waged between Virginians and Indians, no other Colony participating.
The Indians were not allies of England then, nor did they become
such until the Spring of 1778—four years after the battle—and
no student of either Virginian or American Annals now questions
the integrity of Lord Dunmore, or his faithfulness to the interest
of the Colony of which he was the Executive head. There was
not an English soldier with the Indians at Point Pleasant; nor
did England, or a representative of the British Government,
furnish a gun, an ounce of powder, nor a pound of lead, to them.
The Virginians in that battle, were at that time, loyal to their
Colonial Government, and had every confidence in their Governor.
Colonel Charles Lewis was killed while wearing the uniform of
an English Colonel; and other officers who fell on that field
were wearing that of their rank.
LORD
DUNMORE JUSTLY APPRECIATED BY THE VIRGINIANS.
With
the "American Archives" at hand, the recent publication
of Thwaites, "Documentary History of Dunmore's War,"
the printing by Virginia of the "Journals of the House
of Burgesses" and other contemporary documentary sources
of information recently brought to light, and made readily accessible
to all students in quest of truth, it is far too late to think
of dishonorable action on the part of Lord Dunmore in the war
of 1774. Roosevelt, says that his letter written at Winchester
in the Shenandoah Valley, August 14th, to William Legge, Earl
of Dartmouth, and British Secretary of State for the American
Colonies, in which he outlines his plan for the war, should
forever exhonorate [sic] him from charges afterward made, if
there were no other evidence. At the beginning of the war—June
14th—Captain Valentine Crawford writing Colonel George
Washington of conditions on the frontier, said: "But it
is a happy circumstance for us that Lord Dunmore is so warm
in our favor." Colonel William Preston in his circular
letter, urging the men of Fincastle county to enlist in General
Lewis' division said: "The Earl of Dunmore is deeply engaged
with us in the war." When his Lordship met Lewis' army
on the Pickaway plains, he asked General Lewis to arrange his
officers in line and personally shake hands with them and personally
thank each for his heroic bravery at Point Pleasant. This was
done, as stated by Colonel Haymond, the officers of his division,
when on their return, assembled at the mouth of Hockhocking
river, and in a ringing resolution fully endorsed the conduct
of their commander-in-chief, in the war. Lord Dunmore hastened
homeward and arrived at Williamsburg, December 4th, having been
absent on his western campaign just one hundred and fifty days.
Just twenty-four hours before his arrival, an interesting event
took place at the Gubernatorial Mansion, Lady Dunmore gave birth
to a daughter, upon whom the name Virginia was bestowed, in
honor of the Colony over the affairs of which the father presided.
Then came an address from the citizens of Williamsburg, congratulating
him upon his victory over the Indians, and extending a welcome
back to the capital; similar addresses came from the President
and faculty of William and Mary College; from the Mayor and
Common Council of the borough of Norfolk; from the Virginia
Council of State; from the Virginia Convention of March 20,
1775; and from the citizens of Fincastle county. Theodore Roosevelt
speaking of these compliments paid Dunmore by the Virginians
says: "And he fully deserved their gratitude." George
Bancroft, the historian, says: "Virginia has left on her
record her judgment, that Dunmore's conduct in this campaign
was truly noble, wise and splendid." Butterfield says:
"There can be no doubt of his Lordship's sincerity in taking
these measures for the protection of the frontiers." Thwaites
says: "There seems to be no doubt that Dunmore was thoroughly
in earnest, that he prosecuted the war with vigor." Such
is the numerous verdict of those who have examined the sources
of information regarding Dunmore's War.
IMPORTANCE
OF THE BATTLE OF POINT PLEASANT—ITS INFLUENCE
UPON THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.
But
the men who defeated the confederated nations at Point Pleasant
achieved a mighty victory, one that inured exclusively to the
benefits of a nation about to begin its existence. That victory
made possible the preliminary treaty [between] Dunmore and the
Indians, at Camp Charlotte in the Pickaway Plains, the "Wilderness
Garden," of the Scioto Valley, a few days after the battle.
This led to the Supplemental treaty at Pittsburg the next year.
The terms there agreed upon kept the Indians quiet until the
Spring of 1778. This enabled General Gates to collect the border
soldiery from Maine to Georgia, and overthrow Burgoyne at Saratoga
in 1777. This meant France to the rescue, and that meant the
independence of the United States. Not only this. The Battle
of Point Pleasant made possible the settlement of the Kentucky
wilderness the next year; these settlements became a basis of
operations, for General George Rogers Clark in his conquest
of the Illinois Country in 1777-8; this led to the creation
of Illinois County, by the Virginia Assembly in 1778, by which
civil government was extended to the Mississippi. Because of
this the Treaty Convention at Paris in 1783, made that river,
and not the crest of the Alleghenies, the western boundary of
the new American Nation—the United States. It was because
of influence upon subsequent history, the battle of Point Pleasant,
by which the course of history was changed on this continent—and
not because it was the first battle of the Revolution—that
a Nation and a State—the United States and West Virginia
have united in rearing a towering battle monument upon this
historic and romantic spot Tu-enda-wee [sic] Park,—"the
point where rivers meet."8
Long
after the deaths of Lewis and Poffenbarger, the debate continues
to rage over the status of the Battle of Point Pleasant. The century's
second wave of controversy began with the formation of the American
Revolution Bicentennial Commission (ARBC) in 1967. The commission
failed to recognize Point Pleasant in its commemoration of the
Revolutionary War. A former title abstractor, Patricia Burton
of Detroit, picked up where Poffenbarger had left off, petitioning
the ARBC for recognition of Point Pleasant. In 1972 the ARBC's
Commemorations and Convocations Advisory Panel, which included
representatives of the DAR, Sons of the American Revolution, and
Colonial Williamsburg, rejected her request:
The
Panel's unanimous decision was that, while the Dunmore campaign
was a significant episode in the nation's Westward expansion,
it was not essentially related to the ideals and events of the
American Revolution, nor sufficiently of national impact to warrant
inclusions in the National Bicentennial program.9
The
opposition from the National Society of the DAR was a serious
blow considering it had endorsed Point Pleasant as the first battle
of the Revolution in 1901 and 1937. Poffenbarger's Colonel Charles
Lewis Chapter of the DAR had played a significant role in the
original Congressional recognition of the battle and was named
for one of its fallen heroes.10
In
1973 Burton persuaded West Virginia Governor Arch A. Moore, Jr.
to issue a proclamation honoring Point Pleasant as the first battle.
However, this failed to secure the desired national attention
and funding at a time when the government was investing large
sums of money in Revolutionary War sites. Point Pleasant was virtually
ignored by the media and tourists during the nation's Bicentennial
celebration.
During
the 1980s and 1990s the town of Point Pleasant has suffered through
a recession, forcing local businesses to close. Many residents
consider tourism the town's only salvation and continue seeking
financial assistance from the federal government to promote development.
A precedent for such aid was established in West Virginia's Eastern
Panhandle, where the National Park Service revitalized the town
of Harpers Ferry, which had been devastated by a series of floods.
When the Park Service opened the town's historic section to tourists
in the 1950s, Harpers Ferry's economy was virtually non-existent;
today, it is West Virginia's most popular tourist site, attracting
nearly one million visitors per year.
When
West Virginia's industrial economy collapsed in the 1980s, the
state turned to tourism as the economic lifeline of the future.
In addition to recreational opportunities and scenic locations,
sites of historical significance are also being touted as attractions.
However, tourism funding from the state is limited and federal
assistance is being sought, particularly in the economically debilitated
southern coalfields. U.S. Representative Nick Joe Rahall has spearheaded
efforts to establish a "coal heritage" area, comprising
a large portion of southwest West Virginia. Rahall recently has
attempted to obtain National Park status for Matewan, site of
a showdown between mine guards and union activists during the
mine wars, and Bramwell, known as the "millionaires' town."11
Historical
interpretation now has significant economic ramifications. Arguments
over Point Pleasant and other historical events are no longer
just topics of academic debate. Establishing Point Pleasant as
the first battle of the American Revolution means the difference
between millions of dollars from the federal government or a continued
small allotment from the state. Dwindling federal funds have sparked
intense competition among historic sites, many of which have contracted
with historians to "manufacture history." More than
ever, the interpretation of our past profoundly affects our future.
Notes
- In
the draft of a speech, state historian and archivist Virgil A.
Lewis coined the term "manufactured history" to describe
the interpretation of Point Pleasant as the first battle of the
American Revolution. Virgil A. Lewis Papers, West Virginia State
Archives, Charleston, WV, hereafter referred to as Lewis Papers.
Virgil Lewis was one of the state's most respected historians.
He founded the Southern Historical Magazine and served
as the first state historian and archivist. Lewis's best known
works include How West Virginia Was Made, History and
Government of West Virginia, and Hand Book of West Virginia.
Lewis was considered one of the foremost experts on Point Pleasant
and his book, History of the Battle of Point Pleasant (1909),
remains a pivotal study on the topic.
- Information
on Dunmore's War and the Battle of Point Pleasant can be found
in the following: Irene B. Brand, "Dunmore's War," West
Virginia History 40(Fall 1978): 28-46; Richard O. Curry, "Lord
Dunmore—Tool of Land Jobbers or Realistic Champion of Colonial
'Rights?': An Inquiry," West Virginia History 24(April
1963): 289-95; William D. Hoyt, Jr., "Colonel William Fleming
in Dunmore's War, 1774," West Virginia History 3(January
1942): 99-119; Robert L. Kerby, "The Other War in 1774: Dunmore's
War," West Virginia History 36(October 1974): 1-16;
Harold Lambert, "Cornstalk—King of the Rhododendron
Country," West Virginia History 19(April 1958): 194-203;
Otis K. Rice, The Allegheny Frontier: West Virginia Beginnings,
1730-1830 (Lexington: Univ. Press of Kentucky, 1970), 54-87;
Reuben Gold Thwaites and Louise Phelps Kellogg, eds., Documentary
History of Dunmore's War, 1774 (Madison: Wisconsin Historical
Society, 1905); John Alexander Williams, West Virginia: A Bicentennial
History (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1976),
3-29; and Elizabeth Ann Wrick, "Dunmore—Virginia's Last
Royal Governor," West Virginia History 8 (April 1947):
237-82.
- The
process of establishing the first battle thesis is outlined by
Kenneth R. McDonald, Jr. in "The Battle of Point Pleasant:
First Battle of the American Revolution," West Virginia
History 36(October 1974): 40-49. Poffenbarger's efforts on
behalf of the Daughters of the American Revolution are detailed
in Nancy Whear, "Livia Simpson Poffenbarger (1862-1937)"
in Missing Chapters II: West Virginia Women in History ,
ed. Frances S. Hensley (Charleston: West Virginia Women's Commission,
1986), 1-22. See also Juliette Boyer Baker, The West Virginia
State History of the Daughters of the American Revolution (n.p.,
n.d. [1928]).
-
Richard
Orr Curry, "Lord Dunmore and the West: A Re-evaluation,"
West Virginia History 19(July 1958): 231-43.
-
"One
Hundred and Twenty-seventh Anniversary of the Battle of Point
Pleasant—The First Battle of the Revolution—October
10th, 1774," West Virginia Historical Magazine 2(January
1902): 21-24.
-
Virgil
A. Lewis, "The National Character of the Battle of Point
Pleasant and of the Men Who Fought It: The Federal Government
Should Mark the Spot," West Virginia Historical Magazine
2(April 1902): 35-38.
-
Dunmore
County was created in 1772 and renamed Shenandoah County in
1778.
-
-
Patricia
Burton, Supplement to Point Pleasant Register , June
1983, 4.
-
Ibid.
In 1975, Patricia Burton contacted the Smithsonian Institution
for copies of the DAR records relating to Point Pleasant. The
Smithsonian was unable to locate either the 1901 or 1937 reports.
-
On
Matewan, see Williamson Daily News , 21 May 1990; Bluefield
Daily Telegraph , 20 September 1990; Charleston Sunday
Gazette-Mail , 17 January 1993. In 1989, the Matewan Revitalization
Task Force was formed to work with the National Park Service
to develop an interpretive plan for the town. See Matewan Revitalization
Task Force, Matewan: A Time of Change (n.p., 1990). On Bramwell,
see Bluefield Daily Telegraph , 8 April 1990; Guyandotte
Voice , 5 September 1990; and Charleston Gazette ,
31 January 1991.
|
![[Robinson Cousin Homestead logo]](../images/Robinson_barn_small_washout_text_6.jpg)