JltfiWWftWr 
 

 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.^^'V 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >-«-o y %^^^'*/ V'^^^'n^^'' V*^"''/ 
 
 .•.-..'•\»^' V'^-'V \'''^'\«*-'' V^""'/ 
 
 
 
 
 
MONUMENT TO COMMEMORATE THE BATTLE OF THE MONONGAHELA. 
 
 Committee on the Library, 
 11*2 House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C, April 19, 1910. 
 The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. Samuel W. McCall 
 in the chair. 
 
 The Chairman. This is a hearing on bill H. R. No. 12369, intro- 
 duced b}' Mr. Dalzell, entitled "A bill for the erection of a monu- 
 ment to commemorate the battle historically known as 'the battle 
 of the Monongahela,' commonly known as 'Braddock's defeat.'" 
 The bill is as follows: 
 
 (H. R. 12309, Sixty-ftrst Congress, second session.] 
 
 A BILL For the erection of a monument to commemorate the battle historically known as "the battle 
 of the Monongahela," commonly known as " Braddock's defeat." 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
 in Congress assembled, That the sum of fifty thousand dollars be, and the same is 
 herebyj appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
 to be expended by "The Monument Association of the Battle of the Monongahela," 
 under the direction of the Secretary of War, for the erection and completion on the 
 battlefield of the battle historically known as "the battle o& the Monongahela," 
 commonly known as "Braddock's defeat," in the State of Pennsylvania, of a monu- 
 ment: Provided, That no part of the sum herein appropriated shall be available until 
 "The Monument Association of the Battle of the Monongahela" shall have secured 
 a site for said monument: Provided further. That the design for said monument shall 
 be approved by the Secretary of War: Ajid provided further, That the responsibility 
 for the care and keeping of said monument and site shall be and remain with "The 
 Monument Association of the Battle of the Monongahela," it being expressly under- 
 stood that the United States shall have no responsibility therefor. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DALZELL, OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Mr. Chairman, so far as the amount of money is 
 concerned, perhaps $50,000 is more than Congress would be justified 
 in appropriating at this time, but one-half of that amount, $25,000, 
 it seems to me, might very well be appropriated. 
 
 The Monument Association of the Battle of the Monongahela is a 
 corporation, not for profit, organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, 
 for the purpose of acquiring a site and caring for a monument when 
 erected. 
 
 The Chairman. It has a list of membei-s, I suppose, who are 
 prominent citizens of Allegheny County ? 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Yes; business men, many of them. One of them is 
 librarian of the Carnegie Free Library in Braddock, another is min- 
 ister of a United Presbyterian church there. He, I think, is secre- 
 tary. 
 
 41273—10 '^^I'/l, 
 
2 -' BATTLEFIELD OF THE MONONGAHELA. 
 
 The Chairman. Does not the city of Pittsburg generally take 
 quite an interest in this movement ? 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. It seems as though it would; in fact, all the citizens 
 of Allegheny County, it would seem, should take an interest in it, and 
 I think they do, and, indeed, the whole of western Pennsylvania 
 is very much interested in it. 
 
 I have here, although I will not stop to read it to you, a letter from 
 a gentleman in the adjoining county of Westmoreland, addressed to 
 the French minister some years ago, endeavoring to enlist the inter- 
 est of France in marking the route whereby Braddock went from 
 Alexandria to this disastrous field, and marking also the place of 
 Braddock's original burial as well as marking the battlefield. 
 
 The Chairman. Is Braddock buried there? 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Braddock was buried in the neighborhood of Great 
 Meadows while the army was in retreat. He was buried in the mid- 
 dle of the road, so as to conceal the whereabouts of his remains. 
 Subsequently, however, his body was raised and carried to England. 
 
 I have not had the time, Mr. Chairman, to make any special prep- 
 aration for the presentation of this matter, and I will read to you, 
 before I say anything else on the subject, a communication that was 
 addressed to the committee. It was prepared by the Rev. G. E. 
 Hawes, of Braddock, Pa. It is a very able and interesting paper: 
 
 To the Committee on the Library, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Gentlemen: In asking for an appropriation for the purpose of suitably marking 
 the battlefield of the battle of the Monongahela, commonly called "Braddock's 
 defeat," the following reasons are urged: 
 
 First. This event must be ranked as one of the great pivotal events of American 
 history. It is worthy of a place in a list made up of Jamestown, Plymouth Rock, 
 Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Independence Hall, Gettysburg, and Manila JBay. Each of 
 the above will be readily recognized by you, because each of these have been differ- 
 entiated and their positions as pivotal events properly magnified. 
 
 The battle of the Monongahela will be seen by your committee to stand with them, 
 because it was the real incident that began the great contest on American soil that was 
 waged around the question, "What nation should hold and develop the great Missis- 
 sippi Valley?" While there was some preliminary diplomatic skirmishing in Europe 
 following the treaty of Aix-la Chapelle, and a slight military brush at ('amp Necessity, 
 the real movement began when Gen. Edward Braddock was sent to America to com- 
 mand all the militarj' forces. His plans were never carried out by him; but they 
 looked to operations against the French at Fort Duquesne, at Detroit, and the forts 
 around Erie, Pa., and also against Montreal and Quebec. Such plans were captured 
 by the French when they took possession of the booty on the field. The plans were 
 subsequently carried out under Forbes at Fort Duquesne and Wolfe at Quebec. 
 The Detroit feature going more by default at the time, but coming up as a bone of 
 contention in our later war of 1812. 
 
 Our nation has recently celebrated the Louisiana Purchase. This was right and 
 proper Your committee will recognize the close relationship between that event 
 under President Jefferson and the great compaign planned in London, and which 
 Braddock tried to work out in the operations he inaugurated here. 
 
 Another thing might be mentioned here, though it is somewhat afield from the 
 chief point. It is that the war which was really begun out here in the wilderness of 
 America proved to be one of the many bitter and bloody wars that were waged between 
 England and France during the eighteenth centuiy. Most of these battles, of course, 
 were upon European soil. You gentlemen know how that century-long conflict 
 ultimately turned to our profit in the days of our Revolution in giving us a friend 
 in France, and a strong military factor in Marquis de La Fayette. It is enough for this 
 to be suggested to you, without going at length into the long drawn out conflict which 
 began far back in the history of the two races, and scarcely came to an end at Waterloo. 
 
 But our point concerns the relation between Braddock's defeat and our own national 
 life. In the occupation of this continent it must be regarded as one of the momentous 
 events. Here was inaugurated the great race war. The question was, shall Anglo- 
 
BATTLEFIELD OF THE MONONGAHELA. 3 
 
 ^ Saxon, with all his ideas of civil and religious liberty, with his policy as a colonizer 
 
 '^ through tl\e family, settle this wilderness? Or, should it be occupied by the people 
 
 ■^ of Gallic race? How these two peoples have -wrought is well known. We believe, 
 
 uj of course, that the Anglo-Saxon is the better of the" two. And that the best for this 
 
 nation, born since 1755, was that the people who should govern this region should be the 
 
 Anglo-Saxon. That was the real issue. The war began here. It was settled when the 
 
 Americans and Englishmen gave their cheers of victory upon the Plains of Abraham. 
 
 The battle occurred on July 7, 1755. More than one hundred and fifty-three years 
 have passed away and there has been no monument erected to commemorate this 
 pivotal incident. The reasons for this are many. Some of the most prominent ones 
 are, fu-st, the victors on the field that day were the French. They were subsequently 
 driven away from these regions. Later, by conquest and by .purchases, they have 
 ceased to be a ruling power upon the continent. Manifestly they would not mark 
 the field even if they could. And you know that it would be well-nigh impossible 
 for them to gain the consent of England, during colonial days, and the United States 
 since 1876, to put a monument here t« the memory of the brave Frenchmen under 
 Captain Beaujeu. So far as known the French people never ventured to ask for it. 
 However, it is known that when a movement was inaugurated about twenty years since 
 to mark the field the French ambassador of that day was approached, and expressed 
 himself as more than gratified that such a movement was on foot. Doubtless the 
 present ambassador would entertain like thoughts. 
 
 What England might have done had she retained possession of this country after 
 her Aictories under Forbes and Wolfe we can only guess. We know that the first 
 act of General Forbes, after he had reduced Fort Duquesne, was to send a party to this 
 ill-fated field and do all that he could to show respect to the memory of his fallen 
 countrymen. But it was not left for England to work out any plan of memorial. 
 The war of the Revolution broke out twentv years after the defeat, and when that war 
 came to a close England had lost her dear-bought possession of the headwaters of the 
 Ohio. 
 
 It is a matter of knowledge that the gentleman who was English ambassador at the 
 time referred to in the preceding paragraph was enthusiastically in favor of some 
 monument to tell of the brave Englishmen who fought and fell upon this field. Doubtr 
 less — as in the case of the French ambassador — the present representative of the Court 
 of St. James would be glad to do something to-day. 
 
 The only people who coidd mark the field were ourselves. And the new nation 
 born in 1776 had other tasks to perform than putting up monuments far out on the 
 frontier. The eighteenth century closed with our nation working to establish itself. 
 The nineteenth opened with a struggle against the "mother country." Even so 
 recently as last summer a monument was unveiled at Fort Meigs, the address being 
 given by our distinguished fellow-citizen, the President-elect. If we have been so 
 long a time marking a place that means so much to Americans as the movement around 
 the present city of Toledo, it is not to be wondered that as a nation we have been slow 
 in marking an event that occurred twenty years before our history as a separate people 
 really began. Be the reasons what they are, the fact is that very little attention has 
 been paid to the subject until within a few years, when a very definite movement has 
 been inaugurated looking to the marking of this famous historic field. 
 
 Of course there are particular reasons for asking that the place be marked beyond 
 anything that has been suggested already. These reasons center in two things — the 
 discovery of the American soldier, and the real discovery of the great leader of the 
 American soldier. Whatever else occurred at this place, these two things certainly 
 transpired. And the discovery of these two made possible the war for independence 
 and the establishment of this as a free and independent Government. 
 
 Previous to the battle the colonists rated themselves as inferiors to the English 
 regulars. This had been taught them and beaten into them until they firmly believed 
 it. When they saw that the English regulars did not know how to handle themselves 
 in border wars they lost their respect for them. They showed how thoroughly they 
 had been disabused of their old veneration when they met them at Lexington and 
 Bunker Hill, and kept on meeting them until they conquered them at Yorktown. 
 This, if your committee will investigate, will be found to be a positive discovery. It 
 was made by Captain Stewart when he lead his independent company out from the 
 ranks to place his men behind the logs. His men were doing great execution . Nearly 
 all the French and Indians who fell died by their hands. But Braddock would have 
 none of it. He ordered them back. They obeyed; but they knew that Braddock 
 did not know how to fight on the frontier. The colonists never forgot that. 
 
 Of course Colonel Washington had discovered the defect weeks before and had 
 tried to have it corrected. He failed. The effect upon his mind the later years 
 showed . 
 
4 BATTLEFIELD OF THE MONONGAHELA. 
 
 Speaking of Washington, of course he was the great discovery of that day. If for 
 no other reason the field should be marked, \\hile this was not his "baptism of 
 fire," the pre\aous skirmish was scarcely more than an incident. Here he fought for 
 the two long, bloody hours. Men were falling all around him. Of those who crossed 
 the river with him at 2 p. m. more than a thousand were hit by the enemy's bullets. 
 It was real fighting, and out of it he emerged unscathed; also as the real hero of the 
 terrible day. So marked was the country's appreciation of his conduct on this occa- 
 sion that when a leader was wanted after the firing of the first guns in the Revolution 
 the people of all the colonies turned to him. He took command at Cambridge. He 
 never laid it down until after Yorktown, notwithstanding the many calumnies of 
 military cabals. Braddock's defeat made him a marked man. You know the story 
 of one of the Indian chiefs. After firing at him several shots and not hitting him, 
 he was led to believe that "he was under the protection of the Great Spirit for some 
 great purpose." Our national faith says the same thing. He was marked out that 
 day to be "the savior of our country." 
 
 Not only did the field discover Washington, but it discovered many more men. 
 The few French officers who were in the fight can be traced through the history of 
 France in the years following. Captain de Lingeris was with Montcalm in his cam- 
 paigns. He served at Quebec. By the fortunes of war he faced Colonel Burton on 
 that field. He conquered him at Braddock. He was conquered by him at Quebec. 
 But afterwards he served his country faithfully. His is but a case from among several 
 others. 
 
 Among the men who rose to eminence in the English army several might be named. 
 The most conspicuous was General Gage, who commanded the English troops at 
 Boston at the breaking out of the war of 1775. The English records show others who 
 held various posts of honor. Even Dunbar, who was not in the fight but was in the 
 expedition, was made one of the first governors of Gibraltar. 
 
 Among those who fell on the day were Sir Peter Halket, a brave Scot. Also young 
 Shirley, son of Governor Shirley, who, on the death of Braddock, succeeded to the 
 command of the English troops in America. Captain Foulson was another who fought 
 and fell. His gallantry was so conspicuous that when the Sixtieth Continental Reg- 
 iment was organized his son was given a majorship, largely on the reputation of his 
 distinguished father . 
 
 Perhaps one of the most interesting pages of this history is that which records the 
 names of men who received their initiation into real war at this battle and afterwards 
 served in the American Army in the Revolution. Washington, as was said above, 
 was one of these. He needs no panegyric. Then there was Mercer. He died at 
 Princeton. The United States Government has recently helped to erect a monu- 
 ment to his memory. Gen. Hugh Mercer, as a subaltern, was discovered at Brad 
 dock's defeat. 
 
 If any of your committee have visited Saratoga you will remember that there are 
 three statues in the niches of that monument. One of these is that of Gen. Philip 
 Schuyler. General Schuyler gained his place because he had commanded the troops 
 before he was relieved by General Gates. General Schuyler was not in the battle 
 of Saratoga. The other two men whose statues appear in the monument are Generals 
 Gates and Morgan. Both of these men were in Braddock's defeat. Captain Gates, 
 as he was then, commanded a company and did much of the work of occupying the 
 fords as the army advanced from place to place. His company developed the ground 
 on the last crossing. After the troops were all over, he and his men took their place 
 in the line and saw hard service in the battle. Daniel Morgan was a teamster in 
 Braddock's army. Next to Washington, these men are most conspicuous. 
 
 Others who might be named would include Adam Stevens, who did splendid work 
 in the early part of the Revolutionary 'war. His last fight was at Germantown — per- 
 haps. Here his troops clashed with those of General \Vayne. Stevens was blamed. 
 But time has shown a disposition to give him credit for the good he did. Certainly at 
 Braddock's defeat he acquitted himself well. 
 
 The conviction of the writer of this article is that if records were searched it would 
 be found that a good many men who held positions as captains, majors, etc., in the 
 New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia troops in the Revolutionary war were privates 
 or noncommissioned officers in Braddock's army. Morgan is a suggestive case. He 
 rose from a teamster with Braddock to one of the foremost figures of 1775-1783. 
 
 Braddock should not be overlooked. It is true that he blundered, and was defeated. 
 But a careful study of his movement and his plans *vill show that he was a brave, 
 efficient officer, according to European standards. His private character was no 
 worse than many others of his day; perhaps it was not so good as that of many others 
 in his profession of arms. He really was the victim of a system; the product of a 
 Bchool of militarv training. 
 
BATTLEFIELD OF THE MONONGAHELA. 5 
 
 But it is not for him so much as for Washington, Morgan, Gates, Stevens, Mercer, 
 etc., among ourselves; Gage and Burton among the English; Beaujeau, Dumas, 
 Ligneri, Carqueville, and others among the French, that the monument should be 
 raised. As well let it be for some of the great Indian chiefs such as Pontiac, who are 
 supposed to have been in the fight. But more especially because the fight discovered 
 Washington and the man who put on a continental uniform and followed him through 
 Valley Forge and Princeton and Brandywine to Yorktown, the man who has made 
 victory possible in every war our country has waged, the American soldier, that this 
 appropriation is asked. 
 
 Perhaps it may be said, "We do not mark defeats." But we have — some which 
 were nothing more than defeats, without any future of worth. There is Custer's 
 defeat. The field is splendidly marked, as it should be. Chickamauga is one of the 
 best-marked fields of the South. The federal troops withdrew from it after three 
 days' hard fighting. There is a monument at Lundys Lane. The people who claim 
 to have won the day lost the war. Then, back in revolutionary days, there is Bunker 
 Hill. Daniel Webster was not ashamed to dedicate that monument; and Americans 
 are not ashamed of the defeat there, nor, indeed, of many others of that long war. 
 Indeed, it is well known to your committee that we are marking many places to-day 
 where in the clash of arms we may have been temporarily defeated, but where time 
 shows that there was a semblance to \dctory in the discovery of a man or men. Brad- 
 dock's defeat wall easily stand on a par with any such place. All that Thomas was 
 to Chickamauga, Washington was at Braddock, -and more. Beyond the firing lines of 
 the two fields even the most ardent admirer of General Thomas would say that we must 
 not place him in comparison with "the father of our country." No real American 
 will call that a "defeat" that gave to the world Washington. 
 
 We ask you to grant the appropriation, for it is believed that the event that it is 
 proposed to commemorate deserves national recognition. And time has demonstrated 
 that unless Congress does mark the field it will not be marked. It merits your help. 
 
 It will come to you also that this is an opportune time. Just a few months since 
 Great Britain sent the Prince of Wales, in one of the nation's largest battle ships, to 
 Quebec to attend upon the functions incident to the celebration of the one hundred 
 and fiftieth anniversary of the \actory of Wolfe. We honored ourselves as a nation 
 by having our distinguished Vice-President represent us on that occasion. Our 
 whole nation appreciated the fitness of this celebration. 
 
 May it be said there would have been no victory at Quebec to celebrate in 1908 if 
 there had been no battle at the headwaters of the Ohio in 1755. Pittsburg has 
 recently celebrated her sesquicentennial. That celebrated Forbes victory in 1758. 
 The relationship between Braddock's defeat and Forbes's triumph is easily discerned. 
 
 An event so great in itself and so much interlocked with other memorable events 
 will certainly appeal to your committee. 
 
 The Chairman. That is exceedingh^vell written; it is a very well- 
 written paper, indeed. His reference to Bunker Hill is hardly a 
 precedent, because, while the}^ have raised a monument there, it was 
 raised by private subscription, and the National Government did not 
 appropriate for it. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. But he simply mentions that as recognizing the 
 propriety in certain cases of marking a defeat. 
 
 Mr. Thomas. \^ here is Braddock situated? 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Braddock is near Pittsburg. It is a city of probably 
 15,000 people. It is on the left bank of the Monongahela as you 
 ascend that stream, and about 15 miles from the city of Pittsburg. 
 It can hardly be said to be separate from Pittsburg, because for 20 
 miles up the Monongahela River there is one continuous city, and 
 it is difficult to tell where Pittsburg ends and the adjoining borough 
 begins. 
 
 The Chairman. It is next to Wilkinsburg ? 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. No; there is Pittsburg, and then comes Wilkins- 
 burg, Edgewood, Swissvale, Rankin, and then Braddock. Then 
 East Pittsburg, Turtle Creek, Wilmerding, East McKeesport. 
 
 Braddock is now a great industrial center. It is the seat of the 
 Edgar Thomson steel works, the largest manufacturing establishment 
 
6 BATTLEFIELD OF THE MONONGAHELA. 
 
 of steel rails in the United States, one of the subordinate works of 
 the United States Steel Compan}^. Braddock is a prosperous town. 
 It has numerous churches and a fine school system, and a library 
 founded by Andrew Carne;:!;ie and maintained b}^ the borough. 
 
 Mr. Thomas. This is one of the many historic battlefields in 
 Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Yes ; there are at least three conspicuous battlefields 
 in Pennsylvania, representing three distinct epochs ; they are German- 
 town, Gettysburg, and Braddock. 
 
 Mr. Thomas. Do not leave out Brandywine. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. And then there is Brandywine. But those three 
 represent distinct epochs. The battle of the Monongahela, otherwise 
 known as "Braddock's defeat," represents our colonial period; Ger- 
 mantown — and Brandywine also — represents our Revolutionary 
 period, and Gettysburg marks the turning of the tide in the great civil 
 war. 
 
 The Chairman. Can you give us the number of men engaged, for 
 instance ? 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Yes; I think I can. 
 
 Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I regret very much to 
 have to leave, as I have another committee meeting which I promised 
 to attend. I would therefore ask Mr. Dalzell to be as brief as he can. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. I am substantially through. 
 
 Mr. Thomas. I am very much interested, and, as you know, I am 
 very friendly — except in political matters — to you; but I unfor- 
 tunately have to go to another committee. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Perhaps as good a description as any of the meeting 
 of the two armies preceding the battle or the Monongahela is to be 
 found in Washington Irving' s Life of Washington, where he describes 
 in a very realistic way the British army and the colonials crossing the 
 Monongahela River, the sunlight gleaming on their bayonets and 
 showing their brilliant uniforms. 
 
 Mr. Thomas. Which work of Irving is that ? 
 
 Mr, Dalzell. In Washington Irving' s Life of Washington. I have 
 here an extract, which reads as follows: 
 
 By sunrise the main body turned out in full uniform. At the beating of the gen- 
 eral, their arms, which had been cleaned the night before, were charged with fresh 
 cartridges. The officers were perfectly equipped. All looked as if arranged for a 
 fete rather than a battle. Washington, who was still weak and unwell, mounted his 
 horse and joined the staff of the general, who was scrutinizing everything with the 
 eye of a martinet. 
 
 As it was supposed the enemy would be on the watch for the crossing of the troops, 
 it had been agreed that they should do it in the greatest order, with bayonets fixed, 
 colors flying, and drums and fifes beating and playing. They accordingly made a gal- 
 lant appearance as they forded the Monongahela and wound along its banks and 
 through the open forests, gleaming and glittering in morning sunlight, and stepping 
 buoyantly to the Grenadier's March. 
 
 And in a very interesting article in the Historic Magazine, volume 
 7, page 265, which was written to eulogize General Beaujeu, it is said: 
 
 The finest English army ever sent beyond the Atlantic to astonish the provinciale 
 and annihilate the French was Braddock's army. 
 
 Then the writer goes on to say: 
 
 The Indians encamped under the Bourbon lilies by the waters of the Allegheny 
 were Hurons, Iroquois, Shawnees, Pontiac, and Anastase Cornplanter (200 French, 
 600 Indians). 
 
BATTLEFIELD OF THE MONONGAHELA. 7 
 
 The French had anticipated tlie coming of the British forces and ' 
 marched out from Fort Duquesne, which was at the junction of the 
 Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, the night before. They planted 
 themselves in the ravines which ran at right angles to the river up 
 along the north side and attacked the British forces and colonials 
 as they marched down parallel with the river. Braddock insisted 
 that his men should march as if they were on a parade ground. 
 
 The Chairman. That is, Braddock and his men were marching 
 right along the river? 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Yes. As the men were marching along the river, 
 the Indians and French attacked them at right angles. 
 
 The Chairman. They had the river on one side and the Indians and 
 the French on the other side ? 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. They had the hill on the left, and the river on the 
 right; and the ravines running from the river, separating the hills, 
 furnished a hiding place for the French and Indians. The number 
 engaged was 200 French and 600 Indians. The Braddock forces 
 consisted of 1,460 officers and privates. This writer, to whom I 
 made reference a few minutes ago, in speaking of Beaujeu, whom he 
 much admires and eulogizes, says: 
 
 As he came to the crest of a hill over which the trail passed, he came full in view of 
 the English line, coming proudly on, the summer sun glittering from the bayonets 
 and muskets of the men, and the brilliant scarlet uniforms contrasting with the green 
 foliage of the woods. They, too, marked with astonishment the sudden apparition of 
 the French. Beaujeu was in the front, bounding on, brandishing his carbine and 
 cheering his men to a mad attack on the very front of the well-appointed army before 
 him, with artillery enough to sweep his whole command from the earth. 
 
 The writer describes in a very pathetic way Beaujeu's taking 
 communion the night before he started out to meet the British. 
 Beaujeu was killed in this battle. 
 
 The reason of the defeat, of course, was the persistence on the part 
 of Braddock to fight according to rule. He could not be persuaded 
 by Washington and the other colonials that the proper way to fight 
 Indians was after Indian fashion. The consequence was that, with 
 a very largely superior force, and, as this writer says, "artillery 
 enough to sweep them from the face of the earth," they met a most 
 disastrous slaughter. 
 
 I have already quoted from Irving's life of Washington. In 
 another place Irving says: 
 
 The affair of Braddock remains a memorable event in American history, and has 
 been characterized as "the most extraordinary victory ever obtained, and the farthest 
 flight ever made." It struck a fatal blow to the deference for British prowess which 
 onceamounted almost to bigotry throughout the provinces. "This whole transaction," 
 remarks Franklin in his Autobiography, "gave us the first suspicion that our exalted 
 ideas of the prowess of British regular troops had not been well founded." 
 
 The Chairman. \^liat were the casualties? 
 
 Ml'. Dalzell. Of the 1,460 souls, officers and privates, who went 
 into the combat, 456 were slain outright and 421 were wounded; 
 making a total of 877. Of 89 commissioned officers, 63 were killed 
 or wounded, not a solitaiy field officer escaping unhurt. Four hun- 
 dred and fifty -six killed, 421 wounded, and 583 safe. 
 
 The number of women and servants killed can not be ascertained, 
 since they are not entered on the roster of an army. Certain it is, 
 however, that but three of the latter were spared. 
 
b BATTLEFIELD OF THE MONONGAHELA. 
 
 I really, Mr. Chairman, can add nothing to what Doctor Hawes 
 has so well said in the article that I read to you. The people of three 
 nations, France, England, and the United States, are interested in 
 marking the place so intimately connected with their destinies, the 
 place where the contest opened which was fated to end in giving the 
 control of this western continent to the people of the United States. 
 
 It is fitting that a monument should be erected on the field of the 
 battle of the Monongahela and that Congress should provide the 
 means to erect it. 
 
 (Adjourned.) 
 
 o 
 
 :8 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 '^bv^ 
 
 
 
 
 V..*^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 B . * * A <^^ 
 
 
 
 ••'••v«* ^'-^'Z v'^-\/ %-^"/ •