Did it Happen: Simon Girty and the Burning of Crawford

The burning at the stake of Col. William Crawford by Mingo Natives on June 11, 1782 is a well-known scene in frontier history.  It was described in graphic detail by Allan Eckert in his Frontiersmen series, where Simon Girty figures as one of the more prominent villains.   According to this oft-told tale, Girty egged on the Natives to kill Crawford for several reasons.  One was revenge for Crawford having refused Girty's suit of one of his daughters.  Another might have been Crawford's discipline or reprimand of Girty for some infraction during the early years of the Revolution before Girty joined the British.  Or, it might have been Girty's general dislike of Americans for a variety of reasons.  Further, during the burning, he was said to have laughed in Crawford's face and refused to end his suffering with a merciful bullet.

But did it happen? 

To get to even a basic understanding of what happened in June 1782, requires some background on the three men most involved, Crawford, Girty, and Mingo Leader Captain Pipe.  Captain Pipe or Hopocan (c 1725 or 1740-c 1818), was born in the Ohio Valley.  The Mingo were an Iroquoian-speaking amalgam of Natives, consisting primarily of Seneca and Cayuga who had drifted from their original homelands in New York and oftentimes allied with the Shawnee during the struggles over the Ohio Valley.  Some of Hopocan's family had settled in villages near where Steubensville is now.  As we saw in the discussion on Lord Dummore's War, the Mingo had rejected the Treaty of Camp Charlotte in 1774 and two Mingo villages were burned in retaliation.  One of the leaders of the punitive expedition was William Crawford (1722-1822).

Crawford was a surveyor by trade.  He was born in Virginia and had become friends with George Washington.  Along with Washington, he served in Edward Braddock's failed expedition and had survived the Battle of the Monongahela.  He later moved to Pennsylvania and settled land along the Braddock Road.  He was a Colonel in the Pennsylvania militia when Dunmore's War broke out.  Among the interpreters attached to his unit were Simon and James Girty. 

Simon Girty (1741-1818), was of Irish-English descent and had grown up on the Pennsylvania frontier.  In 1755, when he was about 13, he and his family, including his 4 brothers, were kidnapped by a Shawnee raiding party.  While his older brother escaped captivity and his younger brother and mother were ransomed, Girty and his two middle brothers, James and George, were raised by Native tribes.  Simon spent time among the Seneca, James with the Shawnee and George with the Delaware.  All three were ransomed in 1763 and earned their livings as interpreters and guides to traders and military expeditions in the backcountry.  As war with Great Britain loomed, Simon threw in his lot with the Americans, although he would regret the decision and defect to the British.  Much of what weighed into his ultimate decision happened during the raid against the Mingos during Dunmore's War.  The Americans raided a small encampment that contained mostly old people, women and children.  To his credit, when Crawford saw that their enemy were noncombatants, he called off the killing.  Too late for several relatives of Hopocan.  As the skirmishes in the frontier wore on, in Girty's mind, the Revolution was less about taxation without representation, and more about the rights of wealthy speculators and would-be speculators such as Crawford to land in the backcountry that rightfully belonged to the Natives. 

Fast forward to 1781, Simon was an interpreter working for the British Indian Department.  As such, he carried the rank of Captain in the British Army.  So, too, did his friend George Elliott.  It was Girty and Elliott who were responsible for removing the Natives and missionaries from the mission at Gnadenhutten, which went terribly wrong in Spring, 1781, when Pennsylvania militiamen came across nearly 100 Delaware who had returned to forage for food and were massacred.  What did Crawford have to do with this?  Nothing.  He was, by this time, a Colonel in the Continental Army and not in command of any militia units. 

In 1782, Washington sent Crawford in command of a punitive expedition against Natives, including the Mingos, who were raiding American settlements on the frontier.  Although he was a Continental officer, the men he led were Pennsylvania militia, though not the unit responsible for the killings at Gnadenhutten.  Crawford's men were defeated in the Battle of Sandusky, June 4, 1782, and his son, nephew, and son-in-law were taken captive.  Crawford himself was captured when he and Dr. John Knight broke off from the column to go look for them.  The Natives who captured Crawford were Mingos and they made their intentions clear by tying Crawford's hands behind his back and painting his face black, a sign that he was a prisoner marked for death.  The next day, he was marched to Hopocan's village where Simon Girty happened to be, along with George Elliott and another Mingo leader, Wingemut, who had been friendly to the Americans in the past. 

Crawford found out that Girty was in the area and sent for him.  Girty met with him and Crawford asked about his relatives.  Girty stated that they had been ransomed.  This was a merciful lie on Girty's part.  All 3 men had been killed, but he did not want to tell Crawford, who most likely would die the next day.  He promised to intercede for Crawford with Hopocan.  He found George Elliott and the two men approached Hopocan.  He refused Girty's offers to ransom Crawford, turning down a horse of Girty's that he admired, as well as a brace of pistols and money.  In the coming days, Girty tried again to speak to Hopocan about the matter, as well as arrange more trade goods, but to no avail.  As the execution day dawned, Girty tried again to plead with Hopocan but was told that if he did not stop, he could take Crawford's place.  Girty was known on the frontier for several good and bad qualities, but willing martyr was not one.  Knowing full well what was about to happen, he and Elliott stood back.  Winegmut also tried to reason with Hopocan, telling him that Crawford was not the commander of the group at Gnadenhutten, but Hopocan was adamant that Crawford die.

Hopocan's anger doesn't make sense if the killing of Crawford was solely in revenge for Gnadenhutten, but it does make sense in the context of Crawford being the commander on the raid of the Mingo villages during Dunmore's War.  Had Hopocan found out about this?  No one knows for certain.  However, prior to the burning, he held a trial for Crawford.  One of the witnesses who spoke at the trial was his sister-in-law, who indicated that Crawford had spared her life during the raid.  However, she had to admit that others of their family had been killed before the fighting stopped.  It was enough.  Crawford was doomed. 

Some who have written about this execution, particularly on the Internet, dwell on the idea that the Natives were killing Crawford in a ritual designed to absorb his bravery and courage.  While that may have been true of some captives taken in raids, Hopocan's behavior in holding a trial and addressing his people before beginning the execution make it clear that, in his mind, this was a judicial execution.  Crawford could not understand the words, but he was well aware of what was happening.  He turned to Girty and asked if he was going to die.  Girty told him yes.  At some point after the execution commenced, Crawford again spoke to Girty and asked him to shoot him.  Girty stated the obvious, "I have no gun."

Whether he had chosen to leave his weapons out of sight to avoid angering Hopocan or whether Hopocan had taken his weapons to ensure that he would not shoot Crawford will never be known.  Likely, even had Girty had his gun in his hand at the moment, he would not have risked his own death by shooting Crawford.  What happened next came from an account supposedly written later by Dr. John Knight.  He wrote that Girty, drunk and raving, had laughed as the execution proceeded and had even taken the opportunity to taunt him, Knight, about being next and had lambasted him for Crawford's expedition in the first place. 

So, how much of Knight's account was true?  Knight was due for the stake next, but escaped before he could be killed.  He later made it back to Pittsburgh and told his story to a local attorney, Hugh Henry Brackenridge.  Brackenridge later wrote the story up, along with other tales of Simon and James Girty, into a pamphlet that became something of a best seller.  Simon Girty was Public Enemy #1 on the American frontier and any tale about him would've caught on like wildfire.  For this reason, both recent Girty biographers discount the tale told by Knight to Brackenridge as exaggerated, either by Knight, who was furious over the death of his friend and commander, or by Brackenridge, who wanted to sell a few pamphlets.  Girty drank.  He could let fly with his mouth and fists when he was under the influence.  Was he stressed by the situation and drinking and not on his best behavior during the ordeal, most likely.  However, two facts remain.  The execution was not his idea.  Hopocan was adamant that someone would pay for Gnadenhutten and for the raids on the Mingo villages.  Further, there was nothing Girty could have done to stop it.  Crawford's fate was sealed.