Still, whatever may have been the extent and influence of such a feeling, it did not avail to deter the British war secretary from bribing, enlisting, and infuriating Indian allies against us. But if any among the English wished and desired that the controversy between the rebelling colonists and the King might be tried and settled without calling into it the tomahawks, the scalping-knives, and the torches of the fiends of the forest, how much more might our own people, who knew so well what Indian warfare was, shrink from and try to avert the worst of their threatened perils!
Of course there has been the usual charging and counter-charging of American and British partisan historical writers as to which of the contending parties was first in the enlistment of savage allies. It seems strange that the matter should not have been regarded as settled by precedent on both sides. It was said in Parliament, when the measure was under discussion, that Congress had already got the start in that policy. Still, the British war minister was sharply rebuked in the House of Lords on account of his savage allies, though they had been advised by Burgoyne to restrain their ferocity. The Earl of Chatham poured forth his indignation so fiercely that it was said that the tapestry-figures on the walls listened with frowns on their faces. Burke thus sarcastically illustrated the appeal to the savages' humanity: —
“Suppose there was a riot on Tower Hill. What would the
keeper of his Majesty's lions do? Would he not fling open the dens
of the wild beasts, and then address them thus: ‘My gentle Lions,
my humane Bears, my tender-hearted Hyenas, go forth! but I
exhort you, as you are Christians and members of civilized society, to
take care not to hurt any man, woman, or
child.’ ”[1]
Our people had to start in the conflict under the reasonable
and dread apprehension that they would have to con-
- ↑ Horace Walpole's Letters, Cunningham's ed., vol. vii. p. 29.
