payment page
Summary
The fall of Fort William Henry and the ensuing massacre of the surrendered British on August 8, 1757 is one of the most famous incidents in American history. As presented by James Fenimore Cooper in the novel The Last of the Mohicans, the fall of the fort was an incredible tragedy of epic proportions—an illustration of the nobility of the British and the savagery of both the French and the Indians, and an example of brutal primal rage. The real picture is more complicated.
On August 2, 1757 Major General Daniel Webb learned of a concentration of French forces preparing to attack Fort William Henry, which was on the southern end of Lake George along the route to Montreal. With the a lack of foresight typical among the British officers up to that point in the war, Webb decided to retreat, leaving Lieutenant Colonel George Munro in charge. When Munro, who was left to defend the fort with 2,300 men (only 1,600 of whom were fit for battle) learned that Louis-Joseph de Montcalm was preparing to attack the fort with over 7,000 men, he appealed to Webb for reinforcements. Although Webb had a large number of ready and able reinforcements at his side, he refused Munro’s request, and sent back a letter advising Munro to settle on the best possible terms. Amazingly, Munro held out against the French for four days. But the odds were virtually impossible, and he finally capitulated on August 9.
The British troops were disarmed as a condition of surrender, and made to march from the fort. As the inhabitants of the fort streamed out, the Ottawa, Abenaki, and Potawatomi warriors who fought with the French fell upon the British. A massacre began with the helpless—the wounded and sick men that had been in the fort’s hospital and were carried out last. Women and children, families of the soldiers, were also murdered. Other victims included Black servants, Native American allies of the British, and retreating soldiers who were in sight when order broke down.
While their Native American allies attacked, the French did nothing to stop the massacre or to assist those being slaughtered. Montcalm excused his behavior with the following words: “I have been obliged here to gratify the Indian nations, who will not leave without me, and am obliged to pass my time with them in ceremonies as tiresome as they are necessary.” Montcalm did attempt to restore hostages that the Native American warriors carried off, and he was successful at rescuing many of them.
The number of casualties of the massacre continues to be disputed. It is certain that the French underestimated the death toll, and the English overestimated it, both for propaganda purposes. Contemporary historians normally place the number at over 200, with over 300 captives taken.
Analysis
The massacre at Fort William Henry became a vital part of American history, though James Fenimore Cooper’s version often took precedence over the factal events. The massacre also became a cornerstone of colonial propaganda against Native Americans, much the way the Battle of the Alamo was used to justify the Mexican War in 1846. While the massacre at Fort William Henry represents a far different set of circumstances than the Alamo, the Native Amerian “villains” of Fort William Henry had clear reasons for their behavior.
When the French recruited the Ottowas, Potowatomis and Abenakis to fight in the battle for the fort, they promised them the opportunity to plunder the fort after the battle was won. This clause was crucial to the Native Americans because a number of devastating forces—including smallpox and starvation brought on by the disruptions of European settlers and the war—made every opportunity to get food, supplies, and money crucial for their survival. Native American allies were not usually paid by either the British or the French, except in gifts of rum, blankets, clothing, and trade goods. Depending on the tribe, “plunder” might be interpreted as including the opportunity to gather scalps from the enemy. As they had at Oswego, the French usually turned their backs while the Native American warriors engaged in their scalping.
But at Fort William Henry, the French made other plans. In their negotiations with the British as to rights of surrender, they allowed the British to remove most of their personal belongings and goods from the fort. No Native Amerians were present at these negotiations. As the troops filed out of the fort with all of their supplies, the warriors grew infuriated. The British were leaving with their only spoils of war, and it appeared as though the French had deceived them. The warriors reacted violently, by attacking the helpless sick and wounded at the end of the train, and chaos quickly broke out.
The Native Amerians who seized scalps from the sick at the back of the train were indeed punished brutally for their actions—the scalps were infected with smallpox, which was transferred to the Native Americans and their communities, further weakening them. But both the British and colonials used the massacre for years after the war as an example of the “savagery” of the Native Americans and a justification for seizing their lands. The truth, however, is far more complicated.
