detEctive - Paula Petrik | George Mason University

HI HistOr389 ianAS detEctiveReader(2009)Paula PetrikDepartment of HistoryCarroll CollegeHelena, MT 59601http://www.archiva.net1

Table of Contents1. A Chesapeake Afternoon2. State v. Rehberg3. Pigeon’s Egghead…4. Nineteenth-Century Daguerreotypes5. Barrow’s Plantation6. The Quilting Frolic2

1. A Chesapeake MysteryIntroductionAlthough Virginia law had defined the terms of slavery by the1660s, it proved difficult to maintain the social separation ofAfrican Americans from whites. Free servants, indenturedservants, slaves, male and female, black and white workedside by side, and fornication and miscegenation were a distinctpossibilities in such circumstances. Taken from the courtrecords of Virginia, the testimony offers conflicting statementsabout the behavior of a white woman and slave men oneAugust afternoon in 1681.Questions1. To obtain a better idea of what happened, it often useful tosystematize the basic information and to identify thehistorical actors by organizing them. Begin by answeringthe following:a. What was the crime?b. Identify the victim.c. When did the crime occur?d. Who was the perpetrator?e. Who were the slaves who were working around theorchard?f. Who were the others working around the orchard?g. Characterize Katherine Watkins behavior.h. Describe Jack’s behavior.2. Draw a diagram or map of the places mentioned in thetestimony and their relationships to one another.3. When you have finished answering the questions anddrawing the diagram, write a summary of the events.4. There are several significant details that can add to yournarrative. Answer the following questions:a. Why was the fact that Katherine Watkins was a Quakersignificant?b. Why didn't the magistrates hear the slave's testimony?c. What did the others in and around the orchard think ofKatherine Watkins?d. What evidence can you list for their opinions?e. Why is Humphrey Smith's remark about John Aust'stestimony significant?f. Why were the magistrates interested in events leading upto the crime?5. Using the answers you formulated in the precedingquestions, revise your summary to include the newinformation.6. What does the document suggest about the social order,the development of slavery, and sexuality in colonialVirginia?7. What would you predict would be the magistrate'sfindings? ExplainThe said Katherine aforesaid on her Oath and examinationdeposeth, That on fryday being in the Month of August aboutefive weeks since, the said Katherine mett with John Long (aMulatto belonging to Capt. Thomas Cocke) at or neare thepyney slash betweene the aforesaid Cockes and HenryWatkins house, and at the same tyme and place, the saidJohn threw the said Katherine downe (He starting frombehinde a tree) and stopped her Mouth with a handkerchief,and tooke up the said Katherines Coates [petticoats], and putthis yard into her and ravished her; Upon which she the saidKatherine Cryed out (as she deposeth) and afterwards (beingrescued by another Negroe of the said Cockes named jackWhite) she departed home, and the said John departed to hisMasters likewise, or that way; after which abuse she the saidKatherine declares that her husband inclinable to thequakers, and therefore would not prosecute, and she beingsicke and her Children likewise, she therefore did not makeher complaint before she went to Lt. Col. Farrars (which wasyesterday, Morning) and this day in the Morning she went toWilliam Randolphs' and found him not at home, But at nightmet with the gentlemen justices aforesaid at the house of theaforesaid Cocke in Henrico County in Virginia aforesaid beforewhom she hath made this complaint upon oath. . . .The deposition of John Aust aged 32 yeares or thereaboutsDeposeth, That on fryday being the twelvth of August or3

thereabouts he came to the house of Mr. Thomas Cocke, andsoe went into his Orchard where his servants were a cuttingdowne weeds, whoe asked the deponent to stay and drinke,soe the deponent stayed and dranke syder with them, andjacke a Mulatto of the said Thomas Cocke went in to drawsyder, and he stay'd something long whereupon the deponentfollowed him, and coming to the doore where the syder was,heard Katherine the wife of Henry Wakins say (Lord) jackewhat makes thee refraine our house that you come not oftner,for come when thou wilt thou shalt be as well come as any ofMy owne Children, and soe she tooke him about the neckeand Kissed him, and jacke went out and drawed Syder, andshe said jack wilt thou not drinke to me, who sayd yes if youwill goe out where our Cupp is, and a little after she came out,where the said Thomas Cockes Negroes were a drinking andthere dranke cupp for cupp with them (as others there did)and as she sett Negroe dirke passing by her she tooke up thetaile of his shirt (saying) Dirke thou wilt have a good longthing, and soe did several tymes as he past by her; after thisshe went into the roome where the syder was and then cameout againe, and between the two houses she mett Mulattojacke a going to draw more syder and putt her hand on hiscodpiece, at which he smil'd, and went on his way and drewsyder and she came againe into the company but stay'd notlong but went out to drinking with two of the said ThomasCockes Negroes by the garden pale, And a while after shetooke Mingoe one of the said Cocke's Negroes about the Neckeand fling on the bedd and Kissed him and putt her hand intohis Codpeice, Awhile after Mulatto jacke went into the Fishroome and she followed him, but what they did there thisdeponent knoweth not for it being near night this deponentleft her and the Negroes together, (He thinking her to be muchin drinke) and soe this deponent went home about one houreby sunn. . . .The Deposition of William Harding aged about 35 yeares,Deposeth, That he came to the house of Mr. Thomas Cocke tospeake with his brother, where he see Katherine the wife ofHenry Watkins, and soe spoke to one there and sayd, that thesaid Henry Watkins wife had been a drinking; And that thisdeponent see the said Katherine Watkins turne up the taile ofNegroe Dirks shirt, and said that he would have a good prickwhereupon this deponent sayd is that the trick of a quaker,who made him answer, that what hast thou to say to quakers,It being acted on fryday the 12 of August or thereabouts andfurther saith not. . . .The Deposition of Mary Winter aged about 22 years. Deposeth,That Mr. Thomas Cocks Negroes and others being in companywith them drinking of syder, Then came in Katherine Watkinsthe wife of Henry Watkins and went to drinking with them,and tooke Mulatto jack by the hand in the outward roome andledd him into the inward roome doore and then thrust him inbefore her and told him she loved him for his Fathers sake forhis Father was a very hansome young Man, and afterwardsthe said Mulattoe went out from her, and then she fetched himinto the roome againe and hugged and kist him. And furthersaith not. . . .The Deposition of Lambert Tye aged about 26 yeares.Deposeth That being at Worke at Mr. Thomas Cocks on frydaybeing the twelvth of August or thereabouts, and coming intothe house with William Hobson and the rest of Mr. ThomasCocks servants and others in Company with them to drinkesyder, and being a drinking then comes in Katherine Watkinsthe wife of Henry Watkins having a very high Colour in herface whereupon this deponent asked Humphrey then servantto the said Thomas Cocke; what made his Countrywomanhave such a high Colour; whereupon he made this answear;That the [said] Katherine was at Old Humphrey's drinking andhe gave her a Cupp or two that had turned her braines, andsoe being a drinking with their company she went into theChimney (as this deponent thinketh) to light her pipe, and soemade a posture with her body as if she would have gone todanceing, and then afterwards coming into their companyagaine, she told Mulatto jack, that she loved him for hisfather's sake, And then having left the Company and shetogether a drinking, This deponent went home to his ownehouse, and afterwards coming from home towards the houseof the said Thomas Cocke, he mett with the said KatherineWatkins about halfe an houre by sun in the pathwayhomewards neare to this deponents house. And further saithnot.4

Humphrey Smith aged 26 yeares, deposeth, That he heardJohn Aust say (about September last past) what Matter is itwhat I swore to and likewise the deponent saw Katherine'sMouth (the wife of Henry Watkins) torne and her lipps swell'd,And the handkerchief that she said the Mulatto Stopt herMouth with very much bloody And the deponent heard theMulatto confess that he had beene to aske the said Watkinswife forgiveness three tymes, and likewise the Mulatto saydthat Henry Watkins (the last tyme he went) bidd him keepe offhis plantation or else he would shoote him and further saithnot.5

2. State v. RehbergIntroductionChildren make rare appearances in history. This transcript froman 1885 second-degree murder trial in Montana raisesquestions about the both the legal status of children andcultural beliefs about childhood in the nineteenth century.Questions1. Who are the principal historical actors in this document?2. Where was Edward Rehberg on the day in question? Howdo you know?3. The Rehberg family was not numbered among the “bestpeople” in Helena society, as a nineteenth-centurycommentator might say. One newspaper account reportedthat the girls wore overalls and did men’s work on theranch. What evidence do you find in the document thatsocial class played a role how the lawyers, physicians, andnon-family members viewed the Rehberg family, especiallyits female members?4. The majority of the witnesses and the victim were womenor girls. What part do nineteenth-century ideas aboutgender play in the trial?5. Where in the document do you find evidence fornineteenth-century ideas about childhood? What does thisevidence suggest about the nineteenth-century view ofchildhood? How does Clara Rehberg measure up to thesedefinitions?6. Expert testimony from a number of doctors plays a role inthe trial. What does the expert testimony contribute toboth the prosecution’s and defense’s cases?7. In a court of law, the jury must find a defendant not guilty(remember that “not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”)or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you had been amember of the Rehberg jury in 1886, how would you havevoted in the jury deliberations—not guilty or guilty? Whatare the reasons for your choice? What do you think thejury’s verdict was in 1886? What are the reasons for yourthinking?8. What was the substance of Clara Rehberg’s deathbeddeclaration? Why did the attorneys ask Clara questionsabout impending death and her moral character?9. How do you think Clara’s declaration affected thenineteenth-century jury’s verdict?10. Does the Clara’s declaration affect your vote as a memberof the jury? How do you think the nineteenth-century jurydecided?11. Deathbed declarations were more readily accepted innineteenth-century courts than in their twentieth-centurycounterparts. Why do you think this was the case?PROSECUTIONUpon the hearing of said cause, EMMA REHBERG wasintroduced as a witness in behalf of the prosecution, andtestified in substance as follows:I am nineteen years-old and daughter of the above nameddefendant Edward Rehberg, and now live about six miles fromthe City of Helena. In the year 1885, I was living with myfather on his ranch about 18 miles from the City of Helena, inLewis and Clarke County. Louisa Rehberg, my step-mother,Clara Rehberg, now dead, Bertha Rehberg, Emil Rehberg, myfather Edward Rehberg, myself and the hired man Joe Tiebowall lived there together. My sister Clara was nearly eleven yearsold in August A.D. 1885, she is now dead,—died in September1885, at the Hospital in the City of Helena, County of Lewisand Clarke, Territory of Montana. I remember when my sisterClara was brought to Town from my father’s ranch by myfather. It was on Sunday, but I do not recollect what monthand what date.Q. Did you see Clara on Saturday before that Sunday?A. Yes, Sir. I used to help my father at work and so did mysister Bertha. My sister Clara worked in the house athousework. She slept with me and my sister in the sameroom.6

Q. Do you remember eating supper on that Saturday nightbefore Clara was taken to town?A. Yes, Sir.Q. Who was around there then,—was your father?A. Yes, Sir, my father was eating supper.Q. And whom else?A. Emil, Louisa and Clara.Q. Was Clara doing her work?A. No, Sir.Q. Did Clara go to bed before or after you did that Saturdaynight, if you remember?A. No, Sir, she got up before I did on Sunday morning to helpLouisa, my step-mother, get breakfast. I was not downstairsall the time Sunday morning ill they were getting breakfast,but while I was there I saw Louisa and Clara together. Theygot the breakfast ready as usual. When I went down they wassetting the table getting breakfast. My father and the hiredman ate breakfast that morning first, and I think Clara waitedon the table. Clara and Louisa got dinner that Sunday. Istayed home after dinner. We ate about twelve. I wasdownstairs part of the time, and part of the time upstairs thatafternoon. I saw Clara after dinner,—she was in the kitchenwith Louisa, little Emil was out of doors, I was upstairs aboutan hour and a half taking care of the baby. I did not see Clarawhile I was upstairs. When I came down, she was sleeping onthe lounge. I afterwards went outdoors and saw her aroundthe house,—she was talking with my father and brother wherethey were working at the haystack, about ten yards from thehouse. My father took her to town right after that. A fewminutes after I saw her outside,—father said he was going totake her to town. My little brother was there. Clara was actingsick but was not crying,—she was sitting down, and my fatherand the hired man were sitting beside her. Someone put her inthe wagon. It was too high for her. She was in a bad conditionall day. Father said he was going to take her to Helena. I thinkmy stepmother and Bertha went out after a cow thatafternoon,—I do not know what time they left. Clara helpedLouisa get dinner, and father started to town with Clara aboutfive o’clock, I think. This was after my stepmother came back.Father had just finished up the haystack, put the top on, andhad come down when Clara went out to him, just before hetook her to town. Clara was a weak girl, but she used to do thehousework regularly. All she did was to help Louisa in thehouse,—bring in wood, scrub, wash, iron,—help cook, wait ontable, help get breakfast. My stepmother has lived there abouttwo years. The afternoon that father brought Clara to town,my father and brother and the hired man and two other menwere there,—these two other men were neighbors. They cameover in the afternoon that father took layer to town. I first sawthem when they came there. One was Frank Lang, and I forgetthe other one’s name. They came when Clara was out therewith my father at the stack, that is when I saw them.Q. State what your little brother was doing that afternoon,—whether or not you saw him playing, or what he was doing?Counsel for defendant: I object to this testimony as irrelevantand immaterial. Objection overruled, and exception taken bydefendant’s counsel.A. He was with my father at the haystack.ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, witness testified in substance asfollows:—My father had breakfast about seven or eight o’clock thatSunday morning, with the hired man, and immediately afterbreakfast, they went to finish the haystack. They went outtogether. Clara remained in the house with Louisa, mystepmother. I was not in the house during the entire forenoon,—I was out helping my father on the haystack. Clara was inthe house all the forenoon with Louisa. We left the house andwent out to the haystack just as soon as breakfast was over,and returned at dinner time. Father was working on the stack,and the hired man, Joe Tiebow, and myself were workinghelping him. Father did not get off the stack from the time hewent up in the morning until dinner time only when he had toget stack sticks for the stack. He did not return to the houseduring the forenoon, would have known it, because I wasthere all the time. We all went to dinner from the stack7

together. My father and the hired man ate first, and I was inthe kitchen then. My sister Clara did not eat any dinner. Afterdinner father went back again to the haystack to work, he andthe hired man. They left the house together about 1 o’clock. Idid not go with them in the afternoon. I went past there afterhe left the house that noon and saw him on the stack. Thiswas about three o’clock in the afternoon. When father and thehired man left the house after dinner, Clara and Louisa werein the house together; Bertha was around the house with us,and so was Emil. I spent about an hour and a half thatafternoon upstairs. I do not know just what time in theafternoon it was, but it was after I had been out past thehaystack. Clara was downstairs and I was upstairs.Q. Did you see any person whipping, beating, or abusing Claraon the Saturday before this Sunday?Mr. Hunt objected to as not proper cross-examination.Objection sustained by the Court, and Counsel for thedefendant duly excepted.Q. Emma, do you know of your own knowledge, who it wasthat inflicted those wounds and bruises on your sister Clara?Hunt objected to as not proper cross-examination, whichobjection was duly sustained by the court, and Counsel for thedefendant duly excepted to such ruling.The Court,—and now the following question,—who did it, thatwould be the question.MR. CARTER:Q. Who did beat and maltreat and abuse your sister Clara?MR. HUNT: We object to this question as not proper crossexamination.The court sustained the objection and theCounsel for the defendant duly excepted. Mr. Carter continuedthe examination as follows:—The haystacks were just about ten yards from the house. Thestables at the same place. My sister Clara was in the habit ofhelping my stepmother in and about the house, in cookingand taking care of household affairs.Q. Will you now state to the jury, whether or not Louisa was inthe habit of abusing and beating Clara?MR. HUNT: I object, there is no testimony whatever to showany beating by Louisa or anybody else.COURT: There is no ground for the question at this time,objection sustained.COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT: I except of the ruling of theCourt.The witness continued:—It was about five or six o’clock that I noticed my sister Claraout near the barn or stable or haystack with my father. Thehired man and my little brother Emil were there all closetogether. I had not heard any screaming or exclamationsbefore I went out there,—any noise about the haystack orstable which called my attention in that direction. My sisterClara went out of the house to get matches from anotherhouse near by there, so I might light the fire to warm milk forthe baby. I went out right after her. I took the baby and justwent along with her. She was a little ahead of me. She thenstopped to talk with my father. This was just a little timebefore he prepared the wagon to go to town. He started inabout ten minutes after myself and Clara arrived at the stableand immediately after, Clara did not feel well,—she did notcomplain of being sick,—my father commenced a conversationwith her and she seemed to be sick. Mr. Lang came soon afterwe met there. I went back in the house to get her things soshe could go to town. My father told me to do so, and he wentin the house to get his things. My father was working aroundthe haystack when Clara and I started out to the stable. Hewas raking hay,—Joe Tiebow was with him. Joe hitched upthe horses. We were all there when Clara was put in thewagon. Father asked Clara when he first met her what was thematter with her. We all worked hard out there at the ranch butno harder than the neighbors. My father never drove us towork, but we worked to help him along. It was true that wewere compelled to work more because of the fact that fatherwas crippled and suffered from rheumatism.8

ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, witness testified in substanceas follows:—Bertha and Louisa went out Sunday afternoon looking for acow. They were gone about three hours. I was upstairs aboutan hour and a half.BERTHA REHBERG, a witness introduced in behalf of theprosecution testified in substance as follows:—I was fifteen years-old last August and am a sister of ClaraRehberg. She died in September. The Sunday morning thatfather brought her to town she got up before I did,—sheusually got up first. She helped my stepmother in the house. Iremember the Sunday that she was brought to town. We atebreakfast about six or seven o’clock. After breakfast I went outto milk the cows. I was there at dinner. Father went out afterbreakfast to finish the haystack and came back about twelveo’clock with the hired man. Father and the hired man atedinner together, and we ate after they had done. Clara helpedcook dinner. After dinner Louisa and I went out after a cowabout three miles away. We went on horseback and did not getback until five o’clock. My father, the-hired man, and Claraand my little brother and Emma were on the ranch when I left,—when we came back, father had taken my sister to town,Emma and Clara were in the house,—Emma was outside,father was on the stack with the hired man. We came backabout five o’clock, and father and Clara had both gone totown. The hired man was out at the stable. Louisa was withme all the time after dinner looking after the cow. Joe, thehired man, does not live there,—he left about five months ago,—up to that time he was working there on the ranch for myfather. The next I saw little Clara after I came from huntingthe cow was in the Hospital at Helena. I saw her three or fourtimes before she died, but always at the Hospital.ON CROSS-EXAMINATION witness testified as fellows:—Father and the hired man ate breakfast that morning, aboutsix or seven o’clock. Clara was in the kitchen when I atebreakfast, helping our stepmother. Father and the hired manwent to work immediately after breakfast to finish thehaystack, about twenty yards from the house. I was outsidethe house part of the forenoon with my little brother. Clarawas in the kitchen with my stepmother during the forenoon.Father was out on the haystack during the entire forenoon. Isaw him after he went out and before he returned to dinner,—Ido not know how often,—a great many times though, as I ranin and out of the house,—he was always on the haystack, thehired man was there with him. Joe Tiebow, the hired man,was pitching hay on the stack and my father was stacking it.He did not return to the house after breakfast before noonthat day. I did not see Clara and father together at all duringthat forenoon. Clara was in and out to the hay-stack. I was athome on Saturday,—Clara was in the house. My stepmotherand Emma had gone to Helena on Saturday.Q. What time did they return on Saturday?Mr. Hunt: There is no testimony as to what happened onSaturday at all,—the testimony is confined to Sunday, and Iobject to any cross-examination about previous time until hemakes the witness his own.The Court sustained the objection. All these questionspertaining to Saturday were objected to as not proper crossexamination,and such objections were sustained by theCourt, and the Counsel for the defense duly had exceptionsnoted as to such rulings of the Court.A. Louisa was at home on Sunday morning at breakfast.Emma was there too. They had spent the night previous at thehouse. I do not know at time Clara went to bed the nightbefore.Q. Do you know what her condition was when she did go tobed?Mr. Hunt: I object that it is not proper cross-examination. TheCourt sustained the objection. Counsel for the defendant dulyexcepted.A. I would have known it if my father had beaten the childSunday forenoon. Father and the hired man left the house togo to work right after dinner about one o’clock that afternoon.Clara was then in the kitchen. When I went out to saddle thehorses, father and the hired man were at the haystack, andthey were there when I had finished saddling the horses.Father did not return to the house at any time after dinner9

efore I left to look after the cow. Clara was then in thekitchen,—I do not know where Emma was. I was not in thehouse Sunday afternoon, but I was in the forenoon. I do notknow how Clara was treated by my step-mother in theforenoon. Clara did not eat any dinner that noon. It may havebeen as late as two o’clock when we started after the cow, andwe were gone about three hours,—I think it was about fiveo’clock when we got back. There was no one on the ranchexcept Emma, the hired man, and Emil. I had no conversationwith Clara that forenoon,—I was outside the house and didnot notice her particularly before I went,—did not pay anyattention to her. She was in the kitchen during the dinnerhour and did not come to the table with the balance of them,and I did not see her eat any dinner.ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, the witness testified as follows:—Clara helped cook dinner,—I did not see her when she helpedcook dinner,—I was outside. I saw her about dinner time,—shewas then as she always was.Counsel for the Territory then requested that the testimony ofDr. Van Holzschuher taken upon the trial of the above entitledcause at the May A.D. 1886 term of this Court, as transcribedby the stenographer, be read as evidence in this trial, as theDoctor was not now within the Territory.Counsel for the defendant made no objections to theadmissions of Dr. Van Holzschuher’s testimony in evidencebecause of his absence but said testimony was admitted byconsent subject to any objections as to competency, andCounsel for defendant. Counsel for the defendant objected tothe reading of those parts of the Doctor’s testimony whichreferred to the condition of the child, and the treatment whichshe received at his hands, for the reason that it had not beenestablished by the prosecution that any injuries had beeninflicted on this child by the defendant but that, on thecontrary, that the defendant did not and could not haveinflicted the injuries, as the prosecution itself has established.BY THE COURT: The Court would not undertake to direct theorder of proof in this case. If all the testimony connecting thedefendant with the commission of the crime was in, then Icould decide more intelligently than at the present, but I donot know whether it is or not. I think the prosecution has theright to say how his case shall be presented to the jury. TheCourt could not undertake to direct in this matter. If it wastrue that all the testimony was tending to connect thedefendant with the crime, then I could pass on theadmissibility of this evidence more satisfactorily to myself thanI can now. The objection is overruled,—Counsel for thedefendant duly excepted.Testimony of Dr. Van Holzschuher was then read in evidenceand was in substance as follows:—I am a practicing physician and was practicing in the City ofHelena in August 1885. I was called upon about that time totreat the child Clara Rehberg. I think it was in the evening ofthe ninth day of August. The child was brought to my office,—she could not get down from the wagon,—she was brought byher father. I never saw them before. The father asked agentleman passing to help the child down and then came in,—and I asked what was the matter with the child. She was in ahigh degree of pain, and the nature of the trouble was nothingbut severe pain, and she wanted to go to bed. She did notwant me to touch her or take medicine or anything. I sent herto the Sisters’ Hospital and made no examination of her thatnight but did the following morning. She seemed to sufferfrom much pain and did not want me to touch her. Thesurface of the skin was red and inflamed and looked to me asthough there had been hot water thrown upon her. Sheseemed to have a strong fever, and I gave her some medicineand cooling applications for the skin. In the afternoon I wentup again, and the child seemed to have blisters all over her legand arm. I then brought her some soothing applications in theform of linseed oil and lime water to be used continually tosoothe the pain. The next day or day after the case seemed tobe a very severe one, and I thought I would call in theassistance of Dr. Steele. The wounds were on the inside of theright leg and on the arm and head. The one on the leg was theseverest one, and on the left arm near the elbow, and over thehand, and on the neck and head. I thought I saw fingernailmarks on the neck. I first thought this injury was done byscalding, and then after I saw marks as if some kind of aheavy instrument was used to whip the child. She died on the10

night of the 5th day of September at Helena, Lewis and ClarkeCounty, Montana,—she died in consequence of gangrene,—she seemed to have formed blood clots by the whipping, andthe nutrition of the surrounding parts was stopped. Thisgangrene caused blood poisoning, and the child died ofpiemia. She was a pretty sickly child and weakly one, and shesuffered very much. I considered the wounds mortal. She wascrying and suffering and did not want to answer any questionsat all.ON CROSS-EXAMINATION the witness testified in substanceas follows:—I think she was brought to my office in a farm wagon, aboutnine o’clock in the evening. She would not let me make anexamination of her that night, but I did the next morningbetween eight and nine o’clock. I thought that about twentyfourhours had lapsed since the occurrence of the injury; it didnot look longer. I could not say as to whether the wounds wereall inflicted at the same time or not. I would not dare to saywhether the wounds were inflicted twenty-four or forty-eighthours before exactly. It might have been twenty or twenty-fourhours before—I do not know about it being forty-eight hoursbefore. Next day blisters made their appearance. I do not knowof my own knowledge who inflicted these wounds. I cannotgive any opinion as to the character of the instrument thatinflicted the wounds.DR. STEELE, A WITNESS, produced on behalf of thedefendant, testified in substance as follows:—I was called by Dr. Von Holzschuher on the 17th day of AugustA.D. 1885, to make an examination for treatment of ClaraRehberg. When I went there, she had been sick for sometimeand was suffering from wounds, bruises, and fever. The insideof the right leg from near the thigh to near the ankle was allone running sore. The skin had sloughed off to the muscle,and the muscles were bare except in one or two places. Therewere wounds on one or both of her arms at each elbow, andthere were accesses on her arms that we lanced that morning,and there were accesses on her head and scalp that we werealso compelled to lance. These wounds produced septicemiaand piemia, a low form of fever caused by the absorption ofpus, or a kind of poison or a kind of decomposing animalmatter. From these abscesses and the amount of sloughingthe poison was absorbed into the system which produced thedisease. The immediate cause of her death was septicemia andpiemia produced by the condition of these wounds. I did notconsider any one single wound as mortal, but it is my opinionthat she died as a result of these wounds. They may have beenproduced by beating with a hard instrument. Kicking might doit, or a strap with or without a buckle. I think the abscessesthat were upon the child’s head were produced by blows.There were also marks on the child’s neck, which in myjudgment were produced by fingernails. The child, in myopinion, at the time these wounds were inflicted, might walkfor sometime if kept moving, but the minute it sat down andcooled off, it could not move again without excruciating pain. Irefer to the wound on the leg. I saw her once, twice or threetimes a day from the date I called until her death. After shegot cool, whenever those muscles were called into play, theywould move with excruciating pain. I cannot conceive how shecould even walk in the condition these muscles must havebeen. She looked rather a weakly child, with scrofula, and ona child of her physical condition, these wounds would be moreliable to run into suppuration, gangrene, or mortification. Inmy judgment a healthy person would give way quicker fromthe effects of such wounds, than one like this little girl,because of the fact that a healthy person would absorb thepus much quicker because of the activity of the circulation.Q. Supposing the child, Doctor, to have bruised and woundedas this child was and must have been, do you think that aftershe had been so treated and bruised and wounded that shewould be able to wait on a table, cook dinner, or assist incooking a dinner for a large number of people, five or six, andmove around?Counsel for the defendant: We object to that for the reasonthat there is no proof here that she moved around or assistedin getting dinner or did any of the work which is presumed byher.Objection overruled, and Counsel for the defendant dulyexcepted.A. She might have been able to have done it but withexcruciating pain. Her body was bruised and marked all over. I11

should say the bruising came from external injuries, inflictedby means of some hard substance.ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, witness testified as follows:—I cannot inform the jury how, when, and where these injurieswere inflicted, from any observations I have made in this case.I think a healthy child would show indications of pain andsuffering and coming dissolution more quickly than this childwould show them. At the time I saw the child, I could not formany opinion in regard to whether or not all these injuries werereceived at one and the same time.DR. BROWN, A WITNESS called in behalf of the Territory,testified in substance as follows:—I am a practicing physician, and have heard the testimony ofDrs. Van Holzschuher and Steele. In my opinion, a child of theage of about ten years, in the weakly condition that this childwas in, would succumb or give way soon after the injury wasreceived. If she were kept moving around, she might not feelpain near so much as she would after an hour or two of rest. Ifshe kept going, she might get around several hours. I shouldnot think she would be able to walk very long, if she had satdown she could not have again moved around without pain.The pain would be much greater after a few hours rest andwould be increased by muscular action. My judgment is thatshe would have succumbed within two or three hours after theinjuries were inflicted.ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, witness testified in substances asfollows:—If this child had been whipped, for instance before 12 o’clock,and then been kept moving about the house immediately afterthe whipping, and after two o’clock had a season of rest, Ithink that in about three hours from that time, she wouldbegin to suffer this terrific pain.DR. HUNTER, A WITNESS called on behalf of the Territory,testified in substance as follows:—If a child of about 10 years of age is so beaten and bruised asto superinduce a condition of piemia or septicemia, and ifthese conditions produce death in a few hours, in myjudgment it might-be two or three hours, or it might be in theneighborhood of a day after such beating before the childwould give up. I think that a child in that condition couldmove around and perform work after she had been so bruisedand wounded,—it would be, however, with great pain.ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, witness testified in substance asfollows:—That piemia might set in is a result of any kind of bruise if it isnot attended to in time.LOUISA REHBERG was called by the prosecution.DEFENDANT objected on the ground that said Louisa Rehbergwas the wife of defendant.OBJECTION sustained.COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT produced as a witness,EDWARD REHBERG, the defendant herein, who testified inhis own behalf in substance as follows:—I am the defendant in this case. I never at any time struck mychild Clara with any blunt instrument, strap, stick of wood,wooden shoe, stove lifter or any other instrument named inthe indictment, and I never kicked her or bruised her flesh.ON CROSS EXAMINATION witness testified in substance asfollows:—I do not know whether I have ever whipped her or not. I guessI have whipped all my children sometimes a little with thehand, but I cannot remember of ever whipping them with anyother instrument. I do not remember how often I used to whipthem, but I never whipped them hard. It is not a fact that Iwhipped my child the Sunday before I brought her to Townthat 9th day of August. It is not a fact that while I was out atthe haystack that afternoon I got down and beat her, andgrabbed her by the neck, and then took her to Town.COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT, produced as a witness onbehalf of the defendant, one JOE TIEBOW, who testified insubstance as follows:—Q. What is your name?12

A. Joe Tiebow.Q. Were you working for Mr. Rehberg about the 9th day ofAugust A.D. 1885?A. Yes, Sir.Q. Do you remember the Sunday afternoon on which Mr.Rehberg brought his daughter Clara to Town?A. Yes, Sir.Q. Will you tell this jury what time it was that you atebreakfast that morning?A. It was about seven o’clock in the morning.Q. Who ate breakfast with you?A.. Rehberg ate with me, that is all.Q. Where did you go after breakfast?A. To work on the haystack.Q. State now, whether or not Mr. Rehberg remained with youat the haystack from the time that you commenced workafter breakfast until you came into dinner?A. Yes, Sir, he did.Q. State whether or not he was out of your sight at any timefrom seven o’clock in the morning until you came intodinner?A. Yes, Sir.Q. You do not seem to understand my question. Was he out ofyour sight?A. He was on the haystack behind the hay.Q. What time did you leave the haystack and go to dinner?A. About twelve o’clock.Q. Who ate dinner with you that day?A. A strange man, Mr. Rehberg, and myself.Q. The three of you ate dinner together?A. Yes, Sir.Q. How long did you remain at the house for dinner?It was about half an hour,—as soon as we got dinner we wentout to work.Q. State whether or not Mr. Rehberg went out with you afterdinner.A. Yes, Sir, he did.Q. What did you do after dinner?A. We did not get through with the haystack, and we justfinished it up.Q. What time did you finish it?A. Between half past three and four.Q. Do you remember the time that Mr. Rehberg started toTown with his daughter Clara.A. Yes, I guess it was a little after four.q. Did Mr. Rehberg leave you that afternoon at any time beforegoing to Town?A. No, Sir, he did not.Q. Explain to the jury Mr. Tiebow, if you know, thecircumstances under which little Clara came out of the houseand what was said?MR. HUNT: I object to any statement made by the deceased.MR. CARTER: Then you need not explain what the said buttell what was done.A. When she came out to me, she was sick and could hardlywalk.Q. She came out of the house in that condition did she?A. Yes, Sir.13

Q. That was between four and five o’clock in the afternoon?A. Yes, Sir.Q. What was done?A. I don’t know what was done that day, I did not seeanything.Q. Did you hitch up the team?A. Yes, Sir.Q. Who told you to?A. .Mr. Rehberg.Q. What did he do then?A. He just go in the house and put his clothes on.Q. Where did Clara stay?A. She was with Emma by the wagon.Q. Did Mr. Rehberg ask the child Clara any questions?A. Yes, Sir, he did.Q. Did he ask her how long she came to be hurt?A. Yes, Sir.Q. Did she answer him?A. She would not do it.Q. She would not do it?A. No, Sir.Q. Did he make any examination of her condition there?A. Yes, sir, he examined her face. That is all.Q. Now, Mr. Tiebow, could Mr. Rehberg have whipped thatchild that day or beat her or abused her without yourknowledge of it?A. He did not leave me at all, and I cannot say that he was inthe house.Q. He was up on the haystack during the day?A. Yes, Sir. That is all.CROSS EXAMINATIONMR. HUNT:Q. Do you remember whether or not Mr. Rehberg got down offthat hay-stack to get any implements or tools?A. Well, sometimes he just came around to me.Q. Came around to go to the well?A. No, he came by me there.Q. Then he would get down sometimes?A. Yes, he would help me on the stack.Q. Do you say that you came down from the stack before thechild came out?A. Yes, Sir.Q. Who was around that afternoon?A. Some men whose names I do not know.Q. Where was Bertha?A. I do not know.Q. Did you see her that afternoon?A. No, Sir, not until the old man had gone to Town.Q. Did you see Louisa Rehberg that afternoon?A. No, Sir.Q. Do you know where they were?A. No, I did not know.14

Q. Then there was you and Mr. Rehberg and Clara and Emilaround, and Emma. Was that all?A. Yes, that was all.Q. Did you see Emma that afternoon?A. I saw her when she came when the little girl was there.Q. How long did you work for Mr. Rehberg?A. One year.Q. When did you leave him?A. Not quite four months.Q. Did you come here with him?A. No, Sir.Q. When did you come over?A. On the cars on Monday.Q. Have you seen Mr. Rehberg since he has been over here?A. Since he has been away?Q. Yes? Have you been with him?A. Yes, sometimes.Q. Have you been to the ranch in the past four or five months?A. Yes, a few times.Q. Did you see all the family there?A. I seen Louisa and Bertha and the little boy.Q. Do you remember whether you or Mr. Rehberg got off thestack that afternoon for water.A. No, Sir, the little boy got the water there.Q. Could he get on the stack without you getting down?A. Yes, Sir, he pushed it up on a fork.Q. Were you on the ground?A. Yes, sometimes.Q. What time did you and Mr. Rehberg come out from dinnerthat Sunday?A. I don’t know, as soon as we got through dinner.Q. Did you come out ahead of him or behind him?A. He was ahead of me.Q. How much ahead?A. Three or four steps.Q. And you stayed together all that afternoon?A. Yes, Sir.Q. You said that Mr. Rehberg just looked at the child’s facewhen Clara came up?A. Yes, sir, he showed me where she was marked.Q. How long was that before he put her in the wagon to takeher to Town?A. About ten minutes.Q. Do you know where Louisa was or where Bertha was whenthey started for Town?A. No, Sir.Q. Did you see Clara at dinner that day?A. No, Sir.Q. Who put dinner on the table for you?A. Emma did, I guess.Q. Did you see Clara have any trouble with anybody onSunday?A. On Sunday, no, Sir.Q. Did you see her at breakfast that morning?A. I cannot tell.15

Q. You said just now that you did not see her in the afternoonuntil she came out?A. I did not.Q. How far was the haystack from the house?A. About forty or fifty steps.Q. What was little Emil doing that afternoon?A. He was just playing around the stack there.Q. Anybody playing with him?A. No, Sir.Q. Did not you see Clara that afternoon playing with him?A. No, Sir.Q. Did you ever talk over this matter with Mr. Rehberg in thepast year?A. Sometimes.Q. About how many times did you talk it over with him?A. That I cannot tell, not very often.Q. You have sometimes! Did he and you talk about testifyingin Court?A. No, Sir. I never had anything to say about that at allQ. Just avoided the subject entirely?A. Yes, he just talked to me the same as any other man.REDIRECT EXAMINATIONMR. CARTER:This little boy Emil was carrying water out there for you men,and whenever you wanted a drink he would bring it.A. Yes Sir.COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT then introduced MR. E. D.WEED, who testified for defendant in substance as follows:—I saw little Clara the day before she died, at St. Peters’Hospital in Helena. Mr. Hathaway, Dr. Van Holzschuher andDr. Steele, Counsel for defendant and myself were present,and one of the sisters of the Hospital. I was present during theconversation between little Clara and Dr. Steele. The Dr.notified the child that the was very sick, and was going to die.The child stated in my presence (“I wonder now if I amdying.”). From her words and actions, I think she did at thattime realize what death was. The child was suffering very greatpain and was told by both Drs. Steele and Von Holzschuherthat she could not live. She seemed very angry about it andsaid she did not want to die, and then shortly after that whena short spasm of very severe pain came over her, she saidsomething to the effect as to whether she was then dying. Sheseemed to be rational all the day, and I think that is all shesaid about dying. I remember that they did say that she couldnot see so well.COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT, here produced the dyingdeclaration, which was identified by the witness, and askedhim the following:—You may state to the Court whether or not you are the personwho wrote that statement, referring to the dying declaration.A. Yes, I made that instrument, which is in substance a truestatement of what the child then said, as near as I could get itat the time. I think she was rational at the time. She seemedto answer intelligently, and I should say from her actions andconversation, she appeared to be of sufficient intelligence todiscern the difference between right and wrong, between truthand falsehood. Of course, I knew nothing of the Child’seducation,—she seemed to be an intelligent child, and maderational answers to the questions put to her. I do not knowwhether she could read or write, or whether she understoodthe nature of the oath. I am unable to answer whether or notshe had enough learning to believe in the future reward orpunishment, because I never gave that question any attention.She seemed to be an intelligent child of about the age of eightor nine years. I think that if the child had received any sort ofmoral education or training whatever, she would be receivedas a reliable witness in any Court of Justice.16

DR. STEELE was called in behalf of the defendant andtestified in substance as follows:—I was present at the interview at the hospital concerningwhich Mr. Weed has just testified. I informed the little childevery time I went there that she was about to die. I wasinstructed by Mr. Weed that they wanted her deposition, andwhen they found out that there was no hope for her recovery,we though we would inform her, she would know death wasapproaching. We took the deposition a day or two before shedied. I was present when it was reduced to writing. I think Dr.Van Holzschuher informed her immediately preceding thetaking of the deposition, she was informed at any rate, thatwas going to die. I think that she realized the fact that she wasgoing to die from the fact that she always expressed a desire todie from the time she came there, except one time when sheexpressed the hope of getting well. I think the first time weinformed her that she was going to die, it was two or threedays prior to the taking of the deposition. She express a hopethat she might live. I think she realized what death was. Donot think she understood the nature of an oath, but I thinkshe regarded an oath as that she should tell the truth. Ihardly think she had any knowledge of a future state ofreward or punishment. Mrs. Craven was a very religious lady,that was very kin, and I guess the sisters were. I have no ideathat when she came there she had any idea of an oath. I guessher ideas on that question are very vague. After she wasinformed that death was coming on her, she used to swearvery considerable, that made me think she did not knowanything about a future state. When we dressed her woundsand would hurt her a little, she would swear at us. I think atthe date this declaration was made, she realized that she wasto tell the exact truth. I think she knew it was her duty to tellthe truth and that her statement was made under the sense ofthat duty. I do not think that she had any idea of thesolemnity of death,—she seemed to want to die. She said, “Goaway and let me alone. I want to die.” One day she expresseda desire to go home with Mrs. Craven and be her little girl, butwith that exception she always expressed a desire to die. Sheanswered questions pretty correctly but was not veryintelligent. She did not display any great moral or religioustraining. She had seen death in cattle about the ranch andthat was her idea of the solemnity of death,—at least that waswhat I thought. She had a way of saying when she did notwant to do anything, —no, no, no, no. Dr. Von Holzschuhertold her she was going to die, and that they had come to takeher deposition, and she must tell the truth, and she said no,no, no, every so many times. That was her commonexpression. Whether she was saying that she was not going todie, or whether she would not tell the truth, I do not know.COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT, duly excepted to the rulingof the Court.The dying declaration here offered in evidence was the wordsand figures following, to wit:—Declaration (dying) of Clara Rehberg, as made at St. John’sHospital, Montana Territory, Sept. 5th 1885.She whipped me (my step-mother) with a stick of wood andwith a stove lifter, and then she went to the corral and got astrap, and whipped me with that on the face and legs and allover.—She had new shoes on when she came back from town(Helena)—she took them off, put on wooden shoes, and kickedme with them.My step-mother’s name is Louisa.She slapped me at one time at the corral on my father’s ranch,—then she whipped me in the house, —then she threw abucket of water over me.Q. Have you been sick ever since you were shipped by yourstep-mother?A. Yes. Yes.Q. Did your father hurt your leg?A. I told you my step-mother did it. My father didn’t hurt meat all.Q. If you were to die the next minute, its this all true whichyou have stated?A. Yes, yes, I told you a thousand times it was.Q. Do you want to see your father?17

A. Yes. Where is he?Q. Do you want to see your step-mother, Louisa?A. If my father brings her, but not otherwise. Oh, shall I die, orwhat? I wish I was dead! I wish I was dead! I can’t see so well!I wonder if I’m dying!18

3. Pigeon’s Egghead…IntroductionLike Karl Bodmer and other artists who visited the AmericanWest in the early nineteenth century, George Catlin depictedNative American life before waves of white settlement broughtIndians and whites into conflict with one another. And like otherartists, he simply did not record Native American peoples andcustoms but exhibited a particular attitude toward his subjects.Catlin also published Letters and Notes on the Manners,Customs, and Conditions of the North American Indians inwhich he recalled the circumstances of several of his paintings.Questions1. Examine the left side of the painting carefully and answerthe following:a. What is The Light holding in his left hand?b. What is he wearing?c. What is in the background?d. How would you describe The Light's stance?2. Examine the right side of the painting and answer thefollowing:a. What is The Light holding in his left hand?b. What is The Light holding in his right hand?c. What is in his pockets?d. What is in the background?e. What other additions has the artist made?f. How would you describe The Light's stance?3. What is the overall impression created by the two versionsof the portrait?4. What does the text contribute to your understanding of thepainting? What does the painting add to yourunderstanding of the text?Now you shall hear the 'Story of the Pigeon's Egg Head.'The Indian name of this man (being its literaltranslation into the Assinneboin language) was Wijunjon. . . .Wi-jun-jon (the Pigeon's Egg Head) was a brave and awarrior of the Assinneboins: young, proud, handsome, valiant,and graceful. He had fought many a battle, and won many alaurel. The numerous scalps from his enemies' heads adornedhis dress, and his claims were fair and just for the highesthonours that his country could bestow upon him; for hisfather was chief of the nation. . . .Well, this young Assinneboin, the ' Pigeon's Egg Head,'was selected by Major Sanford, the Indian Agent, to representhis tribe in a delegation which visited Washington city underhis charge in the winter of 1832. With this gentleman, theAssinneboin, together with representatives from several othersof those North Western tribes, descended the Missouri river,several thousand miles, on their way to Washington.While descending the river in a Mackinaw boat, fromthe mouth of Yellow Stone [the Yellow Stone River], Wi-jun-jonand another of his tribe who was with him, at the firstapproach to the civilized settlements, commenced a register ofthe white men's houses (or cabins), by cutting a notch for eachon the side of a pipe stem, in order to be able to show whenthey got home, how many white men's houses they saw ontheir journey. At first the cabins were scarce; but continuallyas they advanced down the river, more and more rapidlyincreased in numbers; and they soon found their pipe-stemfilled with marks, and they determined to put the rest of themon the handle of a war-club, which they soon got marked allover likewise, and at length, while the boat was moored at theshore for the purpose of cooking the dinner of the party, Wijun-jonand his companion stepped into the bushes, and cut along stick, from which they peeled the bark; and when theboat was again underweigh, they sat down, and with muchlabour, copied the notches on to it from the pipe-stem andclub; and also kept adding a notch for every house theypassed. This stick was soon filled; and in a day or two severalothers; when, at last, they seemed much at a loss to knowwhat to do with their troublesome records, until they came insight of St. Louis, which is a town of 10,000 inhabitants; uponwhich, after consulting a little, they pitched their sticksoverboard into the river!I was in St. Louis at the time of their arrival, andpainted their portraits while they rested in that place. Wi-junjonwas the first, who reluctantly yielded to the solicitations of19

the Indian agent and myself, and appeared as sullen as deathin my painting-room, with eyes fixed like those of a statueupon me, though his pride had plumed and tinted him in allthe freshness and brilliancy of an Indian's toilet [make-up]. Inhis nature's uncowering pride he stood a perfect model; butsuperstition had hung a lingering curve upon his lip, andpride had stiffened it into contempt. He had been urged into ameasure, against which his fears had pleaded; yet he stoodunmoved and unflinching amid the struggles of mysteries thatwere hovering about him, foreboding ills of every kind, andmisfortunes that were to happen to him in consequence of thisoperation.He was dressed in his native costume, which wasclassic and exceedingly beautiful; his leggings and shirt wereof the mountaingoat skin, richly garnished with quills of theporcupine, and fringed with locks of scalps, taken from hisenemies' heads. Over these floated his long hair in plaits, thatfell nearly to the ground; his head was decked with the wareagle'splumes—his robe was of the skin of the young buffalobull, richly garnished and emblazoned with the battles of hislife; his quiver and bow were slung, and his shield, of the skinof the bull's neck.I painted him in this beautiful dress, and so also theothers who were with him; and after I had done, MajorSanford went on to Washington with them, where they spentthe winter.Wi-jun-jon was the foremost on all occasions—-thefirst to enter the levee—-the first to shake the President'shand, and make his speech to him—-the last to extend thehand to them, but the first to catch the smiles and admirationof the gentler sex. He travelled the giddy maze, and beheldamid the buzzing din of civil life, their tricks of art, theirhandiworks, and their finery; he visited their principal cities—-he saw their forts, their ships, their great guns,steamboats, balloons, &c. &c; and in the spring returned toSt. Louis, where I joined him and his companions on their wayback to their own country.Through the politeness of Mr. Chouteau, of theAmerican Fur Company, I was admitted (the only passengerexcept Major Sanford and his Indians) to a passage in theirsteamboat, on her first trip to the Yellow Stone; and when Ihad embarked, and the boat was about to depart, Wi-jun-jonmade his appearance on deck, in a full suit of regimentals! Hehad in Washington exchanged his beautifully garnished andclassic costume, for a full dress 'en militaire'. It was, perhaps,presented to him by the President. It was broadcloth, of thefinest blue, trimmed with lace of gold; on his shoulders weremounted two immense epaulettes; his neck was strangled witha shining black stock, and his feet were pinioned in a pair ofwaterproof boots, with high heels, which made him 'step like ayoked hog.'On his head was a high-crowned beaver hat, with abroad silver lace band, surmounted by a huge red feather,some two feet high; his coat collar stiff with lace, came higherup than his ears, and over it flowed, down towards hishaunches—his long Indian locks, stuck up in rolls and plaits,with red paint.A large silver medal was suspended from his neck by ablue ribbon— and across his right shoulder passed a widebelt, supporting by his side a broad sword.On his hands he had drawn a pair of white kid gloves,and in them held, a blue umbrella in one, and a large fan inthe other. In this fashion was poor Wijunjon metamorphosed,on his return from Washington; and, in this plight was hestrutting and whistling Yankee Doodle, about the deck of thesteamer that was wending its way up the mighty Missouri,and taking him to his native-land again; where he was soon tolight his pipe, and cheer the wigwam fire-side with tales ofnovelty and wonder.Well, Ba'tiste, I travelled with this new-fangledgentleman until he reached his home, two thousand milesabove St. Louis, and I could never look upon him for amoment without excessive laughter, at the ridiculous figure hecut—-the strides, the angles, the stiffness of this travellingbeau! Oh Ba'tiste, if you could have seen him, you would havesplit your sides with laughter; he was—'puss in boots,'precisely!After Wijunjon had got home, and passed the usualsalutations among his friends, he commenced the simple20

narration of scenes he had passed through, and of things hehad beheld among the whites; which appeared to them somuch like fiction, that it was impossible to believe them, andthey set him down as an impostor. 'He has been, (they said,)among the whites, who are great liars, and all he has learnedis to come home and tell lies.' He sank rapidly into disgrace inhis tribe; his high claims to political eminence all vanished; hewas reputed worthless—-the greatest liar of his nation; thechiefs shunned him and passed him by as one of the tribe whowas lost; yet the ears of the gossiping portion of the tribe wereopen, and the campfire circle and the wigwam fireside, gavesilent audience to the whispered narratives of the 'TravelledIndian.'The next day after he had arrived among his friends,the superfluous part of his coat, (which was a laced frock),was converted into a pair of leggings for his wife; and his hatbandof silver lace furnished her a magnificent pair of garters.The remainder of the coat, curtailed of its original length wasseen buttoned upon the shoulders of his brother, over andabove a pair of leggings of buckskin; and Wi-jun-jon wasparading about among his gaping friends, with a bow andquiver slung over his shoulders, which, sans coat, exhibited afine linen shirt with studs and sleeve buttons. His broadswordkept its place, but about noon, his boots gave way to apair of garnished moccasins; and in such plight he gossippedaway the day among his; friends, while his heart spoke sofreely and so effectually from the bung-hole of a little keg ofwhiskey, which he had brought the whole way, (as one of thechoicest presents made him at Washington), that his tonguebecame silent.One of his little fair enamoratas, or 'catch crumbs,'such as live in the halo of all great men, fixed her eyes and heraffections upon his beautiful silk braces, and the next day,while the keg was yet dealing out its kindnesses, he was seenpaying visits to the lodges of his old acquaintance, swaggeringabout, with his keg under his arm, whistling Yankee Doodle,and Washington's Grand March; his white shirt, or that part ofit that had been flapping in the wind, had been shockinglytithed—his pantaloons of blue, laced with gold, were razed intoa pair of comfortable leggings —his bow and quiver wereslung, and his broad-sword which trailed on the ground, hadsought the centre of gravity, and taken a position between hislegs and dragging behind him, served as a rudder to steer himover the Ôearth's troubled surface'….Two days' revel of this kind had drawn from his keg allits charms; and in the mellowness of his heart, all his fineryhad vanished, and all of its appendages except his umbrella,to which his heart's strongest affections still clung, and withit, and under it, in rude dress of buckskin, he was afterwardsto be seen, in all sorts of weather, acting the fop and the beauas well as he could, with his limited means. In this plight, andin this dress, with his umbrella always in his hand, (as theonly remaining evidence of his quondam greatness,) he beganin his sober moments, to entertain and instruct his people byhonest and simple narratives of things and scenes he hadbeheld during his tour to the East; but which (unfortunatelyfor him), were to them too marvellous and improbable to bebelieved. He told the gaping multitude that were constantlygathering about him, of the distance he had travelled, of theastonishing number of houses he had seen—of the towns andcities, with all their wealth and splendour—of travelling onsteamboats, in stages and on railroads. He described ourforts, and seventy-four gun ships, which he had visited—theirbig guns—our great bridges—our great council-house atWashington, and its doings—the curious and wonderfulmachines in the patent office, (which he pronounced thegreatest medicine place he had seen); he described the greatwar parade, which he saw in the city of New York—the ascentof the balloon from Castle Garden—the numbers of the whitepeople, the beauty of the white squaws; their red cheeks, andmany thousands of other things, all of which were so muchbeyond their comprehension, that they 'could not be true,' and'he must be the very greatest liar in the whole world.'But he was beginning to acquire a reputation of adifferent kind. He was denominated a medicine-man, and onetoo of the most extraordinary character; for they deemed himfar above the ordinary sort of human beings, whose mindcould invent and conjure up for their amusement, such aningenious fabrication of novelty and wonder. He steadily andunostentatiously persisted, however, in this way ofentertaining his friends and his people, though he knew hisstanding was affected by it. He had an exhaustless theme to21

descant upon through the remainder of his life; and heseemed satisfied to lecture all his life, for the pleasure which itgave him." So great was his medicine, however, that they began,chiefs and all, to look upon him as a most extraordinarybeing, and the customary honours and forms began to beapplied to him, and the respect shewn him, that belongs to allmen in the Indian country, who are distinguished for theirmedicine or mysteries. In short, when all became familiar withthe astonishing representations that he made, and with thewonderful alacrity with which ' he created them,' he wasdenominated the very greatest of medicine; and not only that,but the ' lying medicine.' That he should be the greatest ofmedicine, and that for lying, merely, rendered him a prodigy inmysteries that commanded not only respect, but at length,(when he was more maturely heard and listened to)admiration, awe, and at last dread and terror; whichaltogether must needs conspire to rid the world of a monster,whose more than human talents must be cut down, to lessthan human measurement."'Wat! Monsieur Cataline, dey av not try to kill him?'"Yes, Ba'tiste, in this way the poor fellow had lived, andbeen for three years past continually relating the scenes hehad beheld, in his tour to the ‘Far East;’ until his medicinebecame so alarmingly great, that they were unwilling heshould live; they were disposed to kill him for a wizard. One ofthe young men of the tribe took the duty upon himself, andafter much perplexity, hit upon the following plan, to-wit:—hehad fully resolved, in conjunction with others who were in theconspiracy, that the medicine of Wijunion was too great for theordinary mode, and that he was so great a liar that a riflebullet would not kill him; while the young man was in thisdistressing dilemma, which lasted for some weeks, he had adream one night, which solved all difficulties; and inconsequence of which, he loitered about the store in the Fort,at the mouth of the Yellow Stone, until he could procure, bystealth, (according to the injunction of his dream,) the handleof an iron pot, which he supposed to possess the requisitevirtue, and taking it into the woods, he there spent a wholeday in straightening and filing it, to fit it into the barrel of hisgun; after which, he made his appearance again in the Fort,with his gun under his robe, charged with the pot handle, andgetting behind poor Wi-jun-jon, whilst he was talking with theTrader, placed the muzzle behind his head and blew out hisbrains!….Yes, Ba'tiste, it is a fact: thus ended the days and thegreatness and all the pride and hopes of Wl JUN JON, the'Pigeon's Egg Head,'—a warrior and a brave of the valiantAssinneboins, who travelled eight thousand miles to see thePresident, and all the great cities of the civilized world; andwho, fortelling the truth, and nothing but the truth, was, afterhe got home, disgraced and killed for a wizard….Yes, Ba’tiste, we may profit by his misfortune, if wechoose. We may call it a 'caution;' for instance, when I come towrite your book, as you have proposed, the fate of this poorfellow, who was relating no more than what he actually saw,will caution you against the imprudence of telling all that youactually know, and narrating all that you have seen, lest likehim you sink into disgrace for telling the truth. You know,Ba'tiste, that there are many things to be seen in the kind oflife that you and I have been living for some years past, whichit would be more prudent for us to suppress than to tell.22

Pigeon's Egg Head (The Light) Going to andReturning from Washington (1837-1839 oil)Pigeon's Egg Head (The Light) going to and returningfrom Washington (1837-1839 line drawing)23

4. Nineteenth Century DaguerreotypesIntroductionDaguerreotypes were extraordinarily popular between 1840and 1860. Despite relative ease of use, daguerreotypespossessed several characteristics worth noting. First, thedaguerreotype necessitated a relatively long exposure time; inother words, the photographer’s subject had to sit still for anextended period of time. Second, even though daguerreotypesput personal images within the reach of many more people, theyremained relatively expensive and reserved for those who couldafford them. Third, daguerreotypes were fragile; the imagecould be easily scratched or tarnished. Last but not least, acolor daguerreotype was possible. For an additional cost,daguerreotype images could be hand-colored with specialpaints.Questions1. What do we, as twenty-first-century human beings chooseto remember with photographs? Make a list of the kinds ofphotographs that appear on the walls of an Americanhome? In photo albums? On social networking sites?2. What photographs on the list were taken in a studio or bya professional photographer?3. What does analysis of the lists tell us about what latetwentiethand early twenty-first century people choose toremember?4. Examine the collection of daguerreotypes. Although thecollection is not exhaustive, it does exhibit several themes.List what nineteenth-century people chose to remember?5. Compare the nineteenth- and twentieth-century list. What,in particular, is missing from each list?6. What do the daguerreotypes tell us about the nineteenthcentury? What evidence would you offer for your claims?7. How do you think the technology of the daguerreotypeinfluenced a daguerreotype’s subject or sitter?24

Fig. 1–Unknown, Woman Ironing, ca. 1850–1853.Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, MOFig. 2–Unknown, Seated Woman with Parrot, ca. 1850.Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, MO25

Fig. 3–Unknown, Postmortem of Young Girl, ca. 1855.Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, MOFig. 4–Unknown, Cartographerl, ca. 1860.Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, MO26

Fig. 5–Unknown, Window Maker, ca. 1850Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, MOFig. 6–Unknown, [Occupational portrait of a cooper, threequarterlength, with barrel and tools, ca. 1840–1860]Library of Congress, Washington, DC27

Fig. 7–Unknown, Mother with Dead Child, ca. 1850Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, MOFig. 8–Unknown, Tightrope Walker, ca. 1855Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, MO28

Fig. 9–[Occupational portrait of a peddler, full-length,…,ca. 1840–1860]Library of Congress, Washington, DCFig. 10–Unknown, Man with Monkey, ca. 1860Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, MO29

Fig. 11–Unknown, Boy with Donkey, ca. 1850Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, MOFig. 12–Unknown, Tailor Ironing, ca. 1848Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, MO30

Fig. 13–Unknown, [Dog owned by Sheldon Nichols.], 1852Bancro Library, University of California, Berkeley, CA31

Fig. 14–[Unknown, Unidentified child, three-quarters lengthportrait, facing slightly le, ca. 1855]Library of Congress, Washington, DCFig. 15–[Unknown, Occupational portrait of a womanworking at a sewing machine, ca. 1853]Library of Congress, Washington, DC32

5. Barrow’s PlantationIntroductionBarrow’s Plantation map has appeared in dozens of textbooksover the years to illustrate the transformation of southernplantation between 1860 and 1881 or before and afterReconstruction. While it seems to describe a fairly standardinterpretation of a pre- and Reconstruction plantation, the mapreveals much more, especially if the viewer understands theerrors in the maps construction and the plantation’scontemporary location.Questions1. Where exactly is Barrow’s Plantation?2. What is the major error in the plantation map?3. What does Barrow’s Plantation look like today? (Hints: Youwill need to find a satellite photo, and Google is not theonly map game in town.)4. When and where did the map of Barrow’s Plantation firstappear?5. Find other pictures associated with Barrow’s Plantation?(Hint: you will need to know something about the Barrowfamily, and the answer, again, is not going to be found viaGoogle.)6. What do the satellite photo, the additional pictures, andthe document add to your interpretation of the map? Dothe various documents tell the same story?33

Barrow’s PlantationOglethorpe County, Georgia1860Wooded AreasWright’s ForkRoadSlave QuartersBranch CreekLittle RiverGin HouseMaster’s HouseBarrow’s PlantationOglethorpe County, Georgia1881Wooded AreasTenant Farmers’s Houses?Sabrina DaltonLizzie DaltonFrankMaxeyJoe BugJim ReidNancyPopeChurchGubCane PopeBarrow Willis BryantSchoolLem BryantLewis WatsonGin HouseReuben BarrowTom WrightBen ThomasGrannyOmy Barrow Tom Landlord’sPeter Barrow ThomasHouseMilly Barrow HandyOld Isaac BarrowTom CalvinTang ParkerWright’s ForkBranch CreekRoadLittle RiverSyll’s ForkBrocktonBarrowLemDouglasSyll’s Fork34

6. The Quilting FrolicIntroductionPhotographs, paintings, and other images (woodcuts, etchings,lithographs) can suggest some new angle on a topic or historicalinterpretation. They are also interesting ways to get at materialculture. Why, for example, did many homesteading familiespose themselves besides the washing machine in the frontyard? What kinds of toys were present in pictures of children?How are families arranged in eighteenth-century paintings? Arethe globes and the rural scenes outside the windows in thesepaintings meant to convey particular things? How do landscapepaintings of the American West change over time? For thisassignment, we are going to combine image analysis and a littlematerial culture research by choosing an object or group ofobjects in John Krimmel’s 1813 painting, The Quilting Frolic,and carrying out a modest research project.Questions1. What is your object? What was it used for? When did yourobject come into general use?2. What does the object suggest about American family life inthe time period? About the economic milieu?3. What does knowing about the object contribute tounderstanding American history in the early nationalperiod?4. What specific secondary sources could you use to placeyour object in historical context or within a debate inAmerican history?5. Taken together, what do the objects in The Quilting Frolicsuggest about early nineteenth-century America?35