1

THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS: SHOULD YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE?

Katie Powell HIST 1700-02 March 28, 2014

Movies have the ability to reach a wide audience and touch many with their stories. They can inspire, horrify, uplift, entertain, educate. But one must realize that while a movie may be about a factual, historical event that does not mean everything that is shown in the movie is accurate. There are questions that can be asked about this kind of movie. How much of the story is true? When has artistic license been taken? It is most common to find a mix between fact and fiction in these types of movies. The 1992 film The Last of the Mohicans is no exception. The movie centers on a time often overlooked in American history as France and Great Britain fought for control of America in what is known as the French and Indian War. The events to be examined take place in the year 1757 and center mainly around the happenings at a British fort in upstate New York. One basic thing that must be considered when determining the historical accuracy of a film is sorting out who is a real person and who is a fictional character. The film opens with the words, Three men, the last of a vanishing people, are on the frontier west of the Hudson River.1 Those men are Hawkeye, Uncas, and Chingachgook. Hawkeye is a white man that was adopted as a boy by Chingachgook, a Mohican, and was raised alongside his biological son, Uncas. These three men are the protagonists of the story. All three are fictional characters. Hawkeye, Uncas and Chingachgook become involved in the lives of two sisters named Cora and Alice Munro. They are the daughters of Scottish Colonel Munro. George Munro is in fact a real person, with his name being spelled Monro but he did not have daughters named Alice and Cora.2 As the film depicts correctly George Monro was a Lieutenant Colonel in the

The Last of the Mohicans, directed by Michael Mann (1992; Beverly Hills, CA: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 2010), DVD. 2 Walter Borneman, The French and Indian War: Deciding the Fate of North America , (New York: Harper Collins, 2006), 88.

British army and was the commanding officer at Fort William Henry.3 He was from Scotland, born near Stirling. He entered the army in 1718 and spent much of his career in Ireland.4 Monros French counterpart during this episode of the French and Indian war was General Montcalm. He is a historical figure known in full as Louis-Joseph de Montcalm-Grozon, marquis de Montcalm de Saint-Vran who has born in France in 1712.5 There is one other historical military officer that is featured in the movie. That man is General Daniel Webb. At the time, he was in command of the British army along the New York frontier.6 The films antagonist is a Huron warrior named Magua. He is a fictional character as is Major Duncan Heyward. There is a scene in the movie that shows Heyward meeting with Webb in Albany. Webb reads a dispatch from an unknown source. There are orders stating that Webb will march with the 60th Regiment to Fort Edward while Heyward is to serve with the 35th Regiment of Foot at Fort William Henry.7 In reality Webb, at this time, was already at Fort Edward and not in Albany.8 But it is correct that the force serving at Fort William Henry was the 35th Regiment of Foot. Heyward and the Munro sisters are shown journeying to the fort with a contingency of British soldiers. Magua is their scout. He has created a plan to have the group attacked by Indians. Hawkeye, Uncas, and Chingachgook, having tracked the Indian war party, come to aid

Fred Anderson, The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War , (New York: Viking, 2005), 111. 4 William M. Fowler Jr. Empires at War: The French and Indian War and the Struggle for North America, 1754-1763, (New York: Walker Publishing Company, 2005), 147. E-book. 5 Encyclopedia Brittanica, 2013 ed., s.v. Louis-Joseph de Montcalm-Grozon, marquis de Montcalm 6 Borneman, 87. 7 The Last of the Mohicans, (1992). 8 Anderson, 88.

the group. The three men lead the survivors of the attack to the fort. As this whole sequence involved only fictional characters, this journey and Indian attack did not happen. As the group approaches Fort William Henry they cross a body of water. Indeed the fort did sit on the southern end of a long lake called Lake George.9 The film shows that the fort is under attack by the French and their Indian allies led by Marquis de Montcalm. The fort is about fifty miles to the north of Albany. It was a rugged structurewith heavy log ramparts reinforced with gravel and earth. Contemporary diagrams show it was an irregular square.10 Along with Fort Edward it served as an obstacle to the French military on the route to Albany. On August 3, 1757 Montcalm and his force of 7,500 made up of a mix of regular soldiers and Indians allies, set about besieging Fort William Henry and its garrison of less than 2,000.11 When the fictional group arrives at the fort in the movie the siege would have been going on for nearly six days. The movie states that Colonel Monro sent couriers to General Webb in Albany asking for reinforcements. Major Heyward informs him that Webb had marched to Fort Edward two days prior but has no idea the fort is under attack and he certainly does not know to send reinforcements.12 Webb did indeed know at this time that Fort William Henry was under attack. Being only fifteen miles away, the sounds of cannon fire could even be heard by those at Fort Edward.13 And Monro had in fact petitioned Webb for help more than once.14 Monro had indeed sent

Borneman, 87. Wilbur R. Jacobs, "A Message to Fort William Henry: An Incident in the French and Indian War," Huntington Library Quarterly, 16, no. 4 (1953): 371-380, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3816190 (accessed March 31, 2014), 371-372. 11 Borneman, 90. 12 The Last of the Mohicans, (1992). 13 Jacobs, 374. 14 Borneman, 89.
10

couriers asking for help but he sent them to Fort Edward and not Albany. Webb was reluctant to weaken his force at Fort Edward and sent Monro a message that was intercepted by Montcalm, which is portrayed correctly in the film. The message to Monro stated that Webb does not think it prudentto attempt a junction or to assist you.15 In the movie the French are shown to be digging trenches that approach the fort while both the English and the French are exchanging cannon fire. When Monro is asked about the situation he responds, The situation is, his guns are bigger than mine and he has more of them. We keep our heads down while his troops dig 30 yards of trench a day. When those trenches are 200 yards from the fort and within range, hell bring in his 15-inch mortars, lob explosive rounds over our walls and pound us to dust.16 This assessment is largely accurate. While the siege itself started August 3 with artillery being unloaded and being placed around the fort17, the attack on the fort began on August 6, 1757 and lasted three days. The French dug trenches across the open lands near the fort and Monro watched Montcalms trenches inch closer and closer to the fort.18 Many of the forts guns had been rendered useless by the French bombardment. The French were able to position nine cannon at very close range near one of the forts walls. In the face of all this, and having been informed of Webbs refusal to send help, on August 9 Monro accepted Montcalms offer of surrender.19

15

Ian K. Steele, "Suppressed Official British Report of the Siege and "Massacre" at Fort William Henry, 1757,"Huntington Library Quarterly, 55, no. 2 (1992): 339-352, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3817562 (accessed March 29, 2014), 345. 16 The Last of the Mohicans, (1992). 17 Borneman, 90. 18 Ibid, 92. 19 Anderson, 111.

The terms of surrender shown in the movie are mostly correct. It was a generous offer in which the British were able to leave with their side arms and their colors. The men that were too wounded to be moved were to be left in the care of the French. There was one difference in that Montcalm required that the British promise not to fight again for eighteen months, they were not forced to never fight again and return to England as the movie depicts.20 Upon hearing that the conflict had ended with a deal struck with the British, the Indians there that were allied with the French were unhappy. They felt they were being denied the prisoners, trophies, and plunder they had come for21. In the movie Montcalm says that he cant break the terms of surrender but implies that the Indians can. His motivation for not interfering with the Indians desire to attack is portrayed as a desire to not have to end up fighting the same British men again.22 The level of awareness Montcalm had of the Indians plans to attack is uncertain. He did not specifically command them but just how much Montcalm and his officers attempted to restrain them has always been debatable.23 The Indians had been promised the opportunity for scalps and other plunder and they were determined to get what they felt they were entitled to.24 What happened next would come to be referred to by American colonists as the massacre of Fort William Henry.25 Following the surrender and as the occupants of Fort William Henry were journeying away from the fort they were ambushed. The assault was brief, vicious, and chaotic, focused on the rear of the long column Within minutes the corpses of between 70-185 soldiers and camp

20 21

Borneman, 93. Anderson, 112. 22 The Last of the Mohicans, (1992). 23 Borneman, 93. 24 Ibid., 93. 25 Anderson, 113.

followers lay scalped and stripped on the road and in the woods beyond. As many as five hundred more are taken captive.26 What is seen in the film reflects much of this. One thing that is inaccurate is the depiction of the fictional Magua killing Monro by cutting out his heart while he was still alive. The colonel did not die during this attack. His death came quite suddenly some three months later in Albany on November 3, 1757.27 So while the death was fictional there is some evidence to the validity of the manner of death shown. In an article written about the methods of torture practiced by some Indian tribes it says, the heart would sometimes be torn out before death.28 The practice of scalping by the Indians is shown in the film during this attack and it was common for them to do this while battling their enemies. One motivation for the taking of scalps was to show the fierceness and abilities of a warrior. Scalps seem to have been prizedas badges of merit, a sort of proof of valor The scalper wasesteemed for the number he could show.29 But this was not the only reason scalps were sought after. They also had importance of a supernatural or spiritual nature. Scalpsoften had significance either in connection with mourning and the appeasement of ghosts, or as offerings to the supernatural.30 As previously stated, another motivation for the Indians in this attack was to take captives. The movie shows Hayward, Alice and Cora being taken prisoner by the Indians. They take them to their village where it is decided by the sachem or chief that Alice would be given to

26 27

Ibid., 112. John A. Inglis,"Sketch of Colonel George Monro, Commandant at Fort William Henry." Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association, 1914 , 399-400. 28 Nathaniel Knowles, "The Torture of Captives by the Indians of Eastern North America," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 82, no. 2 (1940): 151-225, http://www.jstor.org/stable/985013 (accessed March 29, 2014), 189. 29 Ibid, 210-211. 30 Ibid, 153.

Magua to replace his wife and children he lost and Hayward was burned while the Indians celebrated. It was a common practice for Indians to take captives which would be adopted into the tribe. 31 They were very highly valued. Captiveswere the more desirable war trophythey were adopted by relatives of slain warriors as a means of appeasing the dead.32 It was a way for Native Americans to increase their populations that were being depleted due to war and particularly after losing so many in their villages during epidemics. The captives would be assimilated into the tribe. Another fate of the captives was that they were held for ransom. After the massacre that day in August the French, attempting damage control in the aftermath of the actions of their allies, did what they could to recover those that had been taken captive through offering money and brandy to the Indians in exchange.33 In addition to assimilating those taken captive, Native Americans did have a tradition of torturing and killing them instead. The depiction of a bound Hayward being burned to death is in fact quite similar to the grisly reality. There is an account of the Shawnee Indians burning a British officer name Crawford in 1782. In similar fashion to Hayward Crawfords wrists were bound to a post and he was encircled with fire and was slowly burned while villagers looked on.34

31

James Axtell, "The White Indians of Colonial America," The William and Mary Quarterly, 32, no. 1 (1975): 55-88, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1922594 (accessed March 29, 2014), 59. 32 Knowles, 211. 33 Anderson, 113. 34 Knowles, 178.

And lastly there is the question about what is implied by the name of the movie and in the labeling of the Mohicans as a vanishing people.35 Are there really no more Mohican Indians? By the end of the movie Uncas is dead and during a ceremony honoring him Chingachgook talks about his son taking his place with those of their people that had died. The grieving father says, for they are all there but one, I, Chingachgook, the last of the Mohicans.36 If what is shown in the movie is taken as true then the Mohican tribe is extinct. This is a myth. The Mohican (also spelled Mahican) people did not die out in the 1700s, the tribe still exists today. In 1738 the Mohicans allowed a minister to start a mission in their village. Europeans eventually labeled the habitation Stockbridge and by extension the Mohicans became known as the Stockbridge Indians.37 After a number of forced relocations most of the Stockbridge Mohicans came to settle in Wisconsin around 1830. A tribe of Munsee Indians joined the group and collectively they gained the moniker Stockbridge-Munsee Indians.38 Eventually a reservation was established there in Wisconsin. Today, on Shawano County Road A in northeastern Wisconsin, a new sign announces the reservation of the MOHICAN NATION. Approximately half of the tribal population of about 1,500 live on or near the reservation.39 And so the Mohican people still go on and did not vanish as the movie says. When one looks at the story and events portrayed in The Last of the Mohicans with an eye to documented history the difference between the facts and fiction is seen. Speaking in

35 36

The Last of the Mohicans, (1992). Ibid. 37 Stockbridge-Munsee Community, "Origin & Early Mohican History." Accessed April 2, 2014. http://www.mohican-nsn.gov/Departments/Library-Museum/Mohican_History/origin-and-early.htm. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid.

10

general terms about what is shown of the siege, surrender, and ensuing massacre of the British at Fort William Henry, the movie is accurate. And the movies depiction of the Native Americans, their allegiances and attitudes about war, their practices of scalping and taking captives, do paint a realistic picture. There are no glaring inaccuracies aside from the idea that the Mohican people had only one living member left at that time. It is in the details that things stray from history. But on the whole, The Last of the Mohicans gives an accurate glimpse of life and death during those days in August 1757 in upstate New York.

11

Bibliography
Anderson, Fred. The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War. New York: Viking, 2005. Axtel, James. "The White Indians of Colonial America." The William and Mary Quarterly 32 (January 1975): 55-88. Borneman, Walter R. The French and Indian War: Deciding the Fate of North America. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. Foulds, Diane E. "Who Scalped Whom?" The Boston Globe, December 31, 2000: B10. Fowler Jr., William M. Empires at War: The French and Indian War and the Struggle for North America, 1754-1763. PDF e-book. New York: Walker Publishing Company, 2005. Inglis, John A. "Sketch of Colonel George Monro, Commandant at Fort William Henry." Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association, 1914: 399-403. Jabos, Wilbur R. "A Message to Fort William Henry: An Incident in the French and Indian War." Huntington Library Quarterly 16, no. 4 (August 1953): 371-380. Knowles, Nathaniel. "The Torture of Captives by the Indians of Eastern North America." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 82 (1940): 151-225. The Last of the Mohicans. Directed by Michael Mann. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 1992. Origin & Early Mohican History. 2009. http://www.mohican-nsn.gov/Departments/LibraryMuseum/Mohican_History/origin-and-early.htm (accessed April 2, 2014). Steele, Ian K. "Suppressed Official British Report of the Siege and "Massacre" at Fort William Henry, 1757." Huntington Library Quarterly 55, no. 2 (1992): 339-352.