does not even hint at his authority for this, unless in a sentence of
the preface where he says, "a large part of my material I have derived
from what may be termed 'original sources'--old settlers." Of course the
statement of an old settler is worthless when it relates to an alleged
important event which took place a hundred and five years before, and
yet escaped the notice of all contemporary and subsequent historians. In
plain truth unless Mr. Kirke can produce something like contemporary--or
approximately contemporary--documentary evidence for this mythical
battle, it must be set down as pure invention. It is with real
reluctance that I speak thus of Mr. Kirke's books. He has done good
service in popularizing the study of early western history, and
especially in calling attention to the wonderful careers of Sevier and
Robertson. Had he laid no claim to historic accuracy I should have been
tempted to let his books pass unnoticed; but in the preface to his "John
Sevier" he especially asserts that his writings "may be safely accepted
as authentic history." On first reading his book I was surprised and
pleased at the information it contained; when I came to study the
subject I was still more surprised and much less pleased at discovering
such wholesale inaccuracy--to be perfectly just I should be obliged to
use a stronger term. Even a popular history ought to pay at least some
little regard to truth.] Very few Indians were killed, and apparently
none of Sevier's people; a tory, an ex-British sergeant, then living
with an Indian squaw, was among the slain.

This foray brought but a short relief to the settlements. On Christmas
day three men were killed on the Clinch; and it was so unusual a season
for the war parties to be abroad that the attack caused widespread
alarm. [Footnote: Calendar of Va. State Papers, III., p. 424.] Early in
the spring of 1783 the ravages began again. [Footnote: _Do_., p. 479.]
Some time before General Wayne had addressed the Creeks and Choctaws,