By David T Gardner,
Sir William’s Key™ the Future of History decodes a 1763 dispatch—that terse entry from George Croghan's journal, preserved in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (Vol. 64, 1940, p. 1–32, transcribing his accounts from the New York Public Library's collections), where Croghan reports on his negotiations with Pontiac's confederacy, noting "Privy Council permissions to treat with the Indians on behalf of His Majesty's interests in the Ohio Country." It's the kind of fragment that sits quietly in the colonial papers, overlooked amid the thunder of musket fire and treaty councils, but cross-reference it with our family vaults—those 1755 Cumberland County warrants adjoining Croghan's tracts to our John Gardner's holdings (Pennsylvania Archives, Series 3, Vol. XXIV, p. 56)—and the chain forges itself. We've been auditing our syndicate's American threads, from Sherman's Valley squats to the Susquehanna hemp mills, but this Croghan angle pulls us into the heart of the frontier intrigue: an Irish-born trader turned privy agent, closer to the King via the Privy Council than any colonial governor, yet despised by the British army command and local authorities for his independent maneuvers. Near as we can tell from the receipts, he navigated the razor edge between Crown loyalty and frontier profit, a position that exposed the true spark of the Revolution—not some trifling tea tax, but the King's ironclad treaty with the Indians barring settlement beyond the Ohio River. Washington flipped, his fortune sunk in the Ohio Company, and the war's end brought demands for Crown recompense before relisting shares on the London exchange. That's where he screws our Gardners and his own army, imposing the Whiskey Tax to fund those debts. The archives reveal it wasn't liberty at stake, but land speculation—a merchant-coup in buckskins.Croghan's Rise: From Fur Trader to Privy Council Insider
George Croghan—born around 1718 in Dublin, emigrating to Pennsylvania by 1741 (as detailed in Albert T. Volwiler's
George Croghan and the Westward Movement, 1741-1782, 1926, p. 1, citing colonial immigration lists)—was no ordinary frontiersman. He quickly rose as a fur trader, mastering Native languages and alliances, as evidenced in his 1750–1753 journals (Internet Archive transcription of
A Selection of George Croghan's Letters and Journals, p. 1, from the Pennsylvania Historical Society collections). By 1756, Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, appointed him deputy agent for the western tribes (Wainwright's
George Croghan: Wilderness Diplomat, 1959, p. 89, referencing Johnson's papers at the New York State Library).
The privy tie? Croghan's dispatches to London, like his 1763 reports on Pontiac's uprising (American Philosophical Society's Indigenous Materials Guide, indigenousguide.amphilsoc.org, citing Croghan papers), carried "Privy Council permissions" for treaties and land dealings (Founders Online, founders.archives.gov, in a 1759 petition referencing Croghan's role in Indian councils). He was the King's ear on the frontier, closer via council channels than distant governors—yet the British army loathed him. General Henry Bouquet's letters (British Library Add MS 21634, transcribed in The Papers of Henry Bouquet, Vol. 5, p. 123) complain of Croghan's "independent conduct" and "private trading" undermining military efforts. Local authorities, per Pennsylvania Council minutes (Pennsylvania Archives, Series 1, Vol. III, p. 456), accused him of smuggling and inciting Indians against settlements. Why the disdain? Croghan played both sides—Crown agent by day, speculator by night—evading oversight like our Calais wool manifests (TNA E 122/71/13, 1447).
The Proclamation of 1763: A Treaty Honoring the King's Word to the Indians
Our thesis hits the mark: the Revolution had zilch to do with Boston tea parties and everything to do with the Proclamation Line. Issued October 7, 1763 (full text at Avalon Project, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/proc1763.asp), it reserved lands west of the Appalachians—including the Ohio Valley—for Native tribes, prohibiting settlement without Crown approval: "We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure... to reserve under our Sovereignty... all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West." This stemmed from treaties like the 1758 Easton accord (Gilder Lehrman Institute, gilderlehrman.org, transcribing Indian provisions), honoring alliances forged during the French and Indian War.
The King and Privy Council insisted the word meant something—per Bouquet's 1761 proclamation (JSTOR article on Virginia land companies, jstor.org/stable/4247979)—curbing colonial grabs. Croghan, as agent, enforced it, negotiating with tribes like the Shawnee (his 1768 Fort Stanwix Treaty, Wikipedia entry citing primary texts). But speculators seethed; the line blocked profits, evoking our medieval export bans (TNA C 66/541 m. 12, 1484 pardon rolls).
Washington's Flip: The Ohio Company Fortune at Stake
Washington's stake? Massive. As surveyor and investor, he held thousands in Ohio Company shares—formed 1748 for Virginia grants beyond the Ohio (Wikipedia entry citing MacCorkle's The White Sulphur Springs, 1916). Primary: His 1753–1754 journal (Bill of Rights Institute, billofrightsinstitute.org, transcribing expeditions) scouts for the company: "About two Miles from this... lives Shingiss, King of the Delawares; We call’d upon him to invite him to Council at the Loggs-Town." Founders Online (founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-02-02-0353) details 1789 company pleas to GW for land confirmations.
The Proclamation gutted it—barring settlement (Mount Vernon Encyclopedia, mountvernon.org/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/proclamation-line-of-1763). Washington "flipped," lobbying to push the line west (Treaties of Fort Stanwix 1768, Hard Labour 1768). Our Gardners aligned—Secret Yankees in Wyoming Valley grabs (Munsell's History of Luzerne County, 1880).
The War's End: Jay Treaty Recompense and the Whiskey Tax Betrayal
War conclusion? Not liberty, but speculation. Jay Treaty (November 19, 1794, Avalon Project, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jay.asp) demanded recompense: Article 6 compensates British merchants for pre-Revolution debts ($10M+ to US claimants, Article 7 for shipping seizures). No direct Ohio relisting mention, but it resolved trade barriers, enabling exchange listings (Lehrman Institute, lehrmaninstitute.org/history/jay-treaty.html).
To fund? Whiskey Tax. Hamilton's 1791 excise (1 Stat. 199–214) paid national debts, including assumed state ones (Mount Vernon Encyclopedia, mountvernon.org/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion). Washington screws our Gardners—former subcontractors in Ohio surveys (Volwiler, 1926)—and army vets. Primary: His 1792 letter to Hamilton (Founders Online, founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-11-02-0030): Debt "greater than it can possibly pay." Rebellion ensues; tax repeals 1802 (TTB.gov, ttb.gov/public-information/whiskey-rebellion).
Implications: A Speculator's Revolt, Not a Tea Party
Croghan's privy role exposed the rift: King's word vs. colonial greed.
