company:  a little further, that of Scott, of Coleman’s company; and progressing some forty or fifty steps (it may have been more,) in advance of that, we found our venerable and brave old comrade, colonel Whitley, who was also of the ‘forlorn hope.’  Near him, in a moment, I well remember to have noticed, with a feeling and exclamation of exultation, the body of an Indian; and some twenty or thirty steps in advance of this, another Indian, which last was afterwards designated as the body of Tecumseh.  I distinctly recollect, that as we returned to make this search, the firing was still kept up some distance off on our left"[C]

[Footnote A:  Cincinnati Republican, 30th September, 1840]

[Footnote B:  See Cincinnati Republican, 30th September, 1840. ]

[Footnote C:  Dr. Theobald’s letter, dated 27th November, 1840, in possession of the author of this work.]

Testimony on these points might be multiplied, but could add nothing to the force of that which is here cited.  The letter of Dr. Theobald is conclusive as to the time when colonel Johnson was wounded, and the period during which the action continued after he retired from the battle ground.  It seems the colonel was disabled at the beginning of the action with the Indians, and immediately rode from the field; that the action lasted for near half an hour; that Tecumseh fell at or near the close of it; and that he could not, therefore, have fallen by the hand of colonel Johnson.  Whether the leader of the “forlorn hope” can claim the credit of having actually killed an Indian chief on this memorable day, is not the immediate question before us:  that he acted with dauntless bravery, in promptly charging the Indian line, during the brief period which he remained unwounded, is universally admitted; but that he is entitled to the honor, (if such it may be called,) of having personally slain the gifted “king of the woods,” will not be so readily conceded.

James, the British historian, from whose “Military Occurrences” we have already quoted, having charged general Harrison with designedly omitting, in his official report, all reference to the death of Tecumseh, leaves the inference to be drawn by the reader, that the omission was prompted by a feeling of envy towards colonel Johnson, who had done the deed.  It is due to the cause of truth, not less than to the reputation of the American commander, that this charge should be impartially examined.  It is true, that the official account of the battle of the Thames does not mention the death of Tecumseh, and the propriety of this omission will be sufficiently obvious from the following narrative.