376 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



ruary 1793, sending a very explicit message to the Six Nations,, 

 to be forwarded to President Washington. They insisted on the 

 Ohio as a boundary, and would hold another private council 

 before the public meeting. When the latter took place, thef 

 Indians were divided, most wishing peace. The minority got in 

 a deceptive message, and the others determined that those who: 

 wished war might fight it out alone. Peace measures failing, 

 the United States commissioners at once returned without reach- 

 ing the council. 



On this occasion some Onondaga friends of Zeisberger told; 

 him that " they no longer live in Onondaga, where there are now 

 only twelve or thirteen families, but over the lake at Buffalo^ 

 creek." They said they had been betrayed at this council. 

 Brant was there with many Mohawks. In fact the commission-i 

 ers never were at the council, the British officers at Detroit refus-^ 

 ing to let them go till they were sent for, but otherwise treating) 

 them courteously. They left Philadelphia Feb. ^y, 1793, were 

 detained at Niagara for several weeks, where a conference was( 

 held, and the Indians sent their reply Aug. 13, without per-r 

 mitting them to appear. All present signed the reply except thei 

 Six Nations, but the Senecas of the Glaize signed with the totem 

 of the Turtle. Brant was surprised to find the British opposing 

 articles of peace. 



On the return of the chiefs a council was held at the OnonM 

 daga village on Buffalo creek, Oct. 8, to which both English andi' 

 Americans were invited. Clear Sky, an Onondaga chief, opened' 

 the council, and all the belts were produced and speeches 

 rehearsed. On the next day Brant was present and spoke, say-; 

 ing that land claims " always have been, and still continue to be> 

 the cause of war." He made a proposition which he thoughil 

 might secure peace, and it was *' the general wish of the Si> 

 Nations that General Chapin, himself, will proceed with thd 

 speech to Congress." This he did, and another council was pro' 

 posed at Venango in the spring. This was reported at a counci 

 held at Buffalo creek Feb. 7, 1794, but was not acceptable, as 

 direct answer on the boundary line was desired. 



