his troops, nearly four-fifths of which were new levies of militia, against the Indians who had been disturbing the western frontier.  The expedition was a succession of blunders and failures which were due more to the rude and undisciplined character of the material that Harmar had to work with than to his personal incapacity.  Harmar did succeed in destroying five Indian villages with their stores of corn, but their inhabitants had warning enough to escape and were able to take prompt vengeance.  A detachment of troops was ambushed and badly cut up.  The design had been to push on to the upper course of the Wabash, but so many horses had been stolen by the Indians that the expedition was crippled.  As a result, Harmar marched his troops back again, professing to believe that punishment had been inflicted upon the Indians that would be a severe lesson to them.  What really happened was that the Indians were encouraged to think that they were more than a match for any army which the settlers could send against them, and before long news came of the destruction of settlements and the massacre of their inhabitants.  “Unless,” wrote Rufus Putnam to Washington, “Government speedily sends a body of troops for our protection, we are a ruined people.”

Washington did what he could.  He sent to Congress Putnam’s letter and other frontier communications, but Congress, which was stubbornly opposed to creating a national army, replied, when the need was demonstrated, that the militia of the several States were available.  The Government was without means of protecting the Indians against abuse and injustice or of protecting the settlers against the savage retaliations that naturally followed.  The dilemma was stated with sharp distinctness in correspondence which passed between Washington and Hamilton in April, 1791.  Washington wrote that it was a hopeless undertaking to keep peace on the frontier “whilst land-jobbing and the disorderly conduct of our borderers are suffered with impunity; and while the States individually are omitting no occasion to intermeddle in matters which belong to the general Government.”  Hamilton in reply went to the root of the matter.  “Our system is such as still to leave the public peace of the Union at the mercy of each state government.”  He proceeded to give a concrete instance:  “For example, a party comes from a county of Virginia into Pennsylvania, and wantonly murders some friendly Indians.  The national Government, instead of having power to apprehend the murderers and bring them to justice, is obliged to make a representation to that of Pennsylvania; that of Pennsylvania, again, is to make a requisition of that of Virginia.  And whether the murderers shall be brought to justice at all must depend upon the particular policy, and energy, and good disposition of two state governments, and the efficacy of the provisions of their respective laws.  And security of other States and the money of all are at the discretion of one.  These things require a remedy; but when that will come, God knows.”