This evidence itself is absolutely conclusive, except on the supposition that Gibson was a malicious and infamous liar.  The men who argue that the speech was fictitious are also obliged to explain what motive there could possibly have been for the deception; they accordingly advance the theory that it was part of Dunmore’s (imaginary) treacherous conduct, as he wished to discredit Cresap, because he knew—­apparently by divination—­that the latter was going to be a whig.  Even granting the Earl corrupt motives and a prophetic soul, it remains to be explained why he should wish to injure an obscure borderer, whom nobody has ever heard of except in connection with Logan; it would have served the purpose quite as well to have used the equally unknown name of the real offender, Greathouse.  The fabrication of the speech would have been an absolutely motiveless and foolish transaction; to which Gibson, a pronounced whig, must needs have been a party.  This last fact shows that there could have been no intention of using the speech in the British interest.

(2) The statement of General George Rogers Clark. (Like the preceding, this can be seen in the Jefferson Papers.) Clark was present in Dunmore’s camp at the time.  He says:  “Logan’s speech to Dunmore now came forward as related by Mr. Jefferson and was generally believed and indeed not doubted to have been genuine and dictated by Logan.  The Army knew it was wrong so far as it respected Cresap, and afforded an opportunity of rallying that Gentleman on the subject—­I discovered that Cresap was displeased and told him that he must be a very great Man, that the Indians shouldered him with every thing that had happened....  Logan is the author of the speech as related by Mr. Jefferson.”  Clark’s remembrance of his rallying Cresap shows that the speech contained Cresap’s name and that it was read before the army; several other witnesses, whose names are not necessary to mention, simply corroborate Clark’s statements, and a large amount of indirect evidence to the same effect could be produced, were there the least necessity. (See Jefferson’s Notes, “The American Pioneer,” etc., etc.)

The evidence against the authenticity of the speech, outside of mere conjectures and inuendoes, is as follows: 

(1) Logan called Cresap a colonel when he was really a captain.  This inability of an Indian to discriminate accurately between these two titles of frontier militia officers is actually solemnly brought forward as telling against the speech.

(2) Logan accused Cresap of committing a murder which he had not committed.  But, as we have already seen, Logan had made the same accusation in his unquestionably authentic letter, written previously; and many whites, as well as Indians, thought as Logan did.

(3) A Col.  Benj.  Wilson, who was with Dunmore’s army, says that “he did not hear the charge preferred in Logan’s speech against Captain Cresap.”  This is mere negative evidence, valueless in any event, and doubly so in view of Clark’s statement.