No one knows exactly what influenced the naming of the stream which also provided one of the names for the village that would eventually be settled on 'Everett'. Historians have argued over the subject for years, but no documentary evidence can prove one theory over another. Every theory that has been proposed can be refuted by simple facts.
The Bedford County Press, on Thursday 24 July 1975, published an article on pages 20 and 21 titled: "Bloody Run: nine different theories". Maureen Kraybill provided short explanations of the nine theories. They are presented here, in italics, accompanied by comments on why they cannot be true.
In addition to the nine theories published in the Everett-based newspaper, a number of separately published theories are here presented.
The name 'Bloody Run' was first mentioned in a public document in the year 1759 in a List of the Different Bregads of Horses Killed & Taken by the Enemy by Captain Robert Callender and Mr. Barnabas Hughes during the Forbes Expedition. An inventory of the horses was taken near the end of the year 1759. William White was in charge of Brigade #4. He reported that one horse ‘gave out’ (i.e. died from exhaustion) "at Bloody Run by ye Officer making me drive two hard."
The writer of an article in the Everett Press, March 26, 1897, firmly believed that it was named Bloody Run after an incident in 1763.
A band of Indians reportedly ambushed and killed six traders and several horses and cattle on the flat east of Howard's Mill. The blood from the dead men and beasts allegedly flowed into the river, causing the water to turn red. This incident was apparently related by Col. Joseph W. Tate, whose father, Samuel was one of the trades.
If the writer of the article published on 26 March 1897 was accurate, then that writer must have been unaware of the Papers of Henry Bouquet in which the report made by Callender and Hughes was included. An incident that took place in 1763 would have been four years after the name was first used.
Another writer claims that 23 traders travelling west from Philadelphia in May 1763 were ambushed by a group of Shawnee, Delaware, and Huron Indians and that no one was killed. The Indians merely succeeded in taking all the goods from the traders.
The incident, as noted in the first theory, if it occurred in 1763, would have been four years after the first mention of the name. Besides that, since nothing happened to cause the stream to be red, this theory is pointless.
A third theory put forth is that the name originated in 1756 near Fort Augusta, now known as Sunbury.
A soldier from the fort, according to this story, went down to the river to take a drink of water. While he was stooping over, a group of Indians hiding in the bushes close by shot and scalped him.
When his fellow soldiers eventually found him, he was lying on the banks and blood from his head was dripping into the stream. They then called it "Bloody Spring", and it later became "Bloody Run".
How can an incident that took place in eastern Pennsylvania at the present-day Borough of Sunbury have influenced the name of a stream, and later town, here in central Pennsylvania, approximately 125 miles away?
A book just added to the Everett Free Library contains another theory.
"The History of Dauphin, Cumberland, Perry, Bedford, Adams, and Franklin Counties of Pennsylvani", by I. D. Rupp, theorizes that on July 21, 1765, a convoy of 80 horses that as travelling from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh carrying goods from the King to the Indians as gifts, was attacked by a band of armed men.
Many of the horse and men were killed and their blood flowed into the river, discoloring its waters. The robbers carried away all the goods.
Besides being another incident that took place a few years after the first use of the name ~ in this case, six years after ~ this incident was later proven to have happened on the east slope of Sideling Hill. And the village of Bloody Run / Everett never existed on the east slope of Sideling Hill.
This theory regarding the origin of the name Bloody Run came from an article printed in a London newspaper. The article stated:
"By advices from Philadelphia we learn that the convoy of eighty horses loaded with goods, chiefly on his Majesty's account, as presents to the Indians, and part on account of Indian traders, were surprised in a narrow and dangerous defile in the mountains by a body of armed men. A number of horses were killed, some lives were lost, and the whole of the goods were carried away by the plunderers. The rivulet was dyed with blood, and run into the settlement below, carrying with it the stain of crime upon its surface. This convoy was intended for Pittsburg; as there can be no long continuance of peace, without such strong demonstrations of friendship towards the Indians. The King's troops from Fort Loudon marched against the depredators, seized them, but were again rescued by superior force. Some soldiers carried some straglers, whom they apprehended, into the Fort; but their friends came to their rescue and compelled the garrison to give up the prisoners. We understand, however, that many of the rioters were bound over for their appearance at court."
The foregoing account that was printed in the English newspaper bore the dateline: Council Chambers, London, June 21, 1765. The incident was eventually identified as having taken place along the eastern slope of Sideling Hill. The account was transcribed in 1846, by I. Daniel Rupp, in his The History and Topography of Dauphin, Cumberland, Franklin, Bedford, Adams, and Perry Counties. It was also referenced by U. J. Jones in his History of the Early Settlement of the Juniata Valley, published in 1855. Jones attributed the incident to James Smith and his Black Boys. The simple matter that the incident related in the newspaper was dated to the year 1765, whereas the name was stated six years earlier in 1759, was apparently overlooked by Rupp and Jones.
Another historian, G. P. Donehoo, refers to John Ewing's journal in which he claims that Bloody Run got its name from the murder of a number of people taking supplies to a Mr. Buchanan in 1755 who was surveying roads to Bedford.
Now there's some good points and some bad points about this theory. While the date of 1755 seems to be a good point for this theory, the addition of the phrase "Mr. Buchanan in 1755 who was surveying roads to Bedford." begins to throw doubt on this theory. In 1755 it was Colonel James Burd who was surveying the road toward the Forks of the Ohio. There was no surveyor by the name of 'Mr. Buchanan' in Colonel Burd's party. Also, the murder "of a number of people taking supplies to a Mr. Buchanan" was not mentioned in any public documents.
The actual reference to which G. P. Donehoo referred is found in the Pennsylvania Archives Sixth Series, Volume XIV, page 7. The quote: "John Paxton keeps ye Tavern at ye Warrior's Mn. or Bloody Run, so called from the murder of a number of People sent to escort Provisions to Mr. Buchanan who was surveying ye roads to Bedford in ye year 1755." Dr. John Ewing wrote his journal in the year 1784. Whether he remembered things from fifty years earlier with perfect clarity is not known. He didn't state that it was the tavern keeper, John Paxton, who told him about the naming of the stream, so where he got the informtion is questionable.
Until the names of the people, the number of them and who 'Mr. Buchanan' was is identified, this theory will remain just that ~ a theory.
"A History of Bedford, Somerset and Fulton Counties" claims that in 1768 General Forbes' army was passing through the area and the soldiers made a stop near the spring where they slaughtered several cattle to supply themselves with meat.
The blood from these slaughtered cattle, according to this story, caused the water to turn red, and thus the name, "Bloody Run".
This theory starts out with a problem. It states that General Forbes' army was passing through the area in 1768. The year 1768 was two years after the British Army had returned to the eastern region of Pennsylvania. And it was not Forbes's army in 1768. General John Forbes died in March 1759, so he was not leading any army ~ other than an army of ghosts, perhaps ~ in 1768. The next problem with this theory is that the Forbes Road, in 1768 known as the Great Road was the only road that 'passed through' the region that would eventually be occupied by the village of Bloody Run / Everett. So for the cattle to be found near the spring, they would have had to purposely been led a little over a mile north of where the Great Road crossed over the stream, that in 1768 had already bore the name of 'Bloody Run' for nine years. If the British Army, which was not in this region since the end of Pontiac's Rebellion in 1766, actually did pass through the area in which the village would come to stand, it would have made no sense whatsoever to herd the cattle a mile north, be slaughtered beside the spring, and then have the meat carried back south a mile to feed the troops. So-called historians who dream up these theories simply do not consider the logistics of how the actio could have been undertaken.
David G. Agnew, in "A History of Everett," says that an English journalist, Anne Royall, wrote a report in the 1820's in which she claimed that the spring got its name when General Forbes was driving cattle to Pittsburgh during Braddock's war.
General Forbes, according to this account, left the cattle with guards at the creek and rode on ahead. A group of Indians were lying in ambush and attacked and killed several of the guards. The dead guards fell into the water and colored it with their blood.
I would imagine that General John Forbes, who suffered from a number of illnesses at the time, would have been thankful to have been able to do many of the things attributed to him. In the first place there was no such thing as a "Braddock's war". General Edward Braddock conducted an expedition against the French holding their Fort Duquesne, but it was not his 'war'. Secondly, to assume that General John Forbes would be demoted to the position of a cattle-driver is absurd. Thirdly, when Braddock's Expedition was being undertaken in 1755, Colonel James Burd was only then cutting a road through this frontier region to meet Braddock near the Forks of the Ohio. It didn't matter who was the cattle-driver, since the road was not yet cut through the forests and up over the mountains, it would have been a herculean task to herd any number of animals through this frontier region.
Where an English journalist obtained her information is anyone's guess.
Agnew also says that in J. L. Montgomery's study of the Pennsylvania frontiers the writer mentions that the stream got its name from the death of several scouts.
A group of Indians reportedly made a cord from the inner bark of a linden tree and anchored a duck in a pool of water in the run. Some of the scouts saw the duck, stooped to catch it, and were shot by the Indians. The scouts fell dead into the river, and the water was colored by their blood.
Agnew, who considered all the stories and theories put forth, claims that none of them seems to have a sufficient basis in truth.
So how exactly does one 'anchor a duck' in a pool of water in a fast flowing stream? Who were the 'scouts' who found the anchored duck? And when did the scouts find the anchored duck and become ambushed because of it? And more importantly, who were the scouts?
This theory is not backed up by any credible evidence. Colonel Henry Bouquet, who led the British Army in Forbes Expedition, kept meticulous records and detailed every move he made in the letters he sent back to General John Forbes, who remained in the east because of illnesses. In order to keep General Forbes aware of every aspect of the expedition, Colonel Bouquet included many details in his letters. Why he would not have informed Forbes of the deaths of numerous soldiers ~ scouts ~ at the hands of Indians is amazing.
He asserts that the name may have come from the fact that iron ore deposits have, at times, colored the water red.
Faced with a host of conflicting theories, none of which can be adequately documented, a historian is probably justified in seeking a different, and sensibly simple, explanation.
Until further evidence is uncovered in the dark pages of this early history, Agnew's "iron ore theory" is probably as good as any.
This theory is indeed as good as any. But it should be noted that anyone who has ever experienced a stream in which iron ore deposits have colored the water and stained the rocks knows that the color is not 'red'. The orangish brown color of iron ore staining does not resemble blood in the water except to anyone who has never seen the actual color of blood.
On 5 May 2014, the Bedford County Visitor's Bureau published a video on YouTube titled: Everett ~ The Danger Years. In that video, the narrator proposed the origin of the name. He stated: As the British road crew was building a road through these mountains during the French and Indian War, Indians attacked that road crew and their supply train. It was a massacre. Men and livestock were killed and the water ran red with blood. Somebody called the creek "The Bloody Run" and 'voila' this town had a new name.
In the first place 'this town' did not exist as the Forbes Expedition was pushing through the forest.
Secondly, as noted in the sixth theory ~ This theory is not backed up by any credible evidence. Colonel Henry Bouquet, who led the British Army in Forbes Expedition, kept meticulous records and detailed every move he made in the letters he sent back to General John Forbes, who remained in the east because of illnesses. In order to keep General Forbes aware of every aspect of the expedition, Colonel Bouquet included many details in his letters. Why he would not have informed Forbes of the deaths of numerous soldiers working at cutting the road, at the hands of Indians, is astounding.
The pamphlet prepared 'in connection with the Bedford County Bicentennial' in 1971 stated that "In attempting to dissuade a group of traders from carrying goods and war-like supplies to the Indians ~ and thus endangering the lives of the white settlers ~ a group of 50 men under William Duffield disguised themselves as Indians and, when the traders came along, shot their horses. There were 70 horses in the pack train and the blood of those that were massacred tinged the waters of the run to a ruddy hue."
The author of the narrative then made the statement that "James Smith, an intrepid warrior of the period before the Revolution in telling the story, lays the scene of the skirmish at Rays Hill, but, since there was no settlement there at that time, it is believed that the traders were waylaid in the vicinity of Everett." The latter statement, in attempting to justify the 'fact' that the incident could not have occurred at Rays Hill because there was no settlement there at the time, overlooked the fact that there likewise was no settlement at 'Everett' at that time.
While it made for interesting reading in the little pamphlet, the story missed the truth. It was derived from the 1843 volume Historical Collections of the State of Pennsylvania, by Sherman Day. Mr. Day derived his information from An Account of the Remarkable Coincidences in the Life and Travels of Col. James Smith, published in 1799. A major problem with the use of the story of Duffield and his fifty men, by Smith and Day, was that the narrative itself includes the statement that Duffield and his fifty men met the traders "where Mercersburg now stands". And the narrative, as presented by Smith, and later Day, stated that Duffield and his men left the traders proceed, and it was then Smith and ten of his 'Black Boys' who actually waylaid the pack train. Smith stated that after crossing over North Mountain, his men stopped the traders near Sidelong [sic] Hill. He mentioned nothing about seventy horses being killed. But most importantly, Smith stated that the incident took place around the first of March 1765 ~ six years after the first use of the name, Bloody Run.
Another suggestion for the name, Bloody Run comes from a tradition that a battle was fought in the vicinity of the stream between Amerindians and British Army soldiers. According to the unverified story, the soldiers were part of the Burd's Road project in 1755, and they were attacked by a party of Amerindians. The story was popularized by J. Warren Smouse in his History of the Smouse Family of America, published in 1908. The story was then quoted by other genealogists, and as it was repeated, it was believed.
According to the Smouse story: "During the French and Indian War he [John Smouse] and Christian Miller were in the employ of the Government. They were hauling supplies and helped to cut a road from Carlisle to Fort Bedford. He was present with his team [of horses] when that fierce battle was fought at Bloody Run, now Everett, PA. He was one of eighteen men who with Captain Stone rescued six prisoners that were to be burned by the Indians. . ."
Absolutely no record of any such incident was recorded and maintained in the papers that would be published as the Pennsylvania Archives. Also, the only man named 'Captain Stone' associated with the French and Indian War was killed during 'the Action on the Banks of the Monongahela the 9th Day of July, 1755.'
Although historians have stated with authority that the incident indeed took place, there simply is no way to prove it with documented facts.
Bedford County historian, Larry D. Smith, the primary author of Bedford County, Pennsylvania ~ Two and One-Half Centuries in the Making proposed the following theory.People living in the year 2021 will most likely associate a word such as 'bloody' with the things with which the word is associated in 2021. People in 1906 probably associated the word 'bloody' with the things with which the word was associated in the year 1906. People living in the year 1843, in all probability, would have associated the word 'bloody' with the things with which the word was associated in the year 1843. And it is quite likely that the people in the four years between 1755 and 1759 would have associated the word 'bloody' with the swear or 'cuss' word which meant undesirable or condemned. Even at the present-time, despite its non-usage in the United States, the word is used by the British as an expletive, or swear word. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word appeared in print in 1785 with that meaning. And it is not too outrageous to assume that the word ~ used as an expletive ~ was in common usage long before it appeared in print.
Too often people, in their own time period, refuse to acknowledge that things weren't always the way that they know them. Earlier attempts to decipher the reason for the stream being called 'Bloody' Run were based on making some sort of association with actual physical blood causing a change in the water's physical appearance. After making that assumption, the American historian looked for an event that could contribute to physical blood changing the physical appearance of the stream's water. Although no contemporary record could be found to explain the name, any event, anywhere in the general region, and at any time within ten years of the first known recording of the name that resulted in the spilling of physical blood was appropriated for the explanation
What has been overlooked is the fact that the name first appeared in an English military context (i.e. the 1759 Accounts of Pack Horses) and the English soldiers might simply have referred to the stream in a somewhat derogatory, but common manner. Instead of calling it the D-a-m-n-e-d Run, they might have used the word 'bloody' simply as the common alternative expletive that it was, and still is, in Britain.
As plausible as any of the foregoing explanations is the possibility that as the English army of the Forbes campaign headed westward, one of the soldiers at the front of the line might have slipped and fallen into the small stream. His fellow soldiers might have laughed at the thoroughly wet man's misfortunate as he cursed the 'damned stream' in the jargon of his native homeland. The sarcastic warning, "Watch that you don't fall in the bloody run!" might have been passed down the line. This explanation is definitely not one that is quixotic, or heroic, as the result of a fierce battle or slaughter of beasts, but it as plausible as any of the other ones.
