USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Groton > Historical sketch of Groton, Massachusetts. 1655-1890 > Part 4
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18
Cotton Mather says that one man was killed at Gro- ton in the year 1697, and another, with two children, carried into captivity. (Magnalia, Book VII. page 91.) He does not give the date clearly, but inferen-
44
GROTON.
tially it is June. The prisoner was Stephen Holden, who was captured, with his two oldest sons, John and Stephen, Jr. John was released in January, 1699, at which time the father and the other boy were yet remaining in the hands of the savages. It was not long, however, before they too were freed ; for, in the following June, the House of Representatives voted three pounds and twelve shillings for the expenses that had been incurred in bringing them back.
QUEEN ANNE'S WAR, as it is commonly called in America, broke out in the year 1702, when England declared war against France and Spain; and the American Colonies were drawn into the contest. The Indians in New England were in sympathy with the French ; and they kept the frontier settlements con- tinually on the alert. Strict vigilance, on the part of the colonists was the price of their safety. Military companies were still held under discipline and drill, and from time to time were reviewed by the proper officers. In the year 1702, Chief Justice Samuel Sewall accompanied Governor Joseph Dudley through Mid- dlesex County on a tour of inspection; and in his Diary, under date of October 28th, he writes:
" Went to Groton, saw Captain Prescot and his company in Arms. (Govr had sent to them from Dunstable that would visit them). Lancaster is about 12 Miles Southward from Groton. Concord is 16 Miles 34 and Ten-Rod from Groton."
(Massachusetts Historical Collections, VI. fifth series, 67.)
After these alarms there was a short respite, which continued till 1704, when the frontier towns were again exposed to savage warfare, and this town suf- fered with the others.
Samuel Penhallow, in "The History of the Wars
45
GROTON.
of New England " (Boston, 1726), thus refers to the attack on this place in August, 1704: The Indians-
" afterwards fell on Lancaster, and Groaton, where they did some Spoil, but not what they expected, for that these Towns were seasonably strengthened. . . .
" And yet a little while after they fell on Groaton, and Nashaway [Lan- caster], where they kill'd Lieut. Wyler [Wilder], and several more. (Pages 24, 25.)
In the library of the Massachusetts Historical So- ciety is a manuscript diary of John Marshall, of Braintree, which has the following entry :
The begining of this month of august [1704] the indians did mischief at Lancaster Killed 3 or 4 persons burnt their meeting house : and did some harm allso at Groton. the same week. Killed one or more : about 200 men went out after them who weer gone 20 days under major Taylor, but Returned Without doing any spoill on them."
The attack on Lancaster was on July 31st, and that on Groton probably within a day or two of the same time.
It was during this assault that Matthias Farns- worth, Jr., was captured and taken to Canada, where he remained permanently. He was afterward mar- ried to a French wife, and his numerous posterity are still living in Canada. The name is found written now Farnet, Farnef and Phaneuf.
A party of Indians, numbering about thirty, made their appearance in town, and killed a man on the night of October 25, 1704. Pursuit was at once made for them, but it was unsuccessful. The Boston News- Letter, October 30, 1704, gives the following account of the affair :
" On Wednesday night [October 25] an English man was kill'd in the woods at Groton by the Indians which were afterwards descryed in the night by the Light of their Fires, by a Person Travailing from Groton
46
GROTON.
to Lancaster, and judged they might be about Thirty in number ; pur- suit was made after them, but none could be found."
From " Marshall's Diary " we learn the name of the man who was slain. It is there recorded :
"on the 25 day [October, 1704], mr Breck was ordained at marlbor- rough. the next day a man was killed and scalped by the indians he belonged to the town of Groton his name was davis : a very useful man and much Lamented."
It has been a tradition that John Davis was killed by the Indians, but the date of his death was un- known; this entry, however, seems to fix it. It is said to have happened in the early part of the even- ing, while he was taking in some clothes which had been washed and hung out to dry. He lived near the Groton School, where W. Dickson resided when the map in Mr. Butler's History was made ; and Davis's Fordway, in the river near by, named after him, is still remembered by the older people of that neigh- borhood.
It is not surprising that the inhabitants, upon the renewal of hostilities, were obliged to ask for help from the General Court. They had already suffered much in life and property, and were little able to bear new burdens. They represented to the Gover- nor that they had been greatly impoverished by their loss of horses and cattle, of corn and hay, and that they were scarcely able to hold out much longer ; but the crowning calamity of all was the illness of the minister, Mr. Hobart, which prevented him from preaching. Their means were so limited that they could not support him and supply his place besides. They were obliged to earn their living at the peril of their lives; and some were thinking to leave the
47
GROTON.
town. They spent so much time in watching and guarding that they seemed to be soldiers rather than farmers. Under these discouraging circumstances they asked for help from the Province, and were al- lowed out of the public treasury twenty pounds to assist them in procuring another minister, besides ten pounds to be divided among those who had been the greatest sufferers in the late attack upon them.
Two years later another assault was made on the town, though with little damage. I again quote from Penhallow's History of the Wars of New England :
""[July 21, 1706]. Several Strokes were afterwards made on Chelms- ford, Sudbury and Groton, where three Soldiers as they were going to publick Worship, were way-laid by a small Party, who kill'd two, and made the other a Prisoner." (Page 36.)
A few additional particulars of these "Strokes" are found in the Rev. John Pike's Journal, printed in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for September, 1875 :
"July 21, 1706. Sab : 2 souldiers slain & one carried away by the enemy at Groton. They were all new-Cambridge [Newton] men & were returned to their Post from one Bloods house, who had invited ym to Dinner." (XIV. 143.)
Marshall, in his Diary, briefly alludes to this affair, thus :
" on the 21 [July] they Killed 2 and took one captive at groton.
The Rev. Jonathan Homer, in his History of Newton, as published in the Massachusetts Histori- cal Collections, V. 273, gives the names of these men as John Myrick, Nathaniel Healy and Ebenezer Se- ger, and says they were all three killed by the Indians. This statement, however, is inaccurate, as John My- rick was not one of the three soldiers, and, further-
48
GROTON.
more, was alive after this date. It is sufficiently clear from contemporaneous petitions among the Massachusetts Archives (LXXI. 345,419), that two of these men were brothers, by the name of Seger, and the third one was Nathaniel Healey. It was Ebenezer Seger who was killed, and, probably, Henry, Jr., who was taken prisoner.
At various times in its early history, the town was threatened by bands of roving Indians, who did what- ever damage lay in their power to do. Such incur- sions kept the inhabitants on the alert, and from time to time companies were organized for the purpose of scouring the neighborhood.
On March 12, 1694-95, an Act was passed by the General Court, which prohibited the desertion of fron- tier towns by the inhabitants unless permission was first granted by the Governor and Council. There were eleven such towns, and Groton was one of them. The law required the inhabitants of these out-towns, who owned land or houses, to take out a special license, on pain of forfeiting their property, before they could quit their homes and live elsewhere. It was thought that the interest of the Crown would be prejudiced, and encouragement given to the enemy, if any of these posts were deserted, or exposed by lessening their strength. Many towns were threatened by the Indians about this time, and a few were attacked. It is recorded that some of the settlers here left the town, and there was probably a movement among the inhabitants in other places to do the same. This fact undoubtedly occasioned the enactment, which was to remain in force "unto the end of the session of the
49
GROTON.
general assembly to convene in May, one thousand six hundred ninety-six (if the present war so long last), and no longer, nor afterwards."
A similar Act was again passed on March 22, 1699- 1700, which embraced fourteen frontier towns, of which Groton was one, and seven other towns that "lye more open than many others to an attack of an enemy." This enactment had a limitation in point of time similar to the preceding one. Subsequently this Act was revived on June 8, 1702, with the limitation, though no towns are specified by name; again on June 28, 1706, it was re-enacted, to remain in force until June 29, 1707 ; and still later, but not for the last time, it was passed on June 10, 1707. This con- tinuous legislation to prevent the desertion of the frontiers shows clearly the unsettled condition of the outlying towns during Queen Anne's War, and Groton was no exception. The inhabitants were now living in constant dread of the savages. Sometimes an ex- posed farm-house was attacked and burned, some of the inmates killed and others carried away in captiv- ity ; sometimes the farmer was shot down while at work in the field, or while going or coming. This was the fate of John Shattuck, and his eldest son John, a young man nineteen years of age, who were killed on May 8, 1709.
They were returning from the west side of the Na- shua River, where Mr. Shattuck owned land, and were attacked just as they were crossing the Stony Fordway, near the present site of Hollingworth's pa- per-mills, where they were killed. At the time of his death Mr. Shattuck was one of the selectmen of the
4
50
GROTON.
town. During the autumn of 1882 Messrs. Tileston and Hollingworth, of Boston, at that time the owners of the mill, caused a suitable stone to be placed by the wayside, bearing the following inscription :
-
NEAR THIS SPOT JOHN SHATTUCK,
A SELECTMAN OF GROTON, AND HIS SON JOHN WERE KILLED BY THE INDIANS, MAY 8, 1709, WHILE CROSSING STONY FORDWAY, JUST BELOW THE PRESENT DAM. 1882.
A remarkable fatality seems to have followed Mrs. Shattuck's kindred. Her husband and eldest son were killed by the Indians, as has just been mentioned. Her father, James Blood, was likewise killed, Sep- tember 13, 1692. So also were her uncle, William Longley, his wife and five children, July 27, 1694; and three others of their children were carried away into captivity at the same time. A relative, James Parker, Jr., and his wife were killed in this assault, and their children taken prisoners. Her step-father, Enoch Lawrence, received a wound in an engagement with the Indians, probably in the same attack of July 27, 1694, which almost wholly prevented him from earning a livelihood for himself and family. The three Tarbell children, who were carried off to Canada by the Indians, June 20, 1707, were cousins of Mrs. Shattuck. John Ames, who was shot by the savages
51
GROTON.
at the gate of his own garrison, July 9, 1724, was the father of Jacob, who married her niece, Ruth Shat- tuck. And lastly, her son-in-law, Isaac Lakin, the husband of her daughter Elizabeth, was wounded in Lovewell's Fight at Pequawket, May 8, 1725. These calamities covered a period of only one generation, extending from the year 1692 to 1725.
In a list of prisoners held by the French and In- dians in Canada, March 5, 1710-11, are the names of " Zech : Tarbal, John Tarbal, Sarah Tarbal, Matt. Farnsworth [and] Lydia Longley " (Archives, LXXI. 765), all of Groton, though no date of capture is given. Lydia Longley was taken by the Indians on July 27, 1694, and the particulars of her case have already been told ; Matthias Farnsworth was captured in the summer of 1704; and the Tarbell children were carried off on June 20, 1707. Sarah, John and Zech- ariah were children of Thomas and Elizabeth (Wood) Tarbell, who with a large family, lived on Farmers' Row, near where James Lawrence's house now stands. Sarah was a girl nearly fourteen years of age, John a lad of twelve years and Zechariah only seven, at the time when they were taken. They were near kindred of the Longley family, who had been massacred thirteen years before. The father was unquestionably the Corporal Tarbell who commanded, in the autumn of 1711, one of the eighteen garrisons in the town.
The story of their capture and captivity is a singu- lar one, and sounds like a romance. They were picking cherries early one evening,-so tradition re- lates,-and were taken before they had time to get down from the tree. It should be borne in mind that
52
GROTON.
the date of capture, according to the new style of reckoning, was July 1st, when cherries would be ripe enough to tempt the appetite of climbing youngsters. These children were carried to Canada, where, it would seem, they were treated kindly, as no induce- ment afterward was strong enough to make them re- turn permanently to their old home. The girl, Sarah, was sold to the French, and placed in a convent at Lachine, near Montreal; but what became of her subsequently I am unable to say.
Thomas Tarbell, the father of these children, made his will September 26, 1715, which was admitted to probate six weeks later, and is now on file at the Middlesex Probate Office in East Cambridge. After making certain bequests to different members of his family, he says :
"all the rest and residue of my Reall Estate I give to be Equally di- vided between my three children, John, Zachary, & Sarah Tarbell, upon their return from Captivity, or In Proportion unto any of them that shall return, & the rest, or the parts belonging to them that do not re- turn, shall be Equally divided among the rest of my children."
During my visit at Montreal in the summer of 1877, I saw the Congregation of Notre Dame, the French record, of which the following is a trans- lation :
" On Monday, July 23, 1708, the ceremony of baptism was performed on Sarah Tarbell, who was born at Groton in New England, October 9, 1623. Her parents were Thomas Tarbell and Elizabeth Wood, both Protestants, and she was baptized by the minister shortly after her birth. Having been taken by the savages on Monday, June 20, 1707, she was brought to Canada ; she has since been sold, and has lived with the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame, established at Lachine, where she abjured her rellgion on May 1. Her godfather was M. Jacques Urbain Robert de Lamorandière, Secretary of M. l' Intendant ;
53
GROTON.
and her godmother was Madame Marguerite Bouat, wife of M. Etienne Pascaud, the deputy treasurer of the King in this country.
Her name Sarah has been changed to Marguerite.
" Signed,
" MGte BOUAT, "PASCAUD, " LAMORANDIERE, " MERIEL, PRETRE."
The boys remained for many years with their cap- tors at Caughnawaga, an Indian village on the right bank of the St. Lawrence River, directly opposite to Lachine.
It is supposed that they left this place about the year 1760, when they moved up the river, in order to establish another settlement.
In the year 1713 John Stoddard and John Wil- liams were appointed by Governor Joseph Dudley to go to Quebec and treat with the Governor-General of Canada for the release of the New England pris- oners. They were accompanied by Thomas Tarbell, -probably the elder brother of the boys,-and we find his petition presented to the House of Repre- sentatives June 1, 1715, " praying consideration and allowance for his Time and Expences in going to Canada, with Major Stoddard & Mr. Williams, Anno 1713, to recover the Captives."
The petition was referred, and, on the next day,-
"Capt. Noyes, from the Committee for Petitions, made Report on the Petition of Thomas Tarboll, viz. That they are of Opinion that nothing is due from the Province to the said Tarboll, since he proceeded as a Volunteer in that Service to Canada, & not imployed by the Govern- ment, but recommended him to the favour of the House."
The report was accepted, and, in consideration of Tarbell's services, he was allowed ten pounds out of
54
GROTON.
the public treasury. Captain Stoddard's Journal, giving an account of the negotiations, is printed in "The New England Historical and Genealogical Register " (v. 26), for January, 1851, and Tarbell's name is mentioned in it.
We find no further trace of these boys, now grown up to manhood, during the twenty-five years follow- ing this attempt to release the New England pris- oners. In the winter of 1739 John and Zechariah Tarbell came back to Groton in order to visit their kinsfolk and see their native town. They were so young when carried away that their recollections of the place were of course very indistinct. It is not known now under what circumstances or influences they returned. An itemized bill of the expense in- curred in bringing them back from Canada was made out against their brothers, Thomas and Samuel, and perhaps paid by them. Shortly afterward Thomas Tarbell petitioned the General Court for means to enable him to meet the necessary charges of the journey, besides the expenses of an interpreter ; and a conditional loan was granted. The record does not say whether it was ever paid back by him. The pa- pers relating to the subject are among the Massachu- setts Archives (XV. A, 15-19).
On April 20, 1739, Governor Belcher brought the case of these captives to the attention of the Council and the House of Representatives, when he made a speech, in which he said :
" There are lately come from Canada some Persons that were taken by the ludians from Groton above thirty Years ago, who (its believed) may be inducel to return into this Province, on your giving them some proper Encouragement : If this Matter might be effected, I should
55
GROTON.
think it would be not only an Act of Compassion in order to reclaim them from the Errors and Delusions of the Romish faith ; but their living among us might, in Time to come, be of great Advantage to the Province."
On the same day the subject was referred to a Committee of the House, who reported a resolution which was sent to the Council for concurrence; and on several occasions within a short time the same question came up in different forms.
All these efforts, however, to reclaim the two men from savage life proved unavailing ; for it is known that they remained with the Indians and became nat- uralized, if I may use the expression. They married Indian wives, and were afterward made chiefs at Caughnawaga and St. Regis, villages in Canada. Their descendants are still living among the Indians, and the Tarbells of the present day, in this town, are their collateral kindred. Nearly forty years after their capture, Governor Hutchinson met them in New York State, and in his " History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay" refers to them thus :-
"I saw at Albany two or three men, in the year 1744, who came in with the Indians to trade, and who had been taken at Groton in this, that is called Queen Ann's war. One of them, - Tarbell, was said to be one of the wealthiest of the Cagnawaga tribe. He made a visit in his Indian dress, and with his Indian complexion (for by means of grease and paints but little difference could be discerned) to his rela- tions at Groton, but had no inclination to remain there." (II. 139.)
Some years after this time, these two young men- now occupying the position of chiefs-moved up the St. Lawrence River, accompanied by several others, all with their families, and established the village of St. Regis. This Indian settlement is pleasantly situ- ated on the right bank of the St. Lawrence, the
56
GROTON.
boundary line which separates the State of New York from Canada running through it. From its peculiar position, it was agreed, during the last war with Eng- land, that the Indians should remain neutral, but the compact was often broken. In the summer of 1852 the tribe numbered about eleven hundred persons, of whom it is said that not one was of pure Indian origin.
Many interesting facts concerning the Tarbells at St. Regis are found in the "History of St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties, New York" (Albany, 1853), by Dr. Franklin B. Hough. A part of the village comes within the limits of Franklin County; and the author has gathered up some of the stories still told about these two brothers in that neighborhood.
In former years the St. Regis Indians had certain rights in a land reservation in the State of New York ; and more than once treaties were made between the Governor of the State and the chiefs of the tribe, among whom were descendants of these Tarbell boys. A treaty was signed on February 20, 1818, in behalf of the Indians, by Loran Tarbell and Thomas Tarbell, and two other chiefs. Another treaty was signed on September 23, 1825, by eleven chiefs and trustees of the tribe, including Peter Tarbell, Thomas Tarbell, Mitchel Tarbell, Louis Tarbell, and Battice Tarbell. Some of these names, I am sure, will sound familiar to the older inhabitants of Groton. It is very likely that Battice is the same as Sabattis, an Indian name, which is said to be a corruption of Saint Baptiste.
Dr. Hough writes about one of the earlier members of the family as follows :-
"A half-breed Indian, who usually was known as PETER THE BIG
57
GROTON.
SPEAK, was a son of Lesor Tarbell, one of the lads who had been stolen away from Groton by the Indians, and who subsequently be- came one of the first settlers who preceded the founding of St. Regis.
" He was a man of much address and ability as a speaker, and was selected as the mouthpiece of the tribe on the more important occasions that presented themselves." (Page 182.)
The statement is wrong, however, that Lesor was the name of one of the captured boys. It is perfectly well known that their names were John and Zecha- riah, but it is not improbable that one of their sons was named Lesor. If such was the case, it was in- tended, doubtless, for Eleazer, the name of their youngest brother, who was less than two months old when they were carried off. It certainly would be a touching tribute to their childish recollections if they had remembered this little babe at home and carried him in their thoughts for so many years.
In the summer of 1877 I visited St. Regis, where I met a grandson of one of the Tarbell captives. He was more than eighty years old, and could speak only Indian ; and I had to talk with him through an inter- preter. I learned that he was aware that his grand- father had been taken when a boy, from a town near Boston, and that he had kinsfolk still living there. What interested me exceedingly was the physical re- semblance between him and some of his collateral relations, who lived and died at Squannacook within my recollection. He was a man of ordinary size, with a sunburnt face and gray hair, though somewhat bald. There was but little appearance of Indian blood in his veins, and he would have passed anywhere for a good- looking old man. He lived with one of his sons in a small house that was clapboarded and painted,-and
58
GROTON.
one of the best in the village,-where, surrounded by his grandchildren, he was passing the declining years of his life in comfortable ease.
During the summer of 1723 " the Indian enemy"- as the early settlers were wont to call them-still threatened the western frontier towns. On August 16, 1723, according to the printed Journal of the House of Representatives, Lieutenant-Governor Dum- mer, at that time the acting Governor of the Prov- ince, was desired immediately to order detachments of men, varying from three to six, from the inhabit- ants of the several towns along the line of outer set- tlements, to be constantly employed in scouting and ranging the woods in their respective towns ; and un- der this order Groton was to have six. On August 24th it was ordered by the House of Representatives that these scouts should be placed under the direction of the chief military officer of the several towns, and such officer should receive five shillings a week for his services. Owing to informalities in the matter, a dispute arose between the House and the Lieutenant- Governor, who within two days sent two messages to that body, and some slight modifications were made in the original draft.
Penhallow, in " The History of the Wars of New- England," speaking of the Indians at this period, says :
" The next damage they did was at Groton, but were so closely pur- sued, that they left several of their Packs behind." (Page 102.)
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.