USA > New Hampshire > Merrimack County > Concord > History of Concord, New Hampshire, from the original grant in seventeen hundred and twenty-five to the opening of the twentieth century, Volume I > Part 18
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 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73
1 Town Records, 75.
2 Thomas Packer, of Portsmouth, who was high sheriff from 1739-1771; Prov. Papers, Vol.
V, 683 (note).
3 Town Records, 77. 6 Ibid., 264.
4 Prov. Papers, Vol. VII, 378.
7 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 264; Belknap, 301.
৳ Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 263.
163
THE DISTRICT OF RUMFORD.
report to the king's ministry concerning his calling of the new mem- bers and their exclusion from the assembly; and " the ministry, without any exception or hesitation, had pronounced his conduct conformable to his duty."1 In consequence he received, in 1748, an " additional instruction," directing him, when another assembly should be called, to issue the king's writ to the sheriff, commanding him to make out precepts for a new election to the towns and dis- tricts whose representatives had been before excluded ; and, further- more, "to support the rights" of the new representatives when chosen.2 In accordance with this "instruction," the freeholders of Rumford were allowed to choose, on the second day of January, 1749, Captain John Chandler to represent them in the general assembly to be convened at Portsmouth the next day.3 This assembly was, by a strong majority, opposed to Governor Wentworth, and numbered among its members some bitter enemies who desired and sought his removal from office. One of these, Richard Waldron, was elected speaker; such representatives from the new places as were present being debarred from voting. Thereupon the governor, in obedience to his new "instruction," supported " the rights " of the excluded members by negativing the choice of speaker, and directing the house to proceed to another election, with no discrimination against the right of members from new places to participate therein.4 But this the house would not do; nor would his excellency yield. On the 12th of January the representative of Rumford appeared, but it was voted that he should "not be admitted to the privilege of a seat in the house until " he should "make it appear that the place for which he was chosen had a right by law, usage, or custom of the province, before the issuing of the king's writ, to send a representative to sit in the general court." 5 And so Rumford was a second time debarred from representation. The present quarrel, too, between the governor and the assembly was more intense than that of three years before, and, in the suspension of the French and Indian War, had a longer run ; for during the three years of the assembly's existence under the triennial act of 1727, it remained unorganized, and consequently in- capable of transacting business, and was kept alive only by adjourn- ments and prorogations.
The thread of narration now recurs to the beginning of the period under review, and to that war to which allusion has been made, and to facts connected therewith. The population of the Indian village of St. Francis, in Canada, thirty miles north of the sources of the Connecticut, was largely made up of shreds of New England tribes,
1 Belknap, 304. " Prov. Papers, Vol. VI, 71.
2 Prov. Papers, Vol. VI, 82; Belknap, 301.
" Town Records, 102-3.
5 Ibid, 77.
-
164
HISTORY OF CONCORD.
including Penacooks. Thence, hunting parties were wont to come down into the valleys of the Connecticut, the Merrimack, and the Piscataqua. Among those who roamed along the Merrimack and its confluent waters would naturally be Penacooks, visiting the haunts of their fathers. These visitations in time of peace between France and England did not necessarily involve mischievous intent toward white occupants of the soil, though quite likely to do so if the vis- itants were of the Kancamagus stripe. At any rate, the presence of Indians sometimes occasioned alarm to the white inhabitants, as it did to those of Rumford in 1739, when, as will be recollected, pro- vision was made for a garrison around the minister's house, and a " flanker" for the mills on Turkey river.
Sometimes the red hunters-either those who came from Canada or who still tarried about the frontiers-engaged in traffic with the white settlers. On the 10th of October, 1743, one Coaus, for him- self and other Indians, appeared before the governor and council at Portsmouth, and desired "a truck-house to be placed near the river Pemigewasset where they might have such supplies as were necessary, [in return] for their furs, [and] that they might not be imposed upon, as they often were, when they came into the lower towns." 1 The matter was subsequently laid before the assembly, and on the 22d of December, an order was made to send to Canterbury certain articles suggested by Coaus,1 such as rum, blankets, cloth for stock- ings, linen for shirts, powder, shot, bullets, flints, knives, pipes, and tobacco, which were to be exchanged with the Indians for furs. James Scales, the former schoolmaster of Rumford, was designated as the agent to effect the sales, and make return of the same to the general assembly.2 The project of establishing a truck-house near the junction of the Pemigewasset and Winnepesaukee rivers was before the assembly till late in February of the next year, and though urged by the Indians, in another petition, and pressed by the gover- nor, it was, finally, " at this critical time," made "to lie under con- sideration."3 This action proved the indefinite postponement of the measure, for within a month came the declaration of a war, the exi- gencies of which soon made more appropriate the granting of boun- ties on Indian scalps than the building of Indian truck-houses.
In 1739 the peace of Europe, which had existed for twenty-six years after the treaty of Utrecht, was broken by the war between England and Spain, engendered by commercial rivalry. In 1741 this war was merged in the War of the Austrian Succession. Charles the Sixth, Emperor of Germany, who died in 1740, without male issue,
1 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 95.
2 " Canterbury," in History of Belknap and Merrimack Counties, 222.
3 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 222-225.
165
"KING GEORGE'S WAR."
had made a settlement of the succession in the imperial family, by an instrument called the " Pragmatic Sanction," to which England, France, and other great European powers had promised support. By this sanction Charles was to be succeeded in his hereditary posses- sions, including Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia, by his eldest daughter, Maria Theresa, wife of Francis of Lorraine. Charles Albert, Duke of Bavaria, asserting counter claims, resisted by arms the daughter's accession, and Frederick the Second, or the Great, of Prussia, pounced upon Silesia, an important portion of the Austrian domain. Bourbon France, desirous of dismembering the Hapsburg succession, broke her pledge to sustain the Pragmatic Sanction, and sided against Maria Theresa ; England and France were thus auxilia- ries fighting on opposite sides, but without declaration of war between themselves. The great struggle was not yet ended, when France, on the 15th of March, 1744, declared war against England. This four years' war within a war is conveniently distinguished as " King George's War"; for George the Second, both in the interest of his English kingdom and that of his German electorate of Hanover, actively and personally participated in the war of the Austrian Suc- cession, even to appearing as a combatant upon its battle-fields. The war was, in its transatlantic relation, a preliminary trial of strength in the mighty struggle between France and England for supremacy in America; for the northern frontier of New England it meant war with the Indian allies of France.
In common with the inhabitants of other frontier settlements, those of Rumford received, late in May, definite intelligence of war declared. The unwelcome tidings, while alarming the people, did not surprise them, for orders had been coming from England to Governor Went- worth, to have the province " in posture of defence,"1 but legislation had slowly responded. Fortifying had been done at some points : certainly at Canterbury, an extreme outpost, and possibly somewhat at Rumford .? But when, on the 23d of May, the members of the assembly, summoned by the governor's circular, convened in extraor- dinary session, his excellency had this to say to them: "The naked condition of our infant and inland frontiers requires your compas- sionate regard. Consider with great tenderness the distress the inhabitants on the frontiers are in at this juncture, and make their unhappy condition your own." 3 The assembly forthwith advised the raising of " two hundred men for one month, to be employed in cov- ering the frontiers," and also authorized the offering of bounties for Indian scalps. There was no delay in raising the two hundred men
1 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 709.
2 Benjamin Rolfe's Memorial, cited hereafter; see Annals of Concord, 81,
3 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 709-10.
166
HISTORY OF CONCORD.
and disposing them "for the benefit of the exposed frontiers "; 1 but the share of benefit which fell to Rumford the imperfect military records do not disclose.
The anxiety of the people of the district was manifested nearly a month later in a paper bearing date June 14, 1744, which was drawn up by their minister, and signed by him and sixty-three other inhab- itants of more or less prominence, comprising, in fact, nearly all the heads of families in Rumford.2 This paper, expressing the apprehen- sion of the subscribers that they were "greatly exposed to imminent danger from the French and Indian enemy," and declaring their " in- ability to make a proper stand in case of an attack," contained the appointment of Colonel Benjamin Rolfe as their delegate, " to repre- sent " their " deplorable state " to the governor and general assembly at Portsmouth, and "request of them aid, in men and military stores."
Colonel Rolfe's memorial and petition bearing date of June 27, 1744, and presented to the provincial anthorities under the above mentioned commission from his fellow-townsmen, made a strong pre- sentment of Rumford's claim to aid and protection from New Hamp- shire, under whose care the town had been involuntarily cast through the " long and importunate " effort of that province, and which, as a district, had cheerfully met all the demands of its changed jurisdic- tion. The cogent paper set forth " that many thousand pounds " had " been spent " by the settlers of Rumford " in clearing and culti- vating the lands there, and many more in erecting mansion-houses and ont-houses, barns and fences, besides a large additional sum in fortifications, lately made by his excellency the governor's order ; that the buildings " were " compact, and properly formed for defence, and well situated for a barrier, being on the Merrimack river, about fifteen miles below the confluence of Winnipishoky and Pemissawas- set rivers, both which " were " main gangways of the Canadians to the frontiers of" the " province; that the breaking up of the settle- nient " would " not only ruin the memorialists, but, in their humble opinion, greatly disserve his majesty's interest, by encouraging his enemies to encroach on his direlect dominions, and be all-hurtful to the province by contracting its borders, and by drawing the war nearer to the capital ; . and that, war " being "already de- clared against France, and a rupture with the Indians hourly ex- . pected," the "memorialists, unless they " had " speedy help," would " be soon obliged to evacuate their town-how disserviceable soever it " might " be to the crown, dishonorable to the government, hurtful
1 Prov. Papers, Vol. V. 713.
2 See facsimile of paper and signatures in notes at close of chapter.
167
" KING GEORGE'S WAR."
to the province, and ruinous to themselves. Wherefore they humbly " supplicated " that such seasonable relief " might be granted them as might " enable them to maintain his majesty's dominion in so well situated a barrier, and so ancient and well regulated a settlement, as well as secure their own lives and fortunes against the ravages and devastations of a bloodthirsty and merciless enemy." 1
No immediate action, however, was had in the assembly upon this urgent appeal ; 2 nor is it of definite record what protection, if any, Rumford received during the summer and autumn of that year, from soldiers recorded as stationed at several points, or from scouts sent out in various directions. There is extant "a muster-roll of twenty men under the command of Captain Jeremiah Clough, at Canterbury, Contoocook, &c.," as the original heading reads, scouting for two or three weeks after the 30th of June. Possibly, Rumford may have been included in the indefinite and abbreviated et cetera of the fore- going description ; and also may have received slight incidental pro- tection from the six men under the same captain, and described as engaged, for three months from the 26th of September, " in scouting from Canterbury, at the heads of towns, and keeping the fort." It may be, too, that from the loss of muster-rolls, this seeming inade- quacy of protection for Rumford is somewhat greater than was the real. But, after all, it stands a fact, that the town, originally estab- lished by the government of Massachusetts, and strongly attached thereto, though being the most important place on the upper Merri- mack, was not, in those days, a favorite with the New Hampshire authorities, and that, in respect to means of security against Indian attacks, Canterbury, not merely from its more northerly position, but because it had been, from the beginning, a New Hampshire township, was much the more highly favored of the two.
The people of Rumford, however, understood the virtue of impor- tunity, and, realizing the inadequacy of the means of protection afforded them against the " hourly expected " attacks of the enemy, they, on the 11th of December, 1744, in town-meeting, " desired and empowered Benjamin Rolfe to prefer a petition to the governor or general assembly of the province for such a number of soldiers as " might " be sufficient with a divine blessing to defend " them " against all attempts " of their enemies " which " might " be made against " them.3 And, evidently distrusting the aid which might be afforded them by the government of New Hampshire, they also, at the same meeting, " desired and empowered " the said Rolfe, "to represent to the governor and general court of Massachusetts Bay, the deplorable
1 Annals of Concord, 84-5; Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 253 (note).
2 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 345-46.
8 Town Records, 74-5.
168
HISTORY OF CONCORD.
circumstances " they were " in, . . being exposed to imminent danger both from the French and Indian enemy, and to request of them aid."1 This time, in answer to the petition accordingly pre- sented, Governor Wentworth ordered out, for about two months, a scout of ten men for Rumford and vicinity, headed by Captain John Chandler, commander of the second company of the Sixth regiment of the provincial militia.2 During the term of this scout, the new assembly was convened, in which, as has been seen, the district of Rumford was denied representation, and the vigilant inhabitants, wishing for " constant aid," made provision, in a town-meeting held on the 28th of February, to petition that assembly for continued mil- itary assistance.3 But nothing came of that petition. Therefore, in another town-meeting, held on the 15th of April, Colonel Rolfe was "desired and empowered " to try again, and this time to petition the authorities of Massachusetts as well as those of New Hampshire.4 The faithful agent did as desired. In his memorial petition, dated April 30th, and presented to the New Hampshire assembly on the second day of May, he offered substantially the same case as in that laid before the previous assembly, in June, 1744, though he enforced the suggestion of an early evacuation of the settlement, unless speedy help were rendered, by declaring that many of the inhabitants, in their alarm, had already moved from the town.5 Being " sent for into the house," he appeared in support of the petition, expressing the opinion that less than forty men would not be sufficient for Rumford, and if there should be an open war with the Indians, more would be wanted.6 No definite action, however, was taken upon the matter, probably be- cause the life of the assembly was cut short a few days later by disso- lution.6 But the two appeals made to the general court of Massachu- setts were favorably answered in the sending of a few men from Andover and Billerica, who were stationed awhile at Rumford.7
Meanwhile, the greatest achievement of English arms in King George's War had been mainly accomplished by a force of volunteer New England militia. This was the reduction of Louisburg. In May, 1744, the French, with their Indian allies, had made hostile demonstrations against the English in Nova Scotia and Newfound- land. They had the stronghold of Louisburg on the island of Cape Breton, away to the eastward, six hundred miles from Portsmouth. This fortress had been twenty-five years in building, and was deemed well-nigh impregnable. "It was in peace," says Belknap, "a safe retreat for the ships of France bound homeward from the East and
1 Town Records, 74-5.
2 Adjutant-General's Report, 1866, Vol. II, 60-1; Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 232.
3 Town Records, 78. " Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 322.
4 Ibid, 83.
7 Bouton's Concord, 153.
" Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 317-8.
169
"KING GEORGE'S WAR."
West Indies, and in war a source of distress to the northern English colonies ; its situation being extremely favorable for privateers to ruin their fishery, and interrupt their coasting and foreign trade." 1 Hence, during the autumn of 1744, and the succeeding winter and spring, an expedition against Louisburg was prepared and manned. Governor Shirley of Massachusetts was prominent in the movement, and found in Governor Wentworth of New Hampshire a ready coad- jutor,-though the plan is thought to have been originated by William Vaughan, of New Hampshire birth, who was largely con- cerned in the fishery on the eastern coast.2 The enterprise generated enthusiasm in the popular mind, both from its incitement to the spirit of adventure, and from the more solid considerations, that the wel- fare, if not the very being, of the province depended greatly upon the reduction of that place ; as, if it continued " under the French, it " would, " in all probability, enable them in a little time to reduce Port Royal,3 . . . with fatal consequences to all the English settle- ment upon the sea-coast as well as to the inland towns by the priva- teers infesting the one and the Indians destroying the others; " and that, " on the other hand, if Louisburg were in the possession of the English they would thereby have almost all the fish trade in their own hands, which would give life and vigor to all branches of trade they " were "concerned in, and revive all sorts of business, with many other advantages too numerous to be particularized ; " and, farther, that it was "very probable that if" the inhabitants of the province should " neglect to fight " their "enemies at that distance, and in their own territories," they would " be obliged to do it nearer home, if not in " their " own towns." 4
New Hampshire supplied five hundred of the four thousand men enlisted from the four New England colonies. Rumford contributed its quota, of which were Captain Ebenezer Eastman, Isaac and Nathaniel Abbott, Obadiah Peters, and one Chandler.5 These are the only names preserved-and they by tradition-for the official enrolment has disappeared, which would probably increase the list. Of these volunteers, Isaac Abbott was killed during the siege, and Chandler died of disease.5 It is a fact, too, that Captain Eastman went the second time to Louisburg 5 the next year, but upon what duty is not known. It is said that he did special service in the siege under Lieutenant-Colonel Vaughan,6 who, though declining a regular command, led in some of the boldest and most decisive operations of the unique siege, and the Rumford captain must have had with him a full share of perilous work. He had been present in his younger
1 Belknap, 268.
2 Ibid, 269.
3 Annapolis in Nova Scotia.
4 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 286.
5 Bouton's Concord, 152.
" Annals of Concord, 29.
170
HISTORY OF CONCORD.
days at the capitulation of Port Royal, in Nova Scotia, to the Eng- lish, and had share in the dangers of the ill-fated expedition against Canada, and now with the loyal pride of an English colonist, he wit- nessed on the 17th of June, 1745, the surrender of Louisburg-the pride and strength of French dominion in America.
After the fall of Louisburg, the Indian allies of the French began their dreaded work on the frontiers of New Hampshire, in an attack, on the 5th of July, 1745, at " The Great Meadow," or Westmore- land, in the Connecticut valley. Among the scouts ordered out in consequence was a party of cavalry under Captain Peter Pattee of Londonderry, for service in the valley of the Merrimack.1 Another attack being made at Westmoreland, on the 10th of October, one of the scouts sent out by Governor Wentworth into the Merrimack val- ley consisted of thirty-seven men in command of Captain John Goffe of Bedford, and was employed from December, 1745, till April of the next year. To this scout belonged Rumford men, of whom were Samuel Bradley, John Webster, and Ebenezer and Joseph, sons of Captain Ebenezer Eastman.2
As early as 1744-possibly somewhat earlier-the work of put- ting the settlement in posture of defense, by fortification, was begun.3 This work was continued till, on the 15th of May, 1746, "the com- mittee of militia," consisting of Joseph Blanchard, Benjamin Rolfe, and Zacheus Lovewell, appointed by Governor Wentworth "for set- tling the garrisons in the frontier towns and plantations in the sixth regiment of militia having viewed the situation and en- quired into the circumstances of the district of Rumford," appointed and stated the garrisons.4 These structures, sometimes called forts, consisted each of a dwelling-house, with an area of " several square rods," surrounded by walls of "hewed logs," laid "flat upon each other " with ends " fitted for the purpose," and " inserted in grooves cut in large posts erected at each corner." The wall was built "to the height of the roof of " the dwelling-house around which it was reared, and was surmounted, at " two or more corners," by sentinel boxes. In the enclosed areas were erected, "in some cases, small buildings for the temporary accommodation of families." All this work of fortifying was done at the expense of the inhabitants; but the garrisons duly established were entitled to military support from the province.
Seven garrisons around the houses of as many proprietors were appointed by " the committee of militia " before mentioned, to be reg-
1 Adjutant-General's Report, 1866, Vol. II, 77.
2 Ibid, 79.
3 Benjamin Rolfe's Memorial, June 27, 1744.
"Bouton's Concord, 154.
Garrison around Rev. Timothy Walker's Dwelling.
-
-
172
HISTORY OF CONCORD.
ular " garrisons in Rumford." The following summary record of " the inhabitants " who, " with their families," were assigned to these several garrisons designated by the names of the owners of the prem- ises upon which they were located, has intrinsic interest, and affords a suggestive view of Rumford's population, as to number and distri- bution, in the year 1746. To promote clearness of description, the sites of the forts, as identified for 1900, are given in connection : (1) To Reverend Timothy Walker's garrison, on east side of Main street,- the residence of Joseph B. Walker,-Capt. John Chandler, Abraham Bradley, Samuel Bradley, John Webster, Nathaniel Rolfe, Joseph Pudney, Isaac Walker, Jr., Obadiah Foster. (2) To Lieutenant Jeremiah Stickney's garrison, on the east side of Main street north of Bridge street, on ground partially covered by Stickney's new block,- Jeremiah Stickney, Nathaniel Abbott, Ephraim Carter, Ezra Carter, Joseph Eastman, Samuel Eastman, Joseph Eastman, 3d, William Stickney, Thomas Stickney, Nathaniel Abbott, Jr., Joseph Carter, Edward Abbott, Aaron Stevens, George Hull, Edward West, Sampson Colby, James Osgood, Timothy Clemens, Jacob Pillsbury, Stephen Hoit. (3) To Timothy Walker, Jr.'s, garrison, on the west side of Main street, near its junction with Thorndike street,-Timothy Walker, Jr., David Evans, Samuel Pudney, John Pudney, Jr., Mat- thew Stanley, Isaac Walker, Abraham Kimball, Richard Hazelton, George Abbott, Nathaniel Rix, Benjamin Abbott, Stephen Farring- ton, Nathaniel West, William Walker, Aaron Kimball, Samuel Gray, James Rodgers, Samuel Rodgers. (4) To Deacon Joseph Hall's garrison, near the junction of Hall and Water streets, south of the highway bridge crossing the Concord railroad near the gas- works, and a short distance northwest of the Rolfe and Rumford Asylum,-Colonel Benjamin Rolfe, Joseph Hall, Ebenezer Hall, David Foster, Isaac Waldron, Patrick Garvin, Moses Merrill, Lot Colby, Joseph Pudney, William Pudney, Henry Pudney, John Merrill, Thomas Merrill, John Merrill, Jr., Jacob Potter. (5) To Henry Lovejoy's garrison in West Parish, on the height between Rattlesnake brook and the road leading westward along Long pond, and sometimes known as the " Levi Hutchins Place,"-Henry Love- joy, James Abbott, James Abbott, Jr., Reuben Abbott, Amos Abbott, Ephraim Farnum, Zebediah Farnum, Joseph Farnum, Abial Chand- ler, James Peters. (6) To Captain Ebenezer Eastman's garrison, on the east side of the river, near the site of the present railroad sta- tion,-Ebenezer Virgin, Ebenezer Eastman, Jr., Philip Eastman, Jer- emiah Eastman, Timothy Bradley, Nathaniel Smith, Daniel Annis, Jeremiah Dresser, Philip Kimball, Nathan Stevens, Judah Trumble, Joseph Eastman, Jr., William Curey. (7) To Jonathan Eastman's
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.