Native Encounters in Early America

Obscure local history books can be hard to track down, but rich sources of family history if you can get them.  Through google books, I found a little treasure called The History of Haverhill, Massachusetts, From its First Settlement, in 1640, To The Year 1860 by George Wingate Chase.  It was published by the author himself in Haverhill in 1861, and I'm sure that if I'd been researching the family before the age of google, I never would have heard of it.  However, the Ladd family (remember Calvin Palmer Ladd, from the last posting?) were among the very earliest inhabitants of Haverhill, and Haverhill was in fact where our Calvin was born.  The earliest of our Ladd ancestors to settle in Haverhill was Daniel Ladd.  He was born in Dartmouth, Devonshire, England and sailed to America with his brother sometime in the mid-1630s.  Chase's book has a few anecdotes about the Ladd family.

The incident I'm most interested in involves Daniel Ladd's son Samuel Ladd (1649-1698) and Samuel's son Daniel.  To give it some historical context, this incident took place in 1698, and was one of a series of armed conflicts between Native Americans and the colonial settlers in Haverhill, which also involved English and French disputes over ownership of the colonies. This entire conflict is known historically as King William's War.

I should also mention that Samuel Ladd had fought in the Haverhill militia during the previous war with the Natives, King Phillip's war.  He held the rank of Lieutenant.

Artist's rendition of a Colonial-Native conflict.  

"The next year, the Indians commenced their incursions unusually early.  On the 22nd of February, a party fell upon Andover, killed five of the inhabitants, and captured as many more.  On their return, the same party killed Jonathan Haynes and Samuel Ladd, of this town, and captured a son of each.

Haynes and Ladd, who lived in the western part of the town, had started that morning, with their teams, consisting of a yoke of oxen and a horse, and accompanied with their eldest sons, Joseph and Daniel, to bring home some of their hay...While they were slowly returning, little dreaming of the present danger, they suddenly found themselves between two files of Indians, who had concealed themselves in the bushes on each side of their path.  There were seven of them on a side [i.e. 14 Natives altogether].  With guns presented and cocked, and the fathers (sic), seeing it was impossible to escape, begged for 'quarter'.  To this, the Indians twice replied, 'boon quarter!  boon quarter!'  (good quarter.)  Young Ladd, who did not relish the idea of being quietly taken prisoner, told his father that he would mount the horse, and endeavor to escape.  But the old man forbid him to make the attempt, telling him it was better to risk remaining a prisoner.  He cut his father's horse loose, however, and giving him the lash, he started off at full speed, and though repeatedly fired at by the Indians, succeeded in reaching home, and was the means of giving an immediate and general alarm."

I think Chase got one of the names confused--Jonathan Haynes' oldest son was called Thomas--Joseph was a younger son.  Other sources name Thomas as the son who was with his father during this incident. When I first read this it sounded to me like Daniel had made a break for safety on his father's horse, but after re-reading I realize that the horse itself sped for freedom and gave the alarm.  Smart horse.

" Two of the Indians then stepped behind the fathers, and dealt them a heavy blow upon the head.  Mr. Haynes, who was quite aged, instantly fell, but Ladd did not. Another of the savages then stepped before the latter, and raised his hatchet as if to strike.  Ladd closed his eyes, expecting the blow would fall--but it came not--and when he again opened them, he saw the Indian laughing and mocking at his fears.  Another immediately stepped behind him and felled him at a blow.

The Indians, on being asked why they killed the old men, said they killed Haynes because he was 'so old he no go with us;'--meaning that he was too aged and infirm to travel;  and that they killed Ladd, who was a fierce, stern looking man, because 'he so sour.'  They then started for Penacook, where they arrived with the two boys."

Daniel Ladd, having seen his father mocked and killed, makes plans to escape.  Unfortunately, he doesn't think it through very well:

"Young Ladd soon grew weary of his situation, and one night after his Indian master and family had fell asleep, he attempted to escape.  He had proceeded but a short distance, when he thought that he would want a hatchet to fell trees to assist him in crossing the streams."

Bad idea, Daniel!  Don't go back!  Just wade across those streams, for crying out loud!

"He accordingly returned, entered a wigwam near his master's, where an old squaw lay sick, and took a hatchet.  The squaw watched his movements, and probably thinking that he intended to kill her, vociferated with all her strength.  This awakened the Indians in the wigwam, who instantly arose, re-captured him, and delivered him again to his master, who bound his hands, laid him upon his back, fastened one of his feet to a tree, and in that manner kept him fourteen nights.  They then gashed his face with their knives, filled the wounds with powder, and kept him on his back until it was so indented in the flesh, that it was impossible to extract it.  He carried the scars to his grave, and is now frequently spoken of by his descendents as the 'marked man'.  

I can see why the Natives may have assumed he was planning to kill someone, what with the hatchet in his hand.  It doesn't sound like he was adopted into the tribe as much as enslaved.  It also sounds like he was tattooed, but without knowing more about the culture of the Native tribe Daniel had entered into it's hard to know the significance of this.

"Some years after, he found means to return, and his scarred and powdered countenance produced many witticisms at his expense.  He was one day walking the streets of Boston, and a parrot observing his 'marked' features, vociferated, 'a rogue!  a rogue!' 

I'd like to have more information about Daniel's captivity.  Did he and Joseph stay together the whole time?  Did he learn a native language?   Did he finally escape or was he released?   It's hard to imagine the insensitivity of people who would mock his scars, but Daniel still managed to find a wife, so I imagine he reintegrated into Haverhill society despite his changed appearance.   His fellow captive, Joseph Haynes, was eventually bought back by his family.  It's interesting what Chase says about this:

"Haynes remained a prisoner of the Indians some years, and was at last redeemed by his relatives.  When Haynes was about leaving the Indians, his master, in token of his good will and esteem, presented him his best cane.  This cane is now in the possession of Guy C. Haynes, of East Boston, a descendant.  The upper half is ornamented with diamond-shaped figures, cut with a knife."

Apparently this was the second time in his life that Haynes survived Native captivity.  His entire family (except his mother), had been captured two years earlier in 1696.  During that incident, father Jonathan and his sixteen-year-old son Thomas escaped.  Three other children, Mary (age 19), Jonathan (age 12) and Joseph (age 7) were taken to Quebec and sold into slavery there.  Mary was redeemed for 100 pounds of tobacco, and the two boys stayed in Canada and eventually became french-speaking farmers.

This is what Chase has to say about the end of the conflict:

"Peace being declared between France and England, the governor of Canada informed the Indians that he could no longer support them in their war against the English, and he advised them to bury the hatchet, and restore their captives.  This they concluded to do, and a treaty was at last made with them at Casco. 

During this war (from June, 1689, to May, 1698), five hundred and sixty-one persons were killed, eighty-one wounded, and and one hundred and sixty-one captured by the Indians, in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine, including Schnectady.  Soon after peace was declared, a general contribution was taken in the province, for the relief of those who were prisoners with the French and  Indians." 

Now this is clearly a very anglo-centric account of things.  I don't think Chase is including Native casualties in his numbers.  The Natives in this region of New Hampshire were part of the Penacook confederacy, an Algonquin people.

When Europeans first arrived in New Hampshire around 1620, the Penacook population numbered at 10,000, the people living in several different tribes.  Because of smallpox, influenza and diptheria epidemics which arose from European contact, they had dwindled to 2,500 by 1630, and by 1674 their population count was at 1,250.  Clearly the new balance of power was not working in their favour, although evidence strongly suggests that for many years after contact Penacook leaders were respectful of their new European neighbors.  During King Philip's War (just prior to King William's War) most of the Penacook and their leaders remained friendly to the English settlers until a Major Waldron unexpectedly attacked them and captured 200 people, whom he placed "in servitude" (or slavery).  Many of the Penacook at that point fled their homeland, some successfully making it to Canada and some attempting to go west.  The Penacook going west were pursued and overtaken and many of them killed.  The survivors settled in New York.  But remember the 200 Native people originally captured by Waldron?  They got a grisly revenge.  Evidently some of them eventually escaped, captured Major Waldron, and tortured him to death.

 This whole incident, and particularly the initial English attack,  seems to have been the decisive turning point for the Penacook people, who from then on allied themselves with the French and against the English in the still-undecided conflict over ownership of North America.  By the time of King William's war they had been devastated by disease, and had seen their people attacked, enslaved and killed, and the survivors scattered.  Chase's History of Haverhill discusses quite a few raids by natives around this period, generally upon isolated families, where people, including young children, would be ambushed.  Generally adults and older children would be captured and either stay with their Native captors (they would sometimes be ransomed back) or sold into servitude in Quebec.  (I had no idea that white people were sold into slavery in early Canada--I'd like to learn more about that.) Younger children and babies would be killed immediately, usually by "dashing their brains out" against the nearest tree.  Unfortuately, Samuel and Daniel experienced the fallout of almost eighty years of deteriorating Colonial/Native relations.  But don't feel too sorry for Samuel, the "sour" father--he was no paragon of virtue himself, as I'll talk about in my next post.

Memorial Statue to Passaconaway, Leader of the Penacook
Peoples until his death just before King William's War.
Now located in Lowell, Massachusetts.
The part about him embracing Christianity is, to my knowledge, not true.