In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

63 AnAccouOtofthe DestructionofDeerfield,1704 Samuel Partridge C S P (1645–1740) of Hatfield was a county judge, a member of the Governor’s Council, and the most important political leader in Hampshire County, the westernmost county of Massachusetts , when he assumed command of the county’s militia regiment in 1703 following the death of Colonel John Pynchon of Springfield. He was not a military professional by training, but he had fought in King Philip’s War from 1675 to 1677 and as a lieutenant colonel in the militia had overseen the county’s northern defenses during the Nine Years’ War from 1689 to 1697. To defend western Massachusetts, Colonel Partridge depended primarily on the local militia, the citizen soldiers of New England. Thedefenseof westernMassachusettswasseenbyauthoritiesinBostontobe in part the responsibility of the colony of Connecticut, since the Massachusetts towns provided cover for the northern frontier of the neighboring colony. Colonel Partridge, however, had no authority over the governor and military officers of the neighboring colony. In the aftermath of the February 29 Deerfield raid, Partridge drew up a detailed report and table of losses inflicted by the French and Indian raiders and forwarded it to Governor Fitz-John Winthrop of Connecticut in the hope that it could secure Winthrop’s assistance. Though the tone is urgent and businesslike, concerned with the immediate military situation, elements of Partridge’s providential religious worldview are evident. His religious understanding of this military event is given fuller expression in a private letter he wrote several weeks later that is reprinted elsewhere in this section. It is a rare thing to have such an immediate and detailed account of a raid on a New England village. The report itself and the table that accompanied it appear to have been composed on the spot. They undoubtedly incorporate the first-hand accounts of survivors, as well as Partridge’s own observations. It is the most detailed English account of the assault on Deerfield and its immediate aftermath as reinforcements poured in from neighboring Massachusetts towns and eventually Connecticut. The original of this report is in the Winthrop Papers at the Massachusetts Historical Society. Reproduced from version published in George Sheldon, A History of Deerfield, Massachusetts, 2 vols. (Deerfield, privately printed, 1895–96),1:302–303. 64         An Account of the Destruction at Deerfield, February 29, 1703/41 Upon the day of the date above said about 2 hours before day[break], the French and Indian enemy made an attack upon Deerfield, entering the fort2 with little discovery, though it is said the watch shot off a gun and cried “arm,” which very few heard. [The raiders] immediately set upon breaking open doors and windows, took the watch and others captive and had their men appointed to lead them away. Others improved in rifling houses of provisions, money, clothing , drink, and packing up and sending away. The greatest part standing to their arms, firing houses, and killing all they could that made any resistance, [and] also killing cattle, hogs, sheep and sacking and wasting all that came before them, except some persons that escaped in the crowds, some by leaping out [of ] windows and some over the fortifications. Some ran to Captain Wells’s garrison3 and some to Hatfield4 with little or no clothing on and barefooted which with the bitterness of the season caused them to come off with frozen feet and lie lame of them. One house, viz: Benoni Stebbins’s,5 they attacked later than some others. That those in it were well awakened, being 7 men, besides women and children, who stood stoutly to their arms, firing upon the enemy, and the enemy [coming ] upon them, causing several of the enemy to fall, of which was one Frenchman , a gentleman to [all] appearance.6 The enemy gave back, [and] they strove to fire the house, [but] our men killed 3 or 4 Indians in their attempt. The enemy being numerous about the house, poured much shot upon the house; [but] the walls being filled up with brick, the force of the shot was repelled.7 Yet they killed said Stebbins, and wounded one man and one woman, of which the survivors made no discovery to the assailants, but with more than ordinary courage kept firing, having powder and ball sufficient in said house. The enemy 1. The English still used the Julian calendar, which began the new year on March 25...

Share