Essential to the story is Queen Anne’s War and colonial Connecticut’s interactions with neighboring colonies and with New France. This historical period doesn’t get as much attention as it should, so I have included a fair amount of detail to help explain the context of the Scott family story.
 |
| Depiction of a colonial farm being cleared This engraving appears on numerous commercial websites, but none of them give the original source. |
Traditional Telling of the Story
A very short summary of the Scott family story is this: sometime around 1709, Joseph Scott was abducted, tortured, and murdered by Indians. His body was found by his neighbors on a hillside not far from the Naugatuck River, somewhere near what we now call the Leatherman’s Cave. Scott was buried where he was found, the grave covered in rocks. A year or two later, Joseph’s brother Jonathan Scott was picnicking under a tree with two of his sons when they were captured by Indians. Jonathan’s right thumb was cut off to prevent him from resisting. The three Scotts were taken to Canada. Eventually, Jonathan Scott and one of his sons returned to Waterbury; the other son remained in Canada with the Indians, despite Jonathan’s efforts to free him. Jonathan Scott’s wife, Hannah Hawks Scott, had previously lost most of her family during the 1704 Indian raid on Deerfield, Massachusetts, leading one historian to dub her “the most afflicted woman in New England.” (Anderson, ed., The Town and City of Waterbury, Vol. 1: 257)
Historiography
The earliest attempt to tell the Scott story appears in Henry Bronson’s History of Waterbury, published in 1858. Bronson’s account appears to be the source for later versions of the story, but he never fully reveals how he learned it. He refers to a few historical documents, but those documents do not include all of the details in his recounting. (Bronson, p. 105-107)
Presumably Bronson relied on local legends, anecdotes passed down from generation to generation for nearly one hundred and fifty years, but he believed at least one of those anecdotes to be incorrect. According to local tradition, Jonathan Scott died when he was captured a second time by a group of enemy Indians who intended to take him to Canada. This time, they cut out his tongue before killing him and leaving him near his home on Scott’s Mountain, where he was later buried. Bronson was doubtful that the grave on Scott’s Mountain was really that of Jonathan Scott, and he declared the details of Scott’s death to be fiction. Bronson does not appear to have known about Joseph Scott’s story. (Bronson, p. 185)
Samuel Orcutt published his version of Scott family story twice: first in his 1880 book chronicling the history of Derby and again in his 1882 book, The Indians of the Housatonic and Naugatuck Valleys. Orcutt was not a reliable historian, embellishing historical accounts for dramatic effect and infusing his writing with racism. Orcutt’s telling of the Scott story was an embellishment of Bronson’s version. Again, no reference was made to Joseph Scott.
Sarah Prichard tackled the story during the 1890s, doing some solid research with historical documents. She presented her research, sorting fact from fiction, in The Town and City of Waterbury, Volume 1, p. 258-260 (note that some have mistakenly attributed Prichard’s work to Joseph Anderson, who was the editor of her work). Prichard found Joseph Scott’s story in a history of Bristol and references to the place “where Joseph Scott was killed” in Waterbury’s land records. She determined that the grave mentioned by Bronson was that of Joseph Scott, not Jonathan. Other parts of the Scott family story remained unresolved, with Prichard speculating incorrectly that Jonathan Scott’s son John was captured by Indians during the 1720s, not in 1710.
Later versions of the Scott family story appear to all be based on the work of Bronson, Orcutt, and Prichard.
The Scott Family
Joseph and Jonathan’s grandfather, Thomas Scott, was born in England. He arrived at the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1634, then moved to what would become Hartford in 1635, part of a small group of English settlers who arrived before Thomas Hooker’s group. Thomas Scott died in 1643, shortly after being fatally injured by John Ewe. (Founders of Hartford website and Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, Vol. 1: 103)
Thomas Scott and his children were heavily involved in colonial land acquisition. At the time of his death, Thomas owned land in Hartford and Farmington (then called Tunxis Cepus). In 1639, he had been a member of a colonial commission appointed to survey Farmington’s suitability for settlement. The settlement of villages at this time was similar to a business venture: the colonial government would give a group of men the right to develop a plantation; the group, called proprietors, were essentially investors who were contractually obligated to improve the value of the land assigned to them. The proprietors ran the village government and had control over who was allowed to live there.
Thomas Scott’s son Edmund, father of Joseph and Jonathan, grew up in Farmington and was one of the original settlers of Waterbury in the 1670s. After Edmund’s death in 1690, his land in Farmington and in Waterbury was divided up between his adult children (seven sons and two daughters).
Most of Edmund Scott’s sons, including Jonathan, owned numerous tracts of land throughout Waterbury. Joseph Scott owned several tracts in Farmington. Records of his personal life are hard to find. He appears to have had at least one child: “John Scott, son of Joseph Scott, deceased” was admitted as an inhabitant of Waterbury on December 28, 1709. (Anderson, Vol. 1: 260)
 |
| Detail of a 1690 map showing Connecticut and Massachusetts The New York Public Library Digital Collections |
Jonathan and Hannah Scott
Jonathan Scott, born around 1665 in Farmington, received a land grant in Waterbury for his home lot in January 1689/90 and a second land grant of ten acres in December 1690. He purchased his brother Samuel’s house and land in April 1691, when Samuel moved to Farmington. Jonathan’s status as a Waterbury proprietor was confirmed in 1703. He seems to have primarily occupied himself with farming his land. (Bronson, p. 32-33, 182).
In November 1694, Jonathan Scott married Hannah Hawks of Deerfield, Massachusetts. Deerfield was an important frontier town on the Connecticut River, located close to territory claimed by the French and on a route leading from Boston to Albany.
Hannah Hawks, born in Hatfield, Massachusetts in 1675, grew up on the colonial frontier. Hannah’s only sibling, John, was two years old than her, and their mother died when Hannah was an infant. Their father, John Hawks, was a carpenter and a member of the militia that fought in King Philip’s War when Hannah was a baby. John’s mother and sisters may have helped raise his children, as he did not remarry until they were adults. The Hawks family had been part of the original colonial settlement of Deerfield in the summer of 1675, but fled back to Hatfield a few months later after an attack. They returned to Deerfield in 1683. (Susan McGowan Titus, “John Hawks,” Raid on Deerfield: The Many Stories of 1704 website)
While it is not known how Jonathan Scott and Hannah Hawks met, it is possible that he went to Deerfield as part of Connecticut’s militia group sent to assist in defending the Massachusetts frontier.
Two years before Jonathan and Hannah married, in February 1692/3, Massachusetts Gov. William Phips sent a request to Connecticut for support from their militia at Deerfield, as he anticipated an attack by the French and their allied Native Americans. Connecticut agreed to send only forty or fifty men (Massachusetts was hoping for hundreds) with another one hundred and fifty on standby if needed. Was Jonathan Scott among these men? This remains an open question. (The Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of Province of the Massachusetts Bay, Vol. VII: 379-380)
On June 6, 1693, Deerfield was attacked and seven colonists were killed. Two Mohawk men were arrested for the murders and jailed at Springfield, which led to diplomatic tensions with New York, since the Mohawk were their allies against the French. By the end of July, Phips had been persuaded that the two men in custody could not be found guilty of the Deerfield murders. The prisoners, in a suspicious twist, were reported as having escaped from the jail right before they could be released. (The Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, Vol. VII: 380-382)
On September 15, 1694, Deerfield was attacked by the French and their Indian allies on their return to Canada after raiding towns near Boston. In response, Gov. William Phips sent a request to Connecticut for forty or fifty armed men to help defend the town. Connecticut eventually agreed to send thirty-two men for two months in February and March, 1694/5. (The Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, Vol. VII: 460-461)
Hannah Hawks was witness to and a survivor of these attacks on Deerfield. Moving to Waterbury after marrying Jonathan Scott may have provided her with a sense of relief, as attacks from Canada were far less likely to happen in Connecticut.
On February 29, 1703/4, a decade after Hannah moved to Waterbury, Deerfield was attacked by the French and their Mohawk, Huron, and Wôbanakiak allies. The attack is legendary and much has been written about it. Forty-four Deerfield settlers were killed, 112 were taken captive, and 23 captives died or were killed on the march to Canada. Among the dead were most of the Hawks family. Hannah’s brother John Hawks and his family died when their house was set on fire during the attack. Hannah’s mother-in-law Alice was killed during the attack while Hannah’s seven-year-old half-sister Elizabeth was taken captive and killed on the march. Hannah’s father, John Hawks, was the only survivor in her immediate family.
In 1705, Hannah Scott’s father left Deerfield to live with Hannah and her family in Waterbury. John Hawks’ experience at Deerfield would have become well known throughout Waterbury, increasing local fears of a similar attack here. His experience also made him a valuable asset to the small community, as he would have been able to advise Waterbury’s leadership on their defenses.
Jonathan and Hannah had seven children. The first, a daughter, died the same month she was born, in August 1695. The rest all lived to adulthood. Jonathan, Jr. was born in 1696; John was born in 1699; Martha was born in 1701; Gershom was born in 1703; Eleazer was born in 1705; and Daniel was born in 1707. (Bronson, p. 185-186)
The Scott family had every reason to expect a relatively quiet, prosperous life for themselves. Clearing land for farming, and farming itself, was hard work but land ownership was a primary source of wealth in this era, and the Scotts could expect that their labor would increase their wealth. Unfortunately for them, a dispute over the inheritance of the Spanish throne would disrupt their lives for years.
War of the Spanish Succession
The death of King Charles II of Spain in 1700 led to a war that was fought in Europe, North America, and the Caribbean. Charles II, without any children of his own, selected Philip of Anjou, the grandson of King Louis XIV of France, to succeed him. This seemingly simple act led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on either side of the Atlantic.
 |
| Recognition of Philip of Anjou as King of Spain, painted by Francois Gerard |
In 1701, King William III of England spoke before the Houses of Parliament, warning that Philip of Anjou’s succession to the throne of Spain could lead to the overthrow of the Protestant English monarchy. William warned that France’s Catholic Louis XIV would control the Spanish empire as well as the French empire, placing the rest of Europe in danger of being subjugated by France and Spain. Parliament swiftly moved forward with war preparations to thwart France’s presumed ambitions. (James Falkner, The War of Spanish Succession, p. 26)
William III died in March 1702 after falling from a horse and was succeeded by Queen Anne, who immediately declared her dedication to limiting France’s power and ensuring the continuation of Protestant dominance in Great Britain. (Falkner, p. 27)
 |
| Anne, Queen of Great Britain, c. 1702 Portrait by Michael Dahl, National Portrait Gallery, London |
War against France and Spain was declared on May 15, 1702. The goal of the war, in simplest terms, was to ensure that Archduke Charles, the younger son of Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I, would be King of Spain instead of Philip of Anjou. Both were descended from Spain’s King Philip III, making the war, at its heart, a family squabble over inheritance.
Queen Anne’s War
The armed conflicts between England and France which occurred in North America during the War of the Spanish Succession are referred to in the U.S. as Queen Anne’s War. The war was fought on two fronts: from Albany to Montreal and Quebec, and from Boston to Nova Scotia.
Connecticut Prepares for War, 1703-1704
The first hint of war preparations in Connecticut appears in the records of the General Assembly for May 1703. The Assembly appointed representatives to send a letter to Queen Anne requesting permission to stop sending money to assist New York with their fortifications, since Connecticut expected to need the money for their own fortifications. At the same legislative session, the Assembly voted against sending men to Boston to assist in the Massachusetts colony’s ongoing war with the Wabanaki Confederacy in Maine, but promised that “in this time of warre” Connecticut would provide any assistance needed to defend the Massachusetts frontier in Hampshire County, since that is where they had already focused their resources. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 4: 428, 444)
Connecticut had a long history of sending armed men to aid Massachusetts’ western frontier, partly out of their duty as fellow subjects of the English crown, and partly out of self-preservation. The Massachusetts settlements along the Connecticut River served as a barrier between Hartford and the French in Canada.
The first conflict in western New England was the attack at Deerfield, Massachusetts on February 29, 1703/4. France wanted to take advantage of the existing tensions between the Massachusetts colony and the Wabanaki Confederacy with a dramatic show of force to convince the Native Americans that the French were their allies against the English, with French soldiers leading a small army of Native Americans who lived at Jesuit missions near Montreal. Philippe de Rigaud de Vaudreuil, Governor of New France, later stated that he ordered the raid on Deerfield at the request the Wabanaki who sought to retaliate against the Massachusetts colony for their attack on them the year before. In a speech to the Iroquois Confederacy, Vaudreuil emphasized that the English struck first [in Maine] and captured both French colonists and Wabanaki, and that some of the Native Americans were sold into slavery in the West Indies by Massachusetts. (Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York, Vol. 9: 758-759, 769)
Louis XIV encouraged alliances with Native Americans as a way to maintain advantage over the English colonies. The French strategy included active disruption of any similar alliances built by the English. (Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York, Vol. 9: 765-766)
 |
| Philippe de Rigaud de Vaudreuil, Governor of New France (Canada) Library and Archives Canada, |
After learning about the attack on Deerfield, a special session of Connecticut’s General Assembly met on March 15, 1703/4 to establish measures for the safety of Connecticut and the assistance of neighboring colonies “in the present time of danger.” The first concern addressed was the presence of Native Americans in Connecticut towns. The civil and military authorities of each town were ordered to closely monitor the “friend Indians” of each town and prevent them from interacting with any “enemy Indians”. The Wyantenucks, Potatucks, and Paugussetts were specifically targeted due to their location in Connecticut’s western frontier, near Waterbury. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 4: 455-460)
Second, the Assembly ordered each town to establish fortifications; specifically, to select and reinforce at least one house in which the town’s residents would gather for safety in the event of an attack. In Waterbury, Rev. Southmayd’s house was selected as the fort. (Bronson, p. 103)
Additional orders gave instructions to each town’s officers in the event of an attack, and instructed the frontier towns of Waterbury, Simsbury, Woodbury, and Danbury to appoint scouts to watch for the enemy.
The General Assembly also agreed to expedite the formation of a company of one hundred Native American and ten or twelve English men to assist Massachusetts in their campaign against the Wabanaki Confederacy. A company of sixty men, with quotas assigned to each of Connecticut’s counties, was sent to Hampshire County for the defense of the towns on that frontier. Additional orders addressed supplies and expenses.
 |
| Fitz-John Winthrop, Governor of Connecticut, 1698-1707 Harvard University Portrait Collection |
At the regular session of the General Assembly in May 1704, a series of orders were passed “for defence of her Majesties subjects and carrying on the warre against the common enemy.” (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 4: 462-465)
Waterbury, Danbury, Woodbury, and a number of other towns were designated as frontier towns; their residents were prohibited from deserting the town without permission from the colonial government. Any male person age sixteen or older who left a frontier town would be fined ten pounds, with the money to be used for the defense of the town. Garrisons of ten men were to be established in each of the frontier towns with additional support from Native Americans to be recruited from New Haven and Fairfield Counties; the company of English and Native American men would “range the woods” in western Connecticut in search of the enemy.
The Assembly resolved to raise a total of four hundred volunteers “to repell the comon enemy.” Native American men as well as English men were recruited. Concerned that they might not be able to recruit enough English men, the colony was open to recruiting as many Native American men as possible. Derby’s Major Ebenezer Johnson was placed in charge of Native American troops recruited from New Haven and Fairfield Counties. The colony armed them with guns, ammunition, and “what else may be needfull to fitt them out for warre.” The General Assembly offered a financial incentive of five pounds “for every mans scalp of the enemy killed in this Colonie” to whoever took and presented the scalp, in addition to regular wages to be paid. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 4: 462-465)
Footwear became a critical military supply as winter approached. Scouting in the woods required snowshoes and moccasins; English heavy leather shoes were not well suited to the American landscape. In October 1704, Connecticut’s General Assembly ordered every town to be provided with a supply of snowshoes and “Indian shoes” (moccasins) no later December 10. The shoes were to be kept in good condition, ready for use as needed. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 4: 486)
 |
| Ossipee-made moccasins, c. 1750 Woodman Museum, Dover, NH |
Securing the Western Frontier, 1705-1708
Over the next several years, Connecticut remained on alert for any invasions from Canada while corresponding with Massachusetts and New York in their schemes to conquer the French colony. Massachusetts was focused on invading Acadia (now part of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) and launched an unsuccessful siege on the French settlement’s capital, Port Royal, in 1707. Connecticut declined to join the 1707 expedition against Port Royal, noting that securing the western frontier was of greater concern. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 5: 16-18)
Connecticut remained primarily concerned about attacks similar to what happened at Deerfield, as well as smaller raids during which one or more English colonists would be taken prisoner. Vaudreuil, with Louis XIV’s approval, established a policy of sending raiding parties “to harass the English” in Massachusetts, resulting in numerous English colonists being held prisoner in Canada. The English prisoners could be a valuable source of information for the French, sometimes revealing English military plans. (Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York, Vol. 9: 805, 835-836)
Allied with the Wabanaki Confederacy and with the Mohawk and others at the Jesuit missions, Canada tried to convince the Iroquois Confederacy to join their side in the war, but the Confederacy preferred to remain neutral and pleaded with the French to end their war against the English. The nations forming the confederacy were independent of either colony and sought to retain their sovereignty. At a meeting between Vaudreuil and four nations of the Confederacy in 1705, the Iroquois informed the French governor “We regard you and the English alike. We exhort you both to make peace together, requesting you to restore mutually the prisoners you have taken on your mats.” (Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York, Vol. 9: 767-768)
The potential for Native Americans who were either neutral or allied with the English to join forces with the French was a constant concern for the English colonies.
For the average person in Waterbury and other Connecticut towns, life continued more or less as usual. Jonathan Scott increased his land holdings with the acquisition of three acres at Hancox Meadow in February 1705/6. The meadow was located along the east side of the Naugatuck River, north of Hancock Brook and south of Mount Taylor (in other words, the flat land in Waterville between Thomaston Avenue and the Naugatuck River). The traditional story of the Scott family says that Jonathan and his two sons were eating under a tree in Hancox (sometimes spelled Hancock’s) Meadow when they were attacked in 1710. (Waterbury Land Records, Vol. 1: 161)
White men with military experience were responsible for maintaining the security of each town. John Hawks, Sr., who moved to Waterbury after surviving the attack at Deerfield, was exempted from colonial taxes for one year in October 1706. The General Assembly referred to him as a sergeant, suggesting that Hawks was actively involved in Waterbury’s defenses, which could be why he was given the tax exemption. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 4: 530)
In February 1706/7, western Connecticut was panicked by rumors that the enemy was planning an assault on New England’s frontier towns and that the local Native Americans living near Woodbury and New Milford were about to join the enemy in the assault. The General Assembly resolved that, in order to prevent the defection of the Potatuck and Wyantenuck Indians to “the common enemy” and “to secure their fidelitie”, they were to be forcibly removed to Fairfield or Stratford, “or both as shall be judged most convenient.” If they couldn’t be moved due to widespread sickness, then two of their leaders would be taken to Fairfield and “kept safely as hostages to secure the fidelitie of those that remain at those inland places.” (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 5: 15-16)
Additionally, the General Assembly ordered that “for the preservation of the frontier towns” of Waterbury, Woodbury, Simsbury, and Danbury, the inhabitants of those towns are ordered to provide “a sufficient number of well fortified houses for the saftie of themselves and families in their respective towns.” Waterbury was instructed to fortify three houses; Woodbury, Waterbury and Danbury were also instructed to “maintain a good scout out every day from their respective towns, of two faithfull and trusty men to observe the motions of the enemy.” (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 5: 15-16)
In addition to the already established fort at Rev. Southmayd’s home, Waterbury voted to fortify Lt. John Stanley’s house and establish a third fort on the east side of town (bear in mind that the east side of town was still near the Green). Thomas Judd was placed in charge of setting up the forts. Additional town records indicate that the third fort was at the home of John Hopkins. The forts are believed to have consisted of an upright log wall surrounding the house. (Bronson, p. 103-104)
In October 1708, for the encouragement of “military skill and good discipline amongst her Majesties Subjects” in Connecticut, the General Assembly enacted a series of measures which included fining anyone who skipped or was late to artillery exercises. The Assembly also ordered the establishment of two garrisons at Waterbury, as well as a number of other towns. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 5: 85-86)
Other orders included the purchase of dogs to use in hunting enemy Native Americans in the northern frontier towns and the prohibition of selling, lending, or giving guns to any Native Americans, even those allied with the English. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 5: 86-87)
The Death of Joseph Scott, 1708
An unsolved Waterbury historical mystery took place sometime before November 22, 1708, possibly in October or November. Sarah Prichard attempted to unravel the mystery in her research for The Town and City of Waterbury in the 1890s, but many questions remain and may never be fully answered.
At the center of the mystery is the death of Joseph Scott. According to a story from the history of Bristol, as recounted by Prichard, Joseph Scott was brutally murdered by Native Americans near the Naugatuck River in what is now Thomaston, just north of Waterbury’s current boundary line. The story is as follows:
“[Joseph Scott] was seized by a party of Indians and horribly tortured. His screams were heard a long way; but the Indians were so many that no one dared to go to the rescue, and a considerable number of the settlers, fearing an attack from the infuriated Indians, hid themselves all day in the bushes near the river.”
(Anderson, Vol. 1: 259)
 |
| Jericho Rock and Buck's Meadow Mountain "The point where the Indians are supposed to have seen Joseph Scott in the meadow" Anderson, Vol. 1: 255 |
The verifiable facts are few in number. Joseph Scott was a landowner and farmer in Farmington. His brothers, including Jonathan Scott, were landowners and farmers in Waterbury. The inventory of Joseph Scott's estate was conducted on November 22, 1708, and his family filed his probate paperwork on February 7, 1708/9.
Half a century later, Waterbury land records referred to the place “where Joseph Scott was killed” as a local landmark used as a boundary marker. The site where he was killed and his reputed grave were familiar to local residents for over a century.
 |
| Deed from 1758 using "near where Joseph Scott was killed" as a boundary marker Waterbury Land Records, Vol. 9: 350 |
I have been unable to find any records from the time of Scott’s death to explain exactly what happened or where it happened. If Joseph Scott was killed by Native Americans, the incident was most likely a kidnapping gone wrong by the French allies sent “to harass the English.”
Adding to the mystery are the related stories from other town histories. A history of Bristol published in 1907 refers to a local tradition that a man named Mr. Scott was murdered by the local Tunxis Indians in at a swamp in Farmington, afterwards named Scott’s Swamp, but states that this story is wrong. A local historian believed that Scott was killed by an unknown group of Native Americans sometime around 1657, possibly in April 1657 when the murder of an unnamed English colonist was recorded at Farmington. This story is easy to dismiss, since Joseph Scott would have been an infant at the time. (Eddy N. Smith, et. al., Bristol, Connecticut, p. 12-13)
Joseph Scott’s story was also claimed by Cheshire in a 1912 history of that town. According to this version of the story, Joseph Scott was exploring the Tunxis Valley in 1666 when he was captured and held for ransom by an unspecified group of Native Americans. Scott was freed and the large rock near which he was held captive was renamed Scott’s Rock. As with the previous story, this version seems unlikely, but it is fascinating to see how the folk tale has been adapted to different locations. (Joseph Beach, History of Cheshire, p. 40fn)
Most recently, two members of the Watertown Historical Society announced that they found Joseph Scott’s grave in the woods of the Mattatuck State Forest. Their video about the discovery, in which they share the embellished version of the story, is available on YouTube. The accuracy of their discovery has not yet been confirmed.
Queen Anne’s War: The Expedition of 1709
By the spring of 1709, England’s military efforts against Canada were spearheaded by Samuel Vetch, who had previously helped retrieve the prisoners taken during the raid on Deerfield. Vetch was a Scottish adventurer who profited from illegal trade with New France. After being convicted of this crime by Massachusetts, Vetch was sent to London where he persuaded the government to acquit him on the grounds that the colonial government had exceeded its authority. Vetch went even further and convinced Queen Anne and her court that he could lead a successful campaign to conquer New France, after which Vetch would become Governor of Canada.
Queen Anne’s instructions to Vetch were sent to the colonies, notifying the local governments of Vetch’s authority to lead the new military effort. Vetch’s first stop was New York, where he was to inform the governor of the plan to invade Canada. New York was to supply a quota of eight hundred men, while another two hundred were to come from New Jersey, one hundred and fifty from Pennsylvania, and three hundred and fifty from Connecticut. The expedition was expected to be ready to leave from Albany by the middle of May. The Queen’s instructions also ordered the construction of a wood storehouse, at least six large boats to carry supplies, and as many canoes as needed (to be made under contract by the Five Nations, who were also expected to join in the expedition). (Instructions of Queen Anne to Col. Samuel Vetch, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 38, No. 3, p. 340-344)
Connecticut’s General Assembly met on May 12, 1709 to review and acknowledge the correspondence and instructions received from London. With no ability to refuse or modify the Queen’s orders, the colonial government moved forward promptly to comply. A quota for each town was set, with Waterbury expected to supply only four men, as it was a small frontier town. Connecticut also recruited Native American men for the expedition, once again being willing to provide them with weapons so long as they were taking the place of English men in the war against the French. Four of those Native Americans were killed during their service in 1709; their families were offered a condolence gift of two trucking cloth coats for each man lost. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 5: 91-92, 153)
 |
| Gurdon Saltonstall, Governor of Connecticut, 1708-1724 Yale Art Gallery |
The expedition was ultimately a failure, with France retaining control of its colonies. Many of the troops raised in a hurry proved to be “ineffective” soldiers who were soon discharged. In October 1709, Connecticut recalled its troops from Albany, transporting those who were sick (of which there were apparently many) by water and providing care at the camp at Wood Creek near Albany for those who were too sick to travel. The rest were to march back to Connecticut, disbanding as they arrived at each of their home towns. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 5: 123-124, 161)
The Capture of Jonathan Scott and His Sons, 1710
After the unsuccessful expedition against Montreal and Quebec, Connecticut settled back into the usual routine of daily life and guarding the frontier from attack. Vaudreuil continued sending raiding parties from Canada to Massachusetts to take prisoners and generally harass the English colonists. At least one of those raiding parties ventured into Connecticut. (Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York, Vol. 9: 846)
Although no documentation from 1710 has been found to give the details of how Jonathan Scott and his sons were captured, it most likely happened in July. The traditional story is that Scott was eating lunch under a tree in Hancox Meadow (in Waterville) with two of his sons, that all three were taken prisoner and marched to Canada, and that Jonathan's right thumb was cut off to prevent him from resisting.
The attack most likely occurred in mid to late July: on July 26, the town officials voted to reimburse Jonathan Scott for his 1709 local taxes “in consideration of his present surcumstances he being in captivity” and “for getting out of town William Stanerd’s wife” [a homeless woman whom the selectmen had warned to leave town—poverty was considered a crime in this era]. (Bronson, p. 106)
Waterbury appointed a committee to write up the circumstances of the town “in this time of war” and present it to the General Court at New Haven on August 4. The General Court responded by noting Waterbury’s remote location and appointed a “committee of war” to raise a militia for the town if needed. (Bronson, p. 106-107)
In August, the General Assembly expressed concern over “skulking parties of our enemy Indians and French” in the frontier parts of Hartford County and neighboring Hampshire County (Waterbury was part of Hartford County at this time). They ordered the Hartford County Committee of War to employ four or five English men to lead a party of no more than 60 “of our Indians” to scout the frontier region; the scouting company was to be paid “for each Indian scalp of the enemy which they shall bring to the said committee, the sum of ten pounds, to be equally shared amongst them.” At the same meeting, the Assembly appointed Col. William Whiting to lead another expedition against Port Royal. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 5: 167)
For Hannah Scott and her remaining children, there was no way of knowing whether or not her husband and two sons were still alive. There were people in Albany who had close business ties to Montreal, and the government at Albany was in regular communication with that of Quebec, but there was no system for tracking prisoners of war. Some were imprisoned by the French, while others were adopted by the Native Americans.
Hannah appears to have petitioned the General Assembly for aid. The government’s response, in October 1710, was to “grant a freedom to Hannah Scott of Waterbury, wife of Jonathan Scott of said Waterbury, now in captivity at Canada, from paying any rates or taxes to the Colony, for this present year 1710.” Hannah received the same exemption from taxes the following year as well, since her husband was still in captivity. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 5: 180, 278)
The Scotts’ Captivity in Canada
Jonathan Scott was taken to Quebec and held as a prisoner of war by the French, one of dozens of English colonists imprisoned in Canada. One of his thumbs had been cut off, he had only his summer clothing, and he had no money. While some of the English prisoners were allowed to work, Scott was in poor condition and might not have survived the first winter if it weren’t for a fellow prisoner, Mehuman Hinsdale.
Mehuman Hinsdale
Hinsdale lived in Deerfield, so he and Scott would have been acquainted with one another and known some of the same people. Hinsdale and his wife Mary were two of the Deerfield colonists who had been taken captive and marched to Canada in 1704. Their only child was killed during the attack. Mehuman and Mary returned to Deerfield in 1706.
Mehuman Hinsdale was taken captive a second time in April 1709. An account of his experience gives some insight into what Jonathan Scott and his sons may have experienced. (Stephen W. Williams, A Biographical Memoir of the Rev. John Williams, 1837, pp. 118-120)
 |
| Map showing the route of the 1704 march from Deerfield to Canada From Captors and Captives: The 1704 French and Indian Raid on Deerfield by Evan Haefeli and Kevin Sweeney, 2003; reproduced on the 1704 Raid on Deerfield website |
Hinsdale was taken prisoner by two Native Americans who were “civil and courteous” to him during the eleven day journey to Fort Chambly on the Richelieu River in Quebec. They would have traveled by foot up the Connecticut River, crossing over the mountains in Vermont to Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River.
 |
| Fort Chambly on the Richelieu River, 2013 Wikimedia Commons, Denis-Carl Robidoux |
After a brief stay at Chambly, Hinsdale was taken to Sault-au-Récollet (nicknamed “Oso” by the English who misunderstood when the French said they were going “au Sault”). Sault-au-Récollet was a Jesuit mission located just outside Montreal and included a Mohawk village overseen by the Jesuits, who were primarily concerned with converting everyone, Mohawk and English alike, to Catholicism. The Native Americans who chose to live at the mission agreed to convert to Catholicism, but continued their traditional ways of life. The Mohawk village at Sault-au-Récollet consisted of dozens of bark longhouses and gardens organized with maize, beans, and squash planted together on small mounds rather than in European-style segregated rows. (Gretchen Lynn Green, A New People in An Age of War: The Kahnawake Iroquois, 1667-1760. Dissertation, College of William & Mary, 1991, p. 54-55)
 |
| Plan of the Sault du St. Louis fort and Iroquois village, which was similar to Sault-au-Récollet, 1752 Newberry Library Collection |
At Sault-au-Récollet, Hinsdale may have seen some of remaining Deerfield captives who had been adopted by the Mohawk and were living at the mission, known now by French and Mohawk names. Adopting captives was a traditional practice intended to increase the population, and the raiding parties which took captives in Massachusetts and Connecticut were comprised largely of men from Sault-au-Récollet. (C. Alice Baker, True Stories of New England Captives Carried to Canada During the Old French & Indian Wars, 1897, pp. 239-254 and Green, A New People in An Age of War, p. 173-175)
At the Mohawk village, Hinsdale was forced to run the gauntlet for close to three quarters of a mile, wearing a rope around his neck, dodging every blow until the very end. Later, Hinsdale was taken before Vaudreuil, Governor of New France, who interrogated him for any information Hinsdale might have about English plans to attack Canada. Hinsdale refused to reveal anything and was put in the "dungeon" at Quebec.
About six weeks later, a group of Mohawks from Sault-au-Récollet asked Gov. Vaudreuil to let them take Hinsdale back to their village so that they could burn him alive, and Vaudreuil gladly did so. An account from the time sent to London referred to this as “their damnable practice of burning an English prisoner before their departure to war.” (Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, Vol. 25: 190)
Fortunately for Mehuman Hinsdale, the Mohawks had no plans to kill him. They instead wanted his help leaving New France and joining with the English at Albany. The scheme fell apart before they could leave Canada, and Hinsdale was returned to prison at Quebec, where he eventually met up with Jonathan Scott.
Jonathan Scott’s Imprisonment and Return
Jonathan Scott and his sons may have been taken on a route similar to that of Mehuman Hinsdale, stopping first at Chambly. At least one of the boys, if not both of them, would have been taken to Sault-au-Récollet to be adopted into Mohawk families. Jonathan was taken to Quebec, where he was placed in prison.
During his first winter as a prisoner at Quebec, Jonathan Scott was not allowed a fire to keep warm and was fed a quarter pound of pork (which was often mostly bone) and small amount of bread and water each day. Mehuman Hinsdale later stated that Scott was “in a perishing condition” and in “great need of help.” Hinsdale had been given the liberty to get paid for working while a prisoner, and he loaned five pounds to Scott for the purchase of warm clothes and food. (Connecticut State Archives, Colonial Wars, Vol. 3: 160)
 |
| Statement of Mehuman Hinsdel (Hinsdale), March 4, 1721 Connecticut Archives, Colonial Wars, Vol. 3: 160 |
Jonathan Scott and his son Jonathan, who was 14 when they were taken prisoner, were freed after about two years. Scott senior was able to redeem the younger Jonathan Scott with five pounds borrowed from an unnamed French man who traveled with them to Connecticut. Scott’s younger son, John, remained in Canada, most likely at Sault-au-Récollet. (Connecticut State Archives, Colonial Wars, Vol. 3: 159)
In October 1712, Scott petitioned Connecticut’s government to be exempt from taxation for one more year and to be given ten pounds as compensation for “the loss of one of his thumbs by the said enemy.” The General Court, noting that Scott had “been taken captive by the Indian enemy [and] but lately returned from his captivity,” agreed to his requests. (Public Records of Connecticut, Vol. 5: 349-350)
Scott spent the next few years acclimating to life in Waterbury and to his disability. He might also have needed time to reacquaint himself with his family: his youngest child was only three when he was abducted. Scott seems to have adjusted reasonably well. In 1715, he acquired several parcels of land totaling more than forty acres. He acquired another four acres in 1716 and ten acres in 1717. (Waterbury Land Records, Vol. 1: 161)
Jonathan Scott, Jr., who returned to Waterbury with his father, seems to have returned to life as usual following his captivity. The two Jonathans built a mill on Steele Brook in Watertown during the early 1720s. (Anderson, Vol. 1: 325 and Waterbury Land Records, Vol. 1: 436)
John Scott
Jonathan Scott never stopped trying to retrieve his son John from Canada. In 1721, he informed Connecticut’s governor and legislature that he had spent considerable time and money trying to secure John’s release, traveling to Deerfield and to Albany seeking assistance in both locations. Connecticut had some involvement in Scott’s efforts, providing him with guidance and instructions. (Connecticut State Archives, Colonial Wars, Vol. 3: 159)
It should be noted that at least some of Scott’s trips to Deerfield had more than one purpose. In January 1720/1, he traveled to Deerfield as his father-in-law’s representative, overseeing the sale of the last of Hawks’ property there. (Susan McGowan Titus, “John Hawks,” Raid on Deerfield: The Many Stories of 1704 website)
Scott requested financial assistance from Connecticut, submitting testimony from Mehuman Hinsdale regarding Scott’s condition and expenses while a prisoner. In May 1721, the colonial government agreed to reimburse Scott for the ten pounds he spent to survive in prison and to redeem his son Jonathan. The money, coming from the Public Treasury, was paid to Scott by the Constable of Danbury. (Connecticut State Archives, Colonial Wars, Vol. 3: 161)
In 1725, Jonathan Scott finally had a lead on John’s whereabouts. He reported to the General Assembly on October 14 that John was living with the Mohawks at “Oso” (Sault-au-Récollet) and had been seen with them at Albany that summer. Scott humbly begged the Assembly for five or six pounds from the Public Treasury and, should he be successful in convincing his son “to come from the Indians & live with me,” that they would grant him additional funds to pay for all their expenses. Although it had been more than a decade since his return to Waterbury, Scott declared that he was “so reduced” by his captivity that he could not afford the venture on his own. The General Assembly agreed to give Scott five pounds towards his effort to retrieve John and promised to consider further funding if he was successful. (Connecticut State Archives, Colonial Wars, Vol. 3: 162)
The rest of John Scott’s story is unknown. He was only eleven when he was taken to Canada. He would presumably have been adopted by a Mohawk family, given a Mohawk or French name, and converted to Catholicism. By the 1720s, he would have been well adjusted to his new life, with no need to return to Waterbury.
The War Ends
Queen Anne’s War ended in 1713 following a series of peace treaties. The English colonies had eventually conquered Port Royal and Acadia in 1710, giving England a new colony, Nova Scotia, with Samuel Vetch as its first governor. “Ownership” of Nova Scotia remained a point of contention between France and England for decades, occasionally erupting into warfare as the two nations continued to feud over territory in North America.
No comments:
Post a Comment