James L. Swanson. The Deerfield Massacre. Scribner, 2024.
For a shorter review, see the following:
The Deerfield Massacre: A Surprise Attack, a Forced March, and the Fight for Survival in Early America by James L. Swanson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
When I was young, my parents owned The Story of America in Pictures. That book had photos or engravings on every page—the pictures all from around the time that the event occurred. I recall a page titled “The Deerfield Massacre” with a picture of a native American with a tomahawk about to scalp a captive woman. That picture made an impression on my young mind. It was not an exaggeration.
Swanson’s The Deerfield Massacre attempts to separate history from legend and gives about as much as we know of that famous Indian attack on Deerfield, Massachusetts, on February 19, 1704. Deerfield was about as far to the northwest as the English had settled in New England, and while a stockade fort had been built, it was vulnerable to attack.
We sometimes think of the French and Indian War as the war fought between England and France in the New World between 1754 and 1763, called the Seven Years’ War in Europe, and the Conquest in Quebec. (I recently returned from a visit to Montreal. Any historical reference about the war there always called it the Conquest.) However, that was the fourth war in North America between the two colonial powers with their native allies. England and France did not start fighting in Europe until 1756, hence its European name.
Before that there was King William’s War (1688-1697), Queen Anne’s War (a.k.a. the War of Spanish Succession 1702-1713), and King George’s War (a.k.a. the War of Austrian Succession, 1744-1748). Deerfield had been attacked by Indians in 1675 during King Philip’s War (called the Battle of Bloody Brook), and was subjected to raids during King William’s War. The town was destroyed in 1675 and again in 1704. Many inhabitants were killed, and many of the rest were taken captive.
Much of what we know about the 1704 attack on Deerfield comes from the testimonies of three captives who were later released, especially that of Rev. John Williams, the pastor of the church there. He and the other captives were all taken to Canada where some were handed over to the French and others would be taken by various native tribes.
As I write, Israeli hostages taken by Palestinians last October continue to be in the news. The negotiations for them is complicated. It was no less complicated in 1704. The French, the Indians, and the English all had different ideas about the captives/hostages. All the English captives were civilians. The British had some military captives including one privateer whom the French really wanted released, but whom the English were unwilling to give up. They would have considered him a terrorist in today’s terms. Different Indian tribes had different ideas about their captives as well. Some took them as slaves. Others saw them as replacing tribe or family members who had died.
When the Indians attacked Deerfield they killed nearly all the babies and young children because they saw them as a burden trying to escort them through the winter snow to Quebec. A few captive children would remain with the Indians including one daughter of Rev. Williams. Seven when she was captured, she would change her name, marry a native, and convert to Catholicism. Indeed, the French tried to persuade all the captives, even the pastor, to become Catholic.
About two thirds of The Deerfield Massacre tells of the aftermath and legacy up to the present. Rev. Williams published his testimony of captivity that went through several editions. His wife was killed in the attack. That picture I recall from my childhood may have been a picture of her murder. His children, except for the one daughter, would eventually return and be reunited. After his death, his daughter would visit her siblings two or three times but remained with the Indians who adopted her. She would live to be 89. In the nineteenth century, her descendants would make several visits to Deerfield as a kind of good will mission.
Swanson does his best to present all sides. There is some documentation in French and English. Most of what he reports from the Indian perspective is from oral tradition reported in the nineteenth century.
We learn that the first time the term “massacre” was used was 100 years after the event. Before that it was usually referred to as the raid or attack. We learn that the one building, a house, that survived the attack became a kind of historic shrine, but it was eventually torn down in the 1840s, though not till after a couple of daguerreotypes had been made of it. Its door was saved and can be seen today. It contains some hatchet marks and bullet holes from the battle.
We learn about local historians who did a lot to preserve the memory and even put on three theatrical pageants over the course of nine years. We learn about the financier who tried, somewhat successfully, to preserve the colonial atmosphere of the main street. He could not compete with the Rockefellers who financed the reconstruction of Williamsburg, Virginia, but Swanson assures us that The Street (its main street), the museum, and certain memorials are worth a visit.
This is a thorough presentation. If I have one quibble, it is that to my understanding the word savage has taken on a more negative connotation than it had in the eighteenth century. Rousseau spoke of the noble savage. Crusoe loved Friday, his “savage friend.” Savage simply meant “uncivilized or tribal.” Swanson probably could have saved himself some apologies by recognizing that when quoting some of the older accounts. That is minor. This is a fascinating tale, and Swanson has done all that he can to tell the story from what facts we have and how those facts were interpreted and presented over the last three centuries.