285

CHAPTER XI.

LIFE AND TIMES OF SIMON WILLARD.

(Continued.)

IN reviewing the history of Major Willard during Philip's war, I doubted for a time whether it would be profitable to take notice of the statement which has been made, that, notwithstanding his prompt, decided, and vigorous course in hastening to the relief of Brookfield, he fell under the severe censure of the government, even to the extent of losing his commission. But as the statement has been gravely made by a respectable writer, has been repeated by subsequent historians who are entitled to consideration, and is likely to pass for authentic history, I have come to the conclusion, that it is most fitting to the memory of a brave and veteran officer and a conscientious man, to examine the point with care, and, once for all, to prove the allegation utterly groundless. All diligent inquirers in history have reason to know, that instances are not infrequent in which careless statements made by one writer are hastily adopted by subsequent writers in good faith, but without examination; and so pass current from age to age as veritable history, while having no foundation in truth.* I proceed to show that the statement in question belongs to this cate

gory.

The earliest instance in which I have met with it—and, I doubt not, the earliest in fact is in Rev. Dr. Fiske's

point.

The story about the men of Kent (ante, pp. 116-17) is an illustration in

sermon, 1775.* He concludes a note, describing certain incidents in the siege, in the following terms; viz.: —

66

Long as this note is, I cannot conclude without saying something concerning Major Willard, the celebrated deliverer of the people here. His conduct in altering his course, and coming to the relief of Brookfield, being dictated by humanity, and executed with bravery and success, has gained him the applause of people in general. But, as it was beside his orders, he was censured by the court, and cashiered; which disgusted his friends, and broke his heart. And though the punishment may seem too rigorous, yet it ought to be remembered, that, if commanders of parties sent upon particular expeditions may take liberty to vary from their express orders, nothing effectual could be accomplished; and only confusion, disappointment, loss, and in many cases ruin, would be likely to ensue."

In view of this statement, for I suppose that it is the only one to which reference is made, and relying thereupon as true, Hoyt makes the following very judicious observations; viz.:

"Notwithstanding the gallant conduct of Major Willard in the relief of Brookfield, it is stated that he was censured by the Governor and Council† of Massachusetts for deviating from his orders, which were to attack the Indians in a different quarter. It will not be believed, however, that the orders were so rigidly imperative as to admit of no discretion in the commander. In all expeditions against Indians in the distant forests, some latitude is evidently necessary. Probably the very Indians against whom Major Willard was destined were then at Brookfield; and, if the orders were not so far discretionary as to allow him to change his route to relieve a place attacked by so powerful a force, the censure ought to rest

"A Sermon, preached at Brookfield on the last day of the year 1775, together with some marginal notes, &c.; . . . by Nathan Fiske, A.M., Pastor of the Third Church in Brookfield. Boston, New England: printed by Thomas and John Fleet,

1776."

Dr. Fiske says he was censured "by the court;" which must have been either by the Governor and Council, or by the General Court. It will be observed, that General Hoyt merely says that the Major was "censured." He does not go the full length of Dr. Fiske's statement, and "cashier" the Major.

upon the Governor and Council who gave them, and not upon him. Had he refused to relieve the distressed inhabitants of Brookfield, a more severe vituperation would have been bestowed upon him by the people of the Province [Colony]. Under all the circumstances of the case, his conduct must be pronounced highly proper, and his achievement gallant."*

Baylies, in his "History of Plymouth Colony," — after stating that Major Willard "so silently and skilfully managed his approach, that he was perceived by the garrison before he was discovered by the Indians," takes up the refrain thus:

"His fate was disastrous. He was cashiered for disobedience of orders in marching to the relief of Brookfield. Unable to brook the disgrace, this brave and humane man died of a broken heart."

No authority is cited either by Hoyt or Baylies; but it is evident that they relied upon Fiske for their respective statements. And here, in the first place, we have a right to call upon Dr. Fiske for his authorities and proofs; but, on turning to his note, there is an entire absence of reference. I am wholly at a loss to determine whence the origin of the allegation: certainly it is not to be found in history; and, if it came by tradition, — vague and uncertain in its nature, -it is of nothing worth. With the author of the Brookfield sermon rests the first enunciation of the story, so far as I am aware. I make this remark not loosely, but after a pretty diligent and thorough investigation. One hundred years after the event, we first hear of this conduct on the part of the Governor and Council, or of the General Court, so opprobrious if true, and so unjust to a long-tried and faithful officer.

This fact alone would be almost-nay, entirely-conclusive, unless it could be shown that contemporaneous records and other proofs were all lost or destroyed.

Hoyt's Indian Wars, p. 102.

I am well aware, that the military law, as it then stood, did not allow a commander to march out of the county with his regiment unless by order from the General Court, the Council, or the Major-General, "except it be on pursuit of the enemy upon a rout;" and that the same prohibition extended to the captains and officers of the troops of horse, unless "by order of the Major-General."* But it is equally true, that this law, made in time of peace, and without adequate consideration of the nature and mode of Indian warfare, was found to be wholly unwise when the exigency arose in the midst of Philip's war, which first put it to the test. A special meeting of the General Court was called by Governor Leverett on the 21st of February, 1675-6, partly, I suppose, if not mainly, for repealing this provision of the law military, which the legislators saw and felt to be dangerous in its actual tendency, viewing it evidently in the same light that General Hoyt did at a later day. Conflict had already recommenced, and occasions were likely to arise when it might become necessary for the public safety that the commander of a regiment should be allowed to pass beyond the line of his own county. The kind of warfare required that much should be left to the discretion of the chief officer; and no one was worthy of holding an important commission to whom such discretion could not be readily intrusted. Hear the record of the meeting to which I have referred, the very first proceeding after the court assembled; viz.: —

"Whereas the law military, sect. 11, enjoins that no major of any regiment shall march with his regiment out of the county wherein he hath command, nor cause any part thereof so to do, without order from the General Court, Council, or Major-General, except it be in pursuit of the enemy upon a rout, this court doth order, that during these wars, and till this court take further order, it

It is worthy of remark, that the law military prescribes penalties in many instances for its violation; but there is no penalty annexed to the provision forbidding the commander to march his men beyond the borders of their county.

shall be in the liberty of the major of each county, or any inferiour commission-officer who hath command of any company or party of men, to go out of their own proper county for engaging, pursuing, or destroying the enemy, so as they act not contrary to particular order from superiour officer or authority."

It may be, as I have intimated, that it was owing to the proceeding of Major Willard, among other actual experiences, that led to the change which the state of the times, as well as public sentiment, no doubt demanded. And this covers the whole breadth of the allegation against him. It pronounces the law unwise. It admits, in substance, that he acted discreetly and well; and, by the clearest and sharpest implication, negatives the idea of censure. Would the Governor and Council by one vote "cashier" a veteran officer for saving a town just beyond the confines of his military command, and then, by another vote, concur with the deputies in branding the law that punished him, as one pregnant with hazard to the State? The Major was present during the whole of this session; and, if the proposed change in the law was discussed, he was present at the discussion, and probably took part in it. It may have been said, "True, you have exceeded the authority vested in you by the letter of the law, and have rendered yourself liable to the judgment of the court: but we acknowledge the law to be unwise, for so experience has taught us; and we shall better satisfy ourselves, and precisely meet the public sentiment, by voting its repeal, than by enforcing its provision. If the law stands, we must give vitality to its letter; while we cannot find it in our hearts to condemn your conduct. We will therefore alter the law, rather than that there should be a record to our discredit in after-times by inflicting a cruel injury upon you." We shall see in the sequel whether any such record exists, or ever did exist.

Contemporary evidence is ever justly considered of the highest authority, the surest reliance in the understanding and interpretation of events. To this we should address