Glimpses of the Past: History of the River St. John, A.D. 1604-1784

by W. O. Raymond

In the year 1770 Mr. Burpee kept a diary which, while it contains some facts of interest, serves on the whole to show how narrow and monotonous was the life of the early settlers on the St. John. On Sundays they attended religious services 261 held at the houses most convenient for the purpose and in the winter there was some social visiting. However, we are now to speak of more stirring events.

Many were the trials and tribulations of the dwellers on the St. John—particularly of those living at the mouth of the river—during the American Revolution. Most of their calamities might have been avoided had an efficient garrison been maintained at Fort Frederick, but the troops were withdrawn from that post in 1768 and sent to Boston in consequence of disturbances there, and for five or six years the care of the fort and barracks was entrusted to James Simonds.

Lord William Campbell reported, about the close of 1771: “Since Fort Frederick at the entrance of St. John’s river has been dismantled and the garrison, which formerly consisted of an officers’ command, reduced to a corporal and four privates, he had had frequent complaints of the Indians on the river.” The presence of a half dozen soldiers was of little utility at any time and of no utility whatever after the Revolution began. It was not until the erection of Fort Howe that adequate steps were taken for the protection of the inhabitants.

The year 1774 was an extremely busy one at St. John. Our old pioneers James Simonds, James White and William Hazen were making strenuous efforts to place settlers upon their lands in the township of Conway, while at the same time Mr. Hazen’s house was being finished at Portland Point, an aboideau was being built to reclaim the “great marsh,” and the business of the fishery, lime-burning and general trade was being vigorously prosecuted. Troublous times were now at hand.

The situation of Hazen, Simonds and White when hostilities arose between the old colonies and the mother country was very embarrassing. By birth and early association they were New Englanders and most of their old time friends and neighbors were hostile to the crown. Massachusetts was practically the cradle of the Revolution, and the vast majority of its inhabitants were bitterly opposed to the King and his government. But while Simonds, White and Hazen were Massachusetts men they now held various official positions under the government of Nova Scotia and had sworn true allegiance to the King. Very likely they would have gladly assumed a neutral attitude in the approaching contest, but alas for them the force of events left no room for neutrality.

It is clear that at the beginning of the war the people of Massachusetts hoped for the cordial support of the settlers on the River St. John. This is probably the reason why the small colony at Portland Point was not molested during the early stages of the war and that William Hazen was able on two occasions to obtain the release of the company’s schooner “Polly” after she had been taken by American privateers. But as the war progressed considerate treatment gave place to acts of vandalism, and the sentiments of the settlers at St. John towards their old compatriots of Massachusetts became intensely bitter. Their tenants in the township of Conway were driven from their homes and obliged to seek refuge up the river, and those living at Portland Point suffered equal hardships.

When the Loyalists arrived in 1783, it was proposed that the township of Conway 262 should be escheated for their benefit. James Simonds protested stoutly against this, representing the expense that had been incurred in the endeavor to settle the township and the losses and sufferings of the tenants who were for a long time unprotected against the depredations of the enemy. He adds, “Instead of our being stripped of our rights to make amends for the losses of the Loyalists, who were plundered in New York or elsewhere, we have at least as weighty reasons as they can possibly offer to claim restitution from Government for the value of all the property taken from us, our distress by imprisonment, etc. They had a numerous British army to protect them, we had to combat the sons of darkness alone. In a word we had much less than they to hope for by unshaken loyalty and incomparably more to fear.”

The statement of Mr. Simonds is confirmed by Major Studholme who wrote to Gov’r. Parr, “Messrs. Hazen and Simonds, two of the original proprietors of Conway, have at different times placed a number of settlers on the lands of that Township and have used every effort on their parts to comply with the terms of their Grant, but the continual robberies committed by the Rebel boats during the war, to which these settlements have been exposed, obliged a number of their tenants to remove. However, as every exertion was used by them I take the liberty to recommend their claims on that Township to your consideration.”

During the earlier stages of the Revolution the attitude of the people of Machias on the one hand, and of the inhabitants of the township of Cumberland on the other, proved a matter of concern to the dwellers on the River St. John. Machias was settled in 1763 by a colony from Scarborough, one of the oldest towns in Massachusetts. During the war it was the asylum of disloyal spirits who fled thither from various parts of Nova Scotia. The township of Cumberland included a considerable portion of what is now the county of Westmorland. The inhabitants were mostly natives of New England, and many of them warm sympathizers with the revolutionary pasty. Jonathan Eddy was their representative in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly in 1774, and John Allan in 1776. Eddy and Allan, aided by William Howe and Samuel Rogers, succeeded in stirring up an active rebellion in Cumberland, which called for prompt action on the part of the Government of Nova Scotia. The leaders fled to Machias and a reward of £200 was offered for the apprehension of Eddy and £100 for each of the others.

The attitude of the Indians was another matter of serious concern to the settlers on the River St. John. Immediately after the Declaration of Independence the American congress authorized Washington to call forth and engage the Indians of Nova Scotia, St. John and Penobscot to take up the hatchet and fight against the English. With strange inconsistency Congress a few days later, in an address to the people of Ireland, denounced the King of England on the ground that “the wild and barbarous savages of the wilderness have been solicited by gifts to take up the hatchet against us, and instigated to deluge our settlements with the blood of defenceless women and children.”