Ten men return to Dunstable with terrible news

On May 11, 1725 the town of Dunstable was waiting for any hint of news coming from the forest. Twenty-six days ago 47 of their husbands, fathers, brothers and friends lead by Colonel Lovewell had headed into the deep woods to face Paugus, a chief of the Abanaki Indians at their central location at Pequawket.⁸

Abigail Chamberlain and her three children were among those anxiously waiting news of their men. Her husband John and her nineteen year old brother Thomas Woods were among the rangers.

Cries of anguish filled the night as ten men came from the forest into town with the terrible news. Colonel Lovewell and all the rest of the company had perished in an ambush, overwhelmed and out numbered by the Indians. John and Thomas and 30 others of Lovewell’s men did not return.

Benjamin Hassell was the only witness at the fight. He had ran from the scene of the battle about twenty-five miles to tell those stationed at the make-shift fort near Lake Ossipee. They all then made a hasty retreat to bring the bad news to the families waiting at Dunstable. That evening, Hassell prepared a note for the Governor dated May 11, 1725.⁸

At a debriefing on the morning of May 12, Hassell presented his note to Colonel Ebenezer Tyng. Tyng compiled a report and sent it with a horseman to Governor Dummer. The report arrived in Boston that afternoon.⁸

Eleven…no, fifteen more men return!

On May 13, grief and sorrow was blended with an measure of extreme joy as an unexpected band of eleven wounded and weary soldiers approached the town of Dunstable. They were alive! Eleven men from the middle of battle were home, and more were expected!

Two days later, four more men arrived in Dunstable including the hero and leader, Ensign Seth Wyman. Fifteen survivors of the fight had now returned. One man, Elias Barron, had gotten separated from the group and was unaccounted for. These men offered a more complete report of the battle, for Benjamin Hassell had run before the show was over.^4,8

Abigail Chamberlain was overjoyed to see her husband’s face, but wept as John gave her the tragic confirmation of the death of Thomas, her younger brother.

The survivors account of the fight

The Sunday Sermon of May 16, offered by the Reverend Thomas Symmes, was titled: Lovewell Lamented, or a Sermon occasion’d by the Fall of the Brave Capt. John Lovewell and Several of his Valiant Company, in the late Heroic Action at Piggwacket pronounced at Bradford, May 16 1725.⁵

The Rev. Symmes sermon gave an account of the fight of Saturday May 8, 1725 as he had heard it from the group of the survivors. He listed the names of the 33 men at the fight, and identified the dead and wounded. He purposely omitted the name of the one who left the battle scene early, saying: “Their names that made up this Company (excepting his that started from them in the beginning of the Battle, and ran back to the Fort, which I’d be excus’d from mentioning) were as follow.“⁴

On May 17, 1725 a small article about the fight and the loss of Captain Lovewell was published in The Boston News-Letter.⁵

Colonel Tyng leads mission of recovery, two more survivors return

On Monday, May 17. Colonel Tyng of the militia, on the order from Governor Dummer, gathered together men from the surrounding towns to go on a mission of destroy and recovery. Benjamin Hassell was ordered to go as a guide but claimed he was unable due to illness. One of the survivors who had just returned volunteered to go in his place.^3,5

Colonel Tyng found the battlefield with trees riddled with bullet holes. There they buried the bodies of twelve men including Captain Lovewell and Lt. Robbins. They found the body and identified Chief Paugus. The Indians had buried him before leaving.⁵

The four wounded men who had been left behind waited for the expected aid, but finally, weak and hungry, they struggled toward the fort.

Josiah Jones traveled down the Seco River surviving on cranberries which he said would come out of the holes in his body. He arrived half dead at Biddleford, Maine on May 23.

 Eleazer Davis made it to the fort and food, and arrived May 27 at Berwick, Maine.

Lieutenant Farwell and Chaplin Frye died alone in the woods.^3,8

The second published account of the battle appeared in The New-England Courant dated May 24, 1725. It did not mention Chief Paugus or any of the surviving English except for Wyatt about whom it states: “His Honour the Lieut. Governour has been pleased to grant a Captain’s Commission to Lieut. Wyman who distinguished himself with great courage and conduct during the whole engagement.”¹

The John Chamberlain/Paugus story

Early published documents did not mention John Chamberlain. This is very understandable. He was a private, a miller from Groton and likely not well known outside of his home town. Seth Wyman, on the other hand, was an instant and well deserved hero and leader by default. He took immediate command when Captain Lovewell and Lt. Robbins fell.

An early ballad, The Song of Lovewells Fight by an unknown author, was sung for many years in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. It’s lyrics stated that Seth Wyman “shot the old chief Paugus which did the foe defeat”¹. Wyman was the published hero of the Battle at Pequawket, so this should not be surprising. The author of the ballad may never have even heard of a Private by the name of John Chamberlain.

However, in 1799, seventy-four years later, a publication, for the first time reported that the duel was between Paugus and John Chamberlain. By 1883 the John Chamberlain tradition was well established and wide spread. Then, however, one-hundred and thirty-eight years after the event, the story began to have its critics.

In 1883, historian Samuel A. Green wrote, “An attempt has been made in modern times to take from Chamberlain the credit of killing the Indian chief, but the earlier records and traditions seem to confirm the story.”

Today’s critics

Today (2016), another one-hundred and thirty-tree years have passed, and again many contemporary writers express doubt about the John Chamberlain-Chief Paugus tradition. Their reasons mainly center on the ballad and the fact that the first published account of Chamberlain-Paugus duel came out in 1799, seventy-four years after the battle.

Most were quick to point out that all survivors of the battle had by then died and therefore unable to present a dispute.  As if, forty-three years after the death of John Chamberlain, someone might have a vested interest in rewriting history.

The information fueling their skepticism is nothing new. It has been around for over 200 years. What all of these internet historians fail to do, however, is to present any of the evidence that supports the Chamberlain-Paugus showdown.

They do not seem to understand that 18th Century spoken but unpublished tradition had the power to transcend generations. To their credit, Kayworth and Potvin acknowledged the George W. Chamberlain evidence and gave a fair review.

Citing its unpublished tradition, historian Samuel A. Green in 1883 wrote: “The story of Lovewell’s Fight was for a long time repeatedly told in this neighborhood, (Groton, Massachusetts), and there is scarcely a person who has not from early infancy heard the particulars of that eventful conflict….Of this little Spartan band, seven belonged in this town; and one of them, John Chamberlain by name, distinguished himself by killing the Indian leader.”⁵

George W. Chamberlain’s case for John Chamberlain

Genealogist George W. Chamberlain presented, in his 1898 publication, his case for the John Chamberlain-Chief Paugus tradition. He asked these questions regarding the ballad, of unknown authorship, which mentioned Wyman as the one who shot Paugus.

If Wyman shot Paugus:

1. 1. Why did not the old people ascribe to Wyman this fact?
   2. Why did not Wyman’s neighbors accord that act to their own townsman?
   3. And why did not Wyman’s widow in her petition to the General Court in 1726, in giving the particulars of her husband’s military record, refer to his Paugus combat if the ballad story were true?¹

George Chamberlain’s point, of course, is that there has never been any claim or tradition made by Wyman’s family nor his towns people that the ballad story is true.

Known as “Paugus John” during his life time

In 1846, the Reverend Stephen Thompson Allen delivered a historical address at the centennial anniversary of the town of Merrimack, New Hampshire. In this address he mentioned one of the early settlers of that town. His name, Captain John Chamberlain a provincial representative of Merrimack from 1756 to 1775. In 1734, this John Chamberlain owned land at “Souhegan Falls” and erected the first mills there.

In his address Mr. Allen says: “It is by many supposed that this Chamberlain is the same that killed Paugus, the Indian Chief in Lovewell’s fight. But such is not the fact. They were cousins, and from a descendant of the family I learn that to distinguish them from each other, one was called “Paugus John” and the other “Souhegan John”.¹

In other words, John Chamberlain was known as “Paugus John” Chamberlain during his lifetime! One cousin was known as “Souhegan John” Chamberlain and the other cousin was known as “Paugus John” Chamberlain!

The Reverend Allen certainly knew what he was talking about. The two Johns were indeed cousins. One was the son of Thomas^T3, the other the son of Samuel and both were grandsons of Thomas Chamberlain^T2. And all of the other facts Allen presented about the John from Souhegan are verifiable and true.

Also, the descendant of John from Souhegan certainly would know their family history as it relates to the battle at Pequawket, for Souhegan John was married to Hannah Farwell the daughter of Lieutenant Josiah Farwell, and her mother’s brother was Captain John Lovewell!

What makes this story 100% credible to me, is the fact that no one is trying to claim credit for anything. It is all about giving credit were credit is due.

History of Groton, 1848

Caleb Butler, after many years of research, published his History of Groton in 1848. Page 104 gives the story John Chamberlain and Paugus.

Some time in the day the gun of John Chamberlain, of Groton, becoming foul by continued firing, he undertook to wash and cleanse it at the pond. While in this act, he espied Paugus, whom he personally knew, performing the same process upon his gun at a small distance. A challenge was immediately given and accepted, each confiding in his own dexterity, and predicting the speedy fall of his antagonist. Chamberlain, trusting to the priming of his gun by a thump on the ground, had time to take deliberate aim, while Paugus was priming his horn. Chamberlain’s ball reached Paugus’ heart just as he was in the act of firing. His ball passed over Chamberlain’s head.

As Butler Continues, he says that Wyman shot one who they believed to be the new chief.

After this event there was a short respite. The Indians withdrew. Ensign Wyman and Chamberlain crept unperceived after them, and found them formed in a circle around one in the center, whom they were qualifying, it was supposed, for a chief instead of the deceased Paugus. Wyman fired and killed this intended chief. Then both hastened back to their fellows at the pond.¹

An Indian Account of the Battle at Pequawket

In an Indian’s eye witness account, the English killed two of their chiefs during the battle. Butler’s written history is consistent with their version.

The daughter of Powack, a chief of the Penobscots, told the story of the Battle of Pequawket. The Penobscots and the Abenaki were allies in the Wabanake Confederacy. Generations retold this tale until written down and now in the book by Kayworth and Potvin.⁸

Powack wanted peace with the white man and called a council which sent him to the Pequawket. Powack took me (his daughter) and Little Elk, “brave me promised to”. While they were staying there, Paugus, “a big chief from another land” came to the village to recruit a raiding party against the English. He then led his warriors down the Saco River to the English settlements in Maine. Some of villagers stayed to fish at the south end of Saco Pond. They heard the gunfire from the battle.

“Paugus tell Powak he come on packs of white men. He count packs and know he has many more braves than whites so he attacks”

Powack and Little Elk remained at the battle while many of the of the Abenaki left the battle scene to return to the village.

“Long after moon is up, braves come to village only few. Say Paugus is killed, Powak is killed, Little Elk is killed.”

The remaining Indians from Pequawket moved to Canada and Powack’s daughter went with them until she found someone to take her back home.

Conspiracy theory creates another controversy

Was the date of the battle May 8 or May 9? Early newspapers and pamphlets published the date of the battle as Saturday, May 8. However, after Colonel Tyng debriefed Benjamin Hassell, he sent a written report to Governor Dummer with date of battle listed as May 9.

Fanny Hardy Eckstorm (1936)⁹ wrote an account about the date discrepancy accusing The Rev. Thomas Symmes, of purposefully falsifying the date to protect the Frye family from the infamy of Jonathan Frye the young chaplain.

The twenty-year-old Frye wanted to take a young bride. His father disapproved. Frye, therefore, needed the 100 pound bounty offered by the government for Indian scalps to carry out his marriage plans. His fellows offered him the first scalp to fulfill his dreams. They killed the first Indian in the morning the day of the battle.

If the battle was on Sunday May 9, the company’s chaplain, had taken a scalp on the Sabbath! Eckstrom asserted that this would certainly cause great embarrassment to the young chaplain’s family. Therefore, she presented this as the motive for Symmes falsifying the battle date in his sermon and subsequent publications.

Was there a cover-up and conspiracy?  Yes, according to Eckstrom, because all the early publications listed the battle date as Saturday May 8 and were never changed or disputed. In addition, three witnesses including Seth Wyman attested to the general validity of the Reverend’s statements, even though the date was contrary to May 9, which was considered to be the “official” date.¹⁰

Seven things to consider:

1- The date discrepancy between the official record and news reports had gone unchallenged until 1936. There was no controversy until Eckstrom made it a contorversy.¹⁰

2- The men held “Morning prayer” on the day of the battle. It was implied that this showed it was the Sabbath. However, prayer was a daily activity. They were religious men and they were in combat.

3- Benjamin Hassell gave the date of May 9 to Colonel Tyng.  He had been in the woods for the last twenty-six days. Could it be possible that he gave the wrong date?

4- Eckstrom called May 9th the “official” date.  Benjamin Hassell gave that date to Tyng who immediately sent it to the Governor.  Thus, a government official recorded the date as May 9. Does that therefore make it automatically correct?

5- Seth Wyman and others in the battle told their story to Thomas Symmes including the date of the fight. The day following this interview, on May 16, Symmes delivered his sermon. The three men had signed a document to attest to the truth of their story. Their date of May 8 did not match the date Hassell gave to Colonel Tyng. Does this necessarily mean there was a conspiracy to give a false date?

6- The battle date of May 8 was published and re-published.  Yet, no one contested it. Eckstrom, therefore, claimed there was a massive conspiracy to change the date from the “official” date of May 9. Isn’t it just possible that no one complained, simply because May 8 was the correct date?

7- Benjamin Hassell left the scene of the battle at about 10 am. He arrived at the fort the next morning, about 24 hours later. The distance from Fryeburg (the battle scene) to West Ossipee (the fort) is 25 miles. At this rate, how long would it take him and the other nine men to travel from West Ossipe, (the fort) to Nashua, NH (Dunstable) which is 98 miles, almost four times the distance?

The 98 mile trip would take three full days

The trip from the fort at Lake Ossipee to Dunstable would take at least three full days. (They took 18 days when coming other direction). If the battle was on May 8, Hassell arrived at the fort on May 9. The ten men then traveled on May 9, 10 and 11 and arrived in Dunstable that evening. This left Hassell enough time to write his explanation to the Governor dated May 11. The fifteen men who left after the battle took considerably longer, arriving at Dunstable on the 13th or the 15th.

If the battle was on Sunday May 9 as Eckstrom claims, Hassell arrived at the fort on the morning of the 10th. They would then have only 36 hours to get to Dunstable by the evening of May 11. This is an extremely unreasonable and unlikely possibility.

The date of the battle was Saturday May 8, 1725.

To be continued….. Chapter 8- The Revenge of the Son of Paugus

For more Chamberlain history stories see “Table of Contents”, or please click “Good Bye!”

© Copyright Dennis D. Chamberlain, All rights reserved. The Chamberlain Story, 2016.

1. George W. Chamberlain, John Chamberlain, The Indian Fighter a Pigwacket. Weymouth, Mass, 1898.
2. Thomas_Symmes, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/
3.  Pat Higgens, Lovewell’s Fight, http://www.mainestory.info/maine-stories
4.  Lovewell’s Fight 1725, https://www.scribd.com
5. Samuel A. Green, M.D., Groton and the Indian Wars, Groton Mass. 1883.
6. An Abenaki Account of the Battle, https://en.wikipedia.org
7. Battle of Pequawket, https://en.wikipedia.org
8. Alfred E. Kayworth and Ramond G. Potvin, The Scalp Hunteres, Abenaki Ambush at Lovewell’s Pond 1725, Brandon Books, Boston.
9. Fanny Hardy Eckstorm, Demolished Myths about the Fight, New England Quarterly, 1936.
10.  Alfred E. Kayworth and Ramond G. Potvin, The Scalp Hunteres, Abenaki Ambush at Lovewell’s Pond 1725, Brandon Books, Boston, p. 182.