"Pledged His Honor He Would March Not Above Thirty Rods" - The Salem Affair and What Happens When the Newbuyport Militia Goes on a Road Trip

Recently, The Boston Garrison approached the Nerds about writing a brief article about the "Salem Affair", which is considered one of the early acts of resistance of the American Revolution. Our essay appeared earlier this week on the Boston Garrison Facebook Page.

We are republishing our essay it in the event you may have missed it!

***

On February 26, 1775, there was a confrontation in the port town of Salem, Massachusetts that today is referred to as “The Salem Affair”. Although this event is often glossed over by many historians, the incident nearly triggered the start of the American Revolution and in turn, accelerated Massachusetts’ wartime preparations.

The Salem Affair was the result of General Thomas Gage’s desire to locate and recover four missing pieces of brass cannon. On the eve of the American Revolution, brass cannons were considered “weapons of mass destruction”. They were light, easily maneuverable and deadly. In September 1774, four of these weapons were stolen while under guard and smuggled out of Boston. In mid-February 1775 Gage received intelligence that “twelve pieces of Brass Cannon” were located in the seaport community of Salem. Shortly thereafter, he learned that the “Field pieces [were] in an old store, or Barn, near the landing place at Salem, … [and] are to be removed in a few days.”

The cannons in Salem were actually old iron French pieces that had been purchased in 1774 by Colonel David Mason of Salem. Afterwards, he had Robert Foster, a local blacksmith, mount them to carriages. The guns were then stored in Foster’s shop located along the North River.

The general was unaware of that the pieces were old iron guns and was convinced that the four missing brass cannons were stored in the seaport community. Desperate to recover them, he ordered Lt. Colonel Alexander Leslie and 240 men of His Majesty’s 64th Regiment of Foot to sail from Castle William in Boston Harbor to Marblehead. The strike force would then march four miles to Salem to seize the cannons.

At two o’clock in the afternoon of February 26th, a Royal Navy vessel anchored off the coast of Marblehead. Since it was a Sunday, many of the locals were attending afternoon religious services. The troops landed and commenced a quick march towards Salem.

Of course, the operation was almost immediately detected, and news reached Colonel Mason that “troops were marching into the town … to take possession of his guns”. In turn, Mason raced towards Foster’s blacksmith shop. En route, he stopped at Salem’s North Church to announce, “The regulars are coming after the guns!”. Many of the churchgoers assisted Mason and Foster in either hiding or relocating the cannons. Afterward, they raised a drawbridge over the North River, thereby preventing the regulars from gaining access to Foster’s blacksmith shop.

When Leslie’s strike force arrived, there was a tense standoff between the Salem residents and the troops. The colonel demanded that the drawbridge be lowered. Foster and Mason refused. In response, according to historian J.L. Bell, Leslie contemplated aloud whether he should order his troops to fire into the civilian crowd. Some of his soldiers tried to seize a pair of gondolas moored in the North River but the residents got to the boats first and purposely sunk them. Other regulars got into a shoving match with some of the townsmen, resulting in Joseph Whicher being slightly scratched with the tip of a bayonet.

At the height of the confrontation, Mason loudly announced that alarm riders had been dispatched and Essex militia companies would be converging on the town in mere hours. Violence seemed inevitable. Suddenly, the Reverend Thomas Barnard stepped forward to defuse the situation and negotiate a compromise. Aware that the cannons were long gone, Barnard suggested that the bridge be lowered. Leslie in turn “pledged his honor he would march not above thirty rods beyond it, and then immediately return”. The colonel would not search for the cannons. All parties agreed to the proposal, the 64th marched across the bridge and then marched for Marblehead empty-handed. The troops boarded their transport and sailed back to Boston.

General Gage would later report “The circumstance of the eight field pieces at Salem led us into a mistake, for supposing them to be brass guns brought from Holland, or some of the foreign isles, which report had also given reasons to suspect, a detachment of 400 men under Lieut. Col. Leslie was sent privately off by water to seize them. The places they were said to be concealed in were strictly searched, but no artillery could be found. And we have since discovered, that there had been only some old ship’s guns, which had been carried away from Salem some time ago.”

Of course, one of the more humorous stories that comes out the Salem Affair hails from Newburyport. On the eve of the American Revolution, Newburyport had no less than nine military companies in its community: four militia companies, two minute man companies, two “private” companies composed of the town’s elite, and one private artillery company that apparently was uniformed. In the late afternoon of February 26th, an alarm rider arrived in Newburyport with news of the Salem Affair. The nine military units all mobilized and marched for Salem. It appears the men advanced as far as Rowley when they received word that the confrontation was over. The Newburyport soldiers turned around and stopped at the first tavern they found. While there they raised their glasses to no less than 120 toasts and proceeded to drink the tavern dry. The men then promptly left without paying their tab. For the next two years, the poor tavern keep would write to the Newburyport selectmen asking for the town to reimburse him. At first, the town ignored his please but eventually the selectmen reluctantly agreed to repay the bill.

For more information on the Salem Affair and the four brass cannon, be sure to check out “The Road To Concord: How Four Stolen Cannon Ignited the Revolutionary War” By J.L. Bell

"A Frock and Trowsers, Spade and Hoe, Will Do For My Remaining Days" - Farmer's Frocks and April 19, 1775

Prior to the start of the 225th Anniversary celebrations of the American Revolution, a large number of New England reenactors turned to the wearing of “frocks”, instead of jackets and coats as their primary outer clothing garments. It appears the dual purpose of adopting frocks was to permit town organizations (i.e. local “minute man companies”) to quickly comply with the existing authenticity standards of the time, as well as provide a visual presentation of uniformity when needed.

This practice continued well past the 225th Anniversary reenactment of the Siege of Yorktown and only ceased when historians and researchers began to question whether or not militia and minutemen would have worn frocks during the various military engagements of 1775. Around 2010, Minute Man National Park and many other historical sites revised their authenticity standards and started to phase out the wearing of frocks by living history volunteers.

The purpose of this post is to once again examine the appropriateness of wearing frocks in battle reenactments and living history demonstrations that focus on the events of April 19, 1775 in light of current 

research. 

A frock (often erroneously called a “smock”) was an oversized shirt made out of heavy linen, wool or osnaburg that was worn by laborers, farmers, sailors and soldiers to protect their clothing from dust, tears, rips and bad weather while in the field or at work. 

Frocks were quite common in Europe. In the 1770 mezzotint entitled A Scene Near Cox Heath, or The Enraged Farmer a pitchfork-wielding farmer is depicted in a knee-length frock, flop hat, and farmer’s boots. However, sources do indicate that frocks were also in existence in New England on the eve of the American Revolution. To quote John Adams, “a frock and trowsers, spade and hoe, will do for my remaining days.” Ebenezer Blancher had on “frock and trowsers, over a dark homespun jacket and breeches” when he fled from his employer in 1770. Finally, period paintings also seem to support the existence of frocks in 18th century England and her colonies. In Copley’s Watson and the Shark, at least one of the sailors depicted is wearing a linen frock. 

A frock should not be confused with a hunting shirt. According to John Trumball, “you express apprehension that the rifle dress of General Morgan may be mistaken for a waggoner’s frock, which he, perhaps wore when on expedition with General Braddock; there is no more resemblance between the two dresses, than between a cloak and a coat; the waggoner’s frock was intended as the present cartman’s to cover and protect their other clothes and is merely a long coarse shirt reaching below the knee . . . the dress of the riflemen . . . was an elegant loose dress . . . with fringes in various locations.”

Given the documentation that frocks did exist in 18th century Massachusetts, the next logical question is whether frocks were considered fashionable clothing items to be worn at town meetings, religious gatherings and political protests or a piece of equipment limited in use to the field, along the docks, onboard a vessel or in a shop or mill. A review of probate inventories, period political cartoons and run away descriptions suggest that on the eve of the American Revolution frocks were little more than a coverall and were rarely worn outside of the workplace.

Probate records comprise all materials related to a deceased’s estate. Documents often found in probate records include wills, administration accounts and estate inventories. Of these documents, estate inventories are often the most significant as it lists a person’s possessions at death and their rated or fair market value. Interestingly, estate inventories from 18th Century Middlesex, Essex and Norfolk Counties reveal extensive information about male clothing and their worldly possessions and include a smattering of references to frocks. For example, an inventory of the estates of Jonas Parker of Lexington and Samuel McCall of Deerfield both list frocks as part of the deceased's' belongings. 

However, a review of runaway descriptions from 1745 to 1775 reveals ample evidence of frocks being worn by yeoman and laborers over other clothing for the purpose of keeping it clean. A casual search of runaway advertisements from Boston newspapers from those selected periods resulted in 34 results. A similar search of Newburyport area newspapers from 1773 to 1776 revealed six references to “frock”. For example, a 1746 advertisement in the Boston Gazette described “John Craister of Boston … had on when he went away a Frock over a cloth jacket and a red pair of breeches.” In 1770, a runaway advertisement in the same newspaper described a runaway laborer with a “brown fustian Frock, cloth colour’d waistcoat and leather breeches.” In October 1774, the Essex Journal and Merrimack Packet described a wanted loyalist, known only as “M. Cadegan”, as having fled Cambridge wearing a “waggoner’s frock”.

Finally, period paintings and cartoons support the theory that frocks were unlikely to be worn beyond the field or shop. For example, Revere’s Bloody Massacre depicts the Boston populace clad in jackets and frock coats. A 1773 print of a tarring and feathering of a government official in Boston shows a Boston mob clad in jackets and sailors coats but absent are frocks. The cartoon Political Electricity depicts the Boston working-class clad only in jackets. The 1774 print The Bostonians Paying the Excise Man or Tarring and Feathering shows five Bostonians assaulting a customs commissioner. The Bostonians are all wearing frock coats and sailor’s jackets. Even the simplistic drawing of the Battle of Lexington by Doolittle depicts the Lexington militiamen clad only in brown and blue coats. Not a single militiaman is wearing frocks. 

So, with that in mind, were frocks worn by Massachusetts militia on April 19, 1775? It was highly unlikely that frocks were worn by militia men from Central Middlesex County, including Lexington and Concord, due to the fact they were alarmed well before sunrise on April 19, 1775 and had time to change or dress in better clothing. In fact, there are multiple accounts from those towns of provincial soldiers wearing their best clothing to go out to meet the regulars. 

Of course, militia and minute companies located in Northern and Eastern Essex, Northwestern Middlesex, Worcester, Norfolk and Barnstable Counties all received the Lexington alarm much later - between 5 AM and Noon. One may argue that these militiamen were already working in the fields or shops when news of the British expedition arrived. The common assertion is many of these farmers and laborers immediately sprung into action, abandoned their plows and stores and raced to an appointed assembly site dressed in their work clothes. While such a scenario is plausible, there is also evidence that minute and militia companies from Andover, Haverhill, Amesbury, Newburyport, Ipswich, and Plymouth mobilized one to three hours after being alarmed. As a result, these men also had time to change into better clothing before marching to war.

More importantly, there are no period accounts describing provincials as fielding with smocks nor any petitions submitted to the Massachusetts Provincial Congress or the legislature by militiamen for lost or destroyed frocks on April 19th.

As an aside, even after the Battles of Lexington and Concord, there is little evidence that the Massachusetts Grand Army adopted frocks as part of a uniform appearance during the Siege of Boston. Although there is a single early 19th-century account of Connecticut troops donning blue frocks before marching to join the Battle of Bunker Hill, there are no known primary descriptions of New England troops adopting a uniform appearance via the wearing of frocks in 1775. 

In the Summer of 1775, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress met to discuss the issuance of uniforms for the provincial soldiers surrounding Boston. According to Henry Cooke, Congress chose to clothe these troops in “bounty coats”. These coats were modeled after common laborer jackets and from a “deliberate political standpoint represented the citizen soldier and America’s self-sufficiency in the face of England’s colonial policies.” Interestingly, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress never considered clothing its soldiers uniformly in frocks.

Given the above, the Nerds believe reenactors portraying militia and minute companies that mobilized on April 19, 1775, should continue to discourage the wearing of frocks from its ranks during battle reenactments or living history events commemorating the commencement of the American Revolution. 

Does not mean that frocks should be outright banned or excluded? Of course not. Instead, the Nerds would humbly suggest that this particular garment would be best utilized at living history events demonstrating fieldwork, laboring activities or perhaps maritime activities.

Nerds Note...If you are looking for a period-correct frock, we do recommend AHL Tailor & Naval Clothier. Adam’s site can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/AHLTailorNavalClothier/

"The Rank or Age of the Counties" - The Raising of the Massachusetts Grand Army of 1775

In the aftermath of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the British army found itself trapped; surrounded by an army of Massachusetts Yankees.

Over the next few days, scores of Bostonians discovered they were prohibited from fleeing the town. General Thomas Gage was fearful that if the residents were permitted to leave, they would provide material assistance to the American army. As a result, he issued orders barring residents from leaving Boston. Boston resident Sarah Winslow Deming despaired “I was Genl Gage's prisoner -- all egress, & regress being cut off between the town & country. Here again description fails. No words can paint my distress.” According to merchant John Rowe, Boston’s economy immediately collapsed. Businesses stopped operating and fresh provisions for market stopped coming into town. “Boston is in the most distressed condition.”

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and the Committee of Safety were confronted with their own dilemma. Within a very short period of time, the provincial army surrounding Boston began to slowly disappear. Regiments lacked any organization and soldiers were continuously coming and going. At first, militiamen left in small groups, and then by the hundreds, as lack of provisions along with the tug of responsibilities back home weakened their senses of duty. Artemas Ward, the overall commander of the American army besieging Boston, opined that soon he would be the only one left at the siege unless something was done. To meet this problem, the Provincial Congress agreed to General Ward’s requests that the men be formally enlisted for a given period of time. On April 23, 1775, the legislative body resolved to raise a “Massachusetts Grand Army of 13,600 men and appoint a Committee of Supplies to collect and distribute the necessary commodities.”

 

In undertaking this venture, Massachusetts turned to the model it had followed to attract recruits for provincial regiments during the French and Indian War. When the Massachusetts government appointed a regimental colonel to serve in the French and Indian War, he was given a packet of blank commissions for officers that he could dispense as he saw fit. Often, commissions would be contingent upon the prospective officers’ success in recruiting men. To secure enlistments of private soldiers, junior officers often made arrangements with prospective non-commissioned officers, promising posts as sergeants or corporals in return for their assistance in recruiting drives. While many recruiters operated within the confines of their own minute man or militia regiment that fought on April 19th, recruiters were also authorized to beat their drums anywhere in the province to enlist volunteers. Local militia officers were prohibited from interfering with beating orders and required to muster their companies and assist the colonel and his prospective officers with the drafting of recruits.

For example, between May 4 and May 8, 1775, recruiters arrived in Lexington. Over the next four days, twenty men from Lexington enlisted in a company commanded by Woburn’s John Wood. The company was to be part of Colonel Samuel Gerrish’s Regiment. In exchange for his enlistment, which was to expire at the end of December 1775, each man was paid £5 and promised a bounty of a coat. 

After the regiments were raised and certified, they were adopted into the Massachusetts Grand Army and assigned regimental numbers. It appears that the regiments were assigned regimental numbers based upon the “rank or age of the counties” from which they were raised. As a result, the regimental numbering of the Massachusetts Grand Army appears to be as followed during the early months of the Siege of Boston:

Regiment	Numerical Assignment	Date Certified	Regimental Strength at Certification
Samuel Gerrish’s Regiment	25	May 19, 1775	421
Ebenezer Learned’s Regiment	14	May 19, 1775	N/A
Joseph Read’s Regiment	6	May 20, 1775	N/A
James Scammon’s Regiment	13	May 24, 1775	396
John Thomas’ Regiment	2	May 26, 1775	N/A
Artemus Ward’s Regiment	1	May 26, 1775	449
Thomas Gardner’s Regiment	15	May 26, 1775	425
John Patterson’s Regiment	12	May 26, 1775	422
William Prescott’s Regiment	9	May 26, 1775	456
Theophilus Cotton’s Regiment	4	May 26, 1775	N/A
Ebenezer Bridge’s Regiment	11	May 26, 1775	315
Asa Whitcomb’s Regiment	5	May 26, 1775	470
James Frye’s Regiment	10	May 26, 1775	493
Ephraim Doolittle’s Regiment	18	May 26, 1775	308
Timothy Walker’s Regiment	3	May 26, 1775	N/A
Timothy Danielson’s Regiment	8	May 26, 1775	N/A
John Mansfield’s Regiment	7	May 27, 1775	345
John Fellows’ Regiment	17	May 29, 1775	N/A
John Nixon’s Regiment	16	June 2, 1775	224

John Glover’s Regiment	23	June 7, 1775	N/A
William Heath’s Regiment	21	June 14, 1775	N/A
David Brewer’s Regiment	20	June 17, 1775	N/A
Jonathan Brewer’s Regiment	19	June 17, 1775	318
Benjamin Woodbridge’s Regiment	22	N/A but likely certified after the Battle of Bunker Hill	242
Moses Little’s Regiment	24	N/A but likely certified after the Battle of Bunker Hill	400
Richard Gridley’s Regiment	Artillery, no regimental number assigned	N/A but likely certified after the Battle of Bunker Hill	370

Following General Washington’s assumption of command, the Commander in Chief made it quite clear that his mission was to turn the various forces assembled around Boston into a unified army. On July 22, 1775, Washington attempted to impose a more rational organizational structure by issuing orders dividing the American army into three divisions of six brigades each. As a result, most of the Massachusetts Grand Army regiments were renumbered to reflect this change.

"Fight For Your Brethren, Your Sons, and Your Daughters, Your Wives, and Your Houses" - Captain Samuel Thatcher's Cambridge Militia on April 19, 1775

Recently, the Nerds have been receiving several inquiries regarding Captain Samuel Thatcher’s Company. Thatcher’s Company was a Cambridge based militia company that mobilized on April 19, 1775. Available information about Thatcher’s Company is somewhat lacking but the unit has generated some recent interest given the unit was able to pursue the retreating British column across three towns.

So what do we know at this point about Thatcher’s Company?

The unit was composed of seventy-seven privates, corporals, sergeants, musicians and commissioned officers from West Cambridge. Present in the ranks were two enslaved men and three Harvard scholars. Thatcher’s Company belonged to the 1st Middlesex Regiment of Foote, a militia regiment composed of companies from Waltham, Lexington, Menotomy, Charlestown, Medford, Malden, Cambridge, Newton, Watertown and Weston. The 1st Middlesex’s commander was Thomas Gardner of Watertown.

The company was commanded by forty-three-year-old Captain Samuel Thatcher. Thatcher's family had occupied their homestead, located near the present intersection of Mount Auburn Street and Coolidge Avenue, for three generations and held prominent political positions in the town. According to local tradition, Thatcher and his father may have been both weavers by trade. His wife, Mary Brown, was from Lexington and two of his sons would go on to study at Harvard University. On December 14, 1772, he was voted in as a member of Cambridge’s Committee of Correspondence. On October 26, 1774, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress decided to wrest control of the colony’s militia away from those loyalist officers who commanded it and ordered the militias to “meet forthwith and elect officers to command their respective companies; and that the officers so chosen assemble as soon as may be . . . and proceed to elect field officers.” Shortly thereafter, Samuel Thatcher was quickly elected Captain of the town’s militia company.

By March, 1775, Thatcher’s Company was on a wartime footing and actively drilling and practicing military maneuvers. At the same time, several Cambridge residents were busy making cartridge boxes, belting, bayonets, and modifying fowling pieces for the men of the unit.

As with Lexington’s Reverend Jonas Clarke, Cambridge’s Reverend Samuel Cooke served as the company’s spiritual leader and reminded Thacher’s men that in God’s eyes, their actions were just. As Cooke instructed, “Be not ye afraid of them; remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses … These instruments of death, taken up only for our necessary defence under alarming threats, we heartily wish and pray may not be prepared for the day of battle, but a happy means to prevent the conflicting warriors, confused noise, and garments rolled in blood. Similar preparations for defence to those now making through this land, happily operated to the complete deliverance of the Jews, without the hazard of an engagement. And this instance is recorded for our encouragement, while we are satisfied our cause is just … The steps directed by the grand Continental Congress we have attended to, trusting, under God, for safety in their judicious and united counsels. But their loyal and spirited address to the throne appears to have proved ineffectual. It remains for us to pursue the measures with vigor, they have advised to, as our last resort ...There at present appears no other choice left us, but either tamely to sit down and surrender our lives and properties, our wives and children, our religion and consciences, to the arbitrary will of others, o, trusting in God, to stand up in our own defence, and of the British Constitution."

In theory, Thatcher’s Company was one of the more actively engaged Massachusetts military units that saw combat on April 19th. The unit assembled and mobilized sometime shortly after the Battle of Lexington. It is speculated that Thatcher’s Company then conducted a forced march to the Lincoln-Lexington town line and set up an ambush position somewhere between Parker’s Revenge and Fiske Hill. Some 19th and early 20th Century historians have asserted that the Cambridge men actually joined Captain John Parker’s Lexington Company when it ambushed the British column as it retreated from Concord. More likely, however, the unit set up an ambush position on or near Fiske Hill.

After the initial attack, Thatcher’s Company continued to pursue and engage the column as it passed through Lexington, Menotomy and its own town of Cambridge. According to a mileage claim later submitted by the company, CaptainThatcher and his men covered a total of twenty-eight miles on April 19th. Miraculously, the unit suffered no casualties.

Thatcher and many of his men also participated in the Siege of Boston. At the Battle of Bunker Hill, the unit entered the contest during the third British assault on the American position. When Colonel Thomas Gardner fell following a direct artillery hit, Thatcher assumed command of the entire militia regiment.

We’ll keep researching this unit and see what additional information we can find. Of course, if you have any information about Captain Samuel Thatcher’s Company and its role on April 19th, feel free to point us in the right direction!

"Never Exchanged and Did Not Again Enter the Service" - Bethiah Hastings and Her Older Brother Samuel

The Hastings Family of 18th Century Lexington is near and dear to the Nerds’ hearts. Three of the male family members served with Captain John Parker’s Company and saw combat on April 19, 1775. Resident Nerd Alexander Cain portrayed Samuel Hastings Jr. at the annual Battle of Lexington reenactment for over twenty years before taking on the role of Jonas Parker.

So, when the Lexington Historical Society released a blog post sharing a c. 1774 sampler made by then eight-year-old Bethiah Hastings, we were legitimately excited. Of course, when J.L. Bell of Boston 1775 followed up with his own article about Bethiah and the Hastings men who served during the American Revolution, the Nerds realized the gauntlet had been thrown down and we had the responsibility to utter the phrase “challenge accepted!”

So we decided we should share our own little nugget of information on the Hastings Family.

As Boston 1775 correctly pointed out, at the time of the Battle of Lexington, two of Bethiah’s older brothers and her father were members of Captain John Parker’s Company. Two of the men, Samuel Sr. and Isaac, were present at the Battle of Lexington. It is likely that the third, Samuel Hastings Jr., was not present at the morning engagement, but did fight later in the afternoon at Parker’s Revenge.

An uncorroborated family legend from the late 19th or early 20th Century suggests that following the Battle of Lexington, Bethiah, her mother and all of her siblings who were not part of Parker’s Company fled from their home located along the Boston Road and sought safety in the woods some distance away. When the family returned home in the early evening, they encountered a wounded grenadier lying on their front door step. The family cared for the soldier until he expired three days later. Prior to burying the soldier behind their home, the Hastings family discovered their silverware hidden in the lining of his coat. Nevertheless, the family provided a proper burial.

While a fascinating story, it does appear that the discovery of the wounded soldier was just that - a story. There are no period records or accounts of the family encountering a wounded soldier. More importantly, the Hastings’ homestead was not located on the Boston Road near the Lincoln and Lexington lines as many 19th and 20th Century accounts claim. Instead, it appears the homestead was further in the interior of Lexington and away from the fighting. The first time the wounded soldier account appeared was in Coburn’s publication describing the events of April 19th.

As frightening as the events of that day must have been on Bethiah, it must have been equally troubling to learn the fate of her brother Samuel the following year.

In December 1775, Samuel Hastings Jr. enlisted in the Continental Army. However, unlike most men from Lexington who joined Captain John Wood's Company of Loammi Baldwin's 26th Continental Regiment, Hastings enlisted in the Captain Nathaniel Wade's Company of Colonel Moses Little's 12th Continental Regiment.

Because of his size and agility, Samuel Hastings was quickly transferred to General Charles Lee’s “life guards”. Along with over a dozen other soldiers, Samuel was responsible for protecting General Lee from harm. Hastings served as the general's bodyguard in New York, Philadelphia and Yorktown, Pennsylvania. While in Yorktown, the young man became infected with smallpox and was hospitalized. Upon his recovery, Samuel rejoined the general.

On the night of December 12, 1776 Lee, his staff, and his bodyguards stopped for the night at White's Tavern in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. The tavern was approximately three miles away from where his army was encamped. The next morning, a British patrol of two dozen mounted soldiers appeared, found Lee, and captured him.

In a December 19, 1776 letter to his wife Mary, Massachusetts Colonel Loammi Baldwin recounted the capture of American General Charles Lee. "General Lee was taking by a party of the Enemy's Light Horse about 5 or 6 miles in the Rear of our Army, a French officer was taken with him, but nobody else. I think he is chargable with the highest degree of imprudence for suffering himself to be at such a distance from his Army when he knew he was amongst some of the most iveterate Tories and the Publick Enemy nigh at hand."

Baldwin's letter asserted that only a "French officer" was taken with Lee. In reality, the general had upwards of thirty men with him prior to his capture. Most fled the tavern when the British troopers approached. However, by the time the raid was over, the general, his aides, and a bodyguard were prisoners of the Crown.

The bodyguard was Bethiah’s teenage brother Samuel.

According to a 19th Century pension application from Samuel Hastings and supporting documentation from superior officers and Lexington residents, he was present at General Lee's capture at Basking Ridge. Although most of the general’s life guard fled, Hastings apparently stood firm. Documentation in the pension file is vague, but post-war accounts suggest that he may have received a saber slash to the head prior to being captured.

As an enlisted man, Hastings was immediately separated from Lee and sent to Trenton, New Jersey. Afterward, he was imprisoned in New York City with soldiers captured at Fort Washington. It is likely he was incarcerated in a sugar house on Crown (now Liberty) Street. According to fellow prisoner Elias Cornelius, conditions in the sugar house were deplorable. “The top of the House was open to the weather, so that when it rained the water ran along and through every floor and on that account it was impossible for us to keep dry. . . 4 pounds of poor Irish Pork and 4 pounds of mouldy bread for 4 days . . . a hideous place."

Hastings remained a prisoner for at least a year before being released and allowed to return home. The stress, uncertainty, and emotional toll on Bethiah and her family during the time of Samuel’s captivity were likely very difficult.

Samuel's next recorded event, was his marriage to Lydia Nelson in Lexington on October 1, 1778.

Hastings later asserted in his pension application that he was "never exchanged and did not again enter the service." Letters from neighbors in support of Hastings’ pension claim from neighbors state Hastings often declined to enlist in subsequent military campaigns because he was on "parole".

After the conclusion of the American Revolution, Samuel served as a town selectman, managed his farm, and raised twelve children. Samuel Hastings was also instrumental in forming the Lexington Artillery Company. The artillery company was formed after the Revolutionary War and existed until 1847 when it was disbanded for lack of participation and interest on the part of its members. Samuel served as the company’s major.

The artillery used three areas for their target practice. The first was firing over the railroad crossing toward Granny's Hill (presumably the crossing over Meriam Street toward Round Hill Street and Oakmont Circle); the second from where Forrest Street is now located toward the junction of Middlebury Road and Outlook Drive; and the third from where St. Brigid's Church is now located toward “the hill near the house of Mr. Robinson.”

Sadly, as Boston 1775 pointed out, Bethiah died at age twenty and likely never saw the personal and political accomplishments of her brother following the American Revolution.