18th Century

1773 — Smallpox Epidemic, Philadelphia (~300), Marblehead (~3) & Salem (17), MA– ~321

Massachusetts            ( ~21)

—    1  Beverly, Nov 11. William Patch buried after death from smallpox.[1]

—  ~3  Marblehead, (“a few died.”. New England Historical Society. “The 1730…1774…Riots.”[2]

—>17  Salem. Duffy. Epidemics in Colonial America. 1953, p. 68.[3]

 

Philadelphia, PA       (300)

–>300  Duffy. Epidemics in Colonial America. 1953, p. 100.

—  300  Schultz, Suzanne M.  “Epidemics in Colonial Philadelphia from 1699-1799…” 2007.[4]

 

Narrative Information

 

Duffy: “Both Salem and Marblehead were subject to smallpox in 1773. One church record in the former town lists 17 deaths from the disorder, a fact which would indicate 80 to 90 or more cases….”[5] (Duffy. Epidemics in Colonial America. 1953, p. 68.)

 

“In the latter year [1773] the Philadelphia Bills of Mortality show that over three hundred smallpox deaths occurred. ‘As the chief of them were the Children of poor People,’ a newspaper account stated, ‘a Number of Gentlemen in that City have formed a Society for inoculating the Poor, free of Expense to them, and are providing a Fund for that Purpose.’”[6] (Duffy. Epidemics in Colonial America. 1953, p. 100)

 

New England Historical Society: “….In June 1773, a small epidemic again struck Marblehead [another in 1730]. Two months later the town debated building a public inoculation hospital on one of the islands in the harbor. The proposal failed, but the town did permit four prominent citizens to build a private hospital on Cat Island.[7]….They bought Cat Island on Sept. 2, 1773 and began building the hospital. Three groups of patients were inoculated during the last three months of the year. Most survived, but a few died.

 

“The furious townspeople began rioting for several days. They blackened their faces, burned a small boat that brought supplies to the hospital and broke the windows of the proprietors’ homes. In January [1774], four Marbleheaders were caught stealing contaminated clothing from Cat Island, presumably to spread the epidemic and discredit the hospital….” (New England Historical Society. “The 1730 and 1774 Marblehead Riots Against Smallpox Inoculation.”)

 

Sources

 

Duffy, John. Epidemics in Colonial America. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1953.

 

New England Historical Society. “The 1730 and 1774 Marblehead Riots Against Smallpox Inoculation.” Accessed 3-27-2018 at: http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/1730-1774-marblehead-riots-smallpox-inoculation/

 

Schultz, Suzanne M. “Epidemics in Colonial Philadelphia from 1699-1799 and The Risk of Dying.”  Early America Review, Winter/Spring 2007. Accessed 1-9-2018 at:  https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/early-america-review/volume-11/early-american-epidemics

Also at: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2007_winter_spring/epidemics.html

 

Vital Records of Beverly, Massachusetts, To the end of the Year 1849 (Vol. II, Marriages and Deaths). Topsfield, MA: Topsfield Historical Society, 1907. Google preview accessed 2-12-2017 at: https://books.google.com/books?id=ayaF0vm1AMIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

[1] Vital Records of Beverly Massachusetts to the End of the Year 1849 (Vol. II), 1907, p. 523.

[2] In order to take note of and for the purposes of a tally, we translate “a few died” into approximately three.

[3] In write “at least” 17 deaths in that this is the number of deaths noted on the record of one church.

[4] Cites Roslyn S. Wolman. “A tale of two colonial cities:  inoculation against smallpox in Philadelphia and Boston,” Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Vol. 45, October 1978, p. 340.

[5] Cites, in footnote 48, “Description of Salem,” in Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, Ser. 1, VI (1800), 276-77); Boston Evening Post, No. 1981, September 13, 1773; Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter, No, 1657, November 4, 1773.

[6] Cites, in footnote 61, Massachusetts  Gazette and Boston Post Boy and Advertiser, No. 861, February 14-21, 1774.

[7] Shows a photo and notes the island is now referred to as Childrens Island [at least as of 2016].

1772 — Measles Epidemics, Charleston, SC (800-900), Philadelphia, PA (180) –980-1,080

Boston

–?  “…in 1772…measles was a leading cause of death in Boston…” Hinman and Orenstein, p70

 

Charleston, SC

–800-900  Grob. The Deadly Truth: A History of Disease in America. 2002, p. 79.

–800-900  Webster. A Brief History of Epidemic and Pestilential Diseases (V. 1). 1799, p. 259.

—       900+ Krawczynski. Daily Life in the Colonial City. 2013, p. 424.[1]

 

Philadelphia, PA

–180 (out of population of about 29,000). Anroman. Chapter 2 in Zuckerman, 2014, p. 25.[2]

 

Narrative Information

 

Anroman: “…Philadelphia’s every-growing population provided a constant pool of susceptible individuals, creating the necessary environment for measles epidemics to occur. In her analysis of Philadelphia’s bills of mortality, Klepp (1998b, 1991)[3] notes that two of the most severe epidemics occurred in 1759 and 1772. In 1759, the population of Philadelphia was just over 18,000 people. That year, approximately 113 deaths were attributed to measles. By 1772, the population had grown to approximately 29,000; 180 deaths were recorded for measles.”

 

Grob: “In 1772 and 1773, Noah Webster reported, ‘the measles appeared in all parts of America, with unusual mortality,’ Though mild in New England, it was devastating in Charleston. According to Webster, as many as 800 to 900 children died in the city (out of a total population of 14,000). Although Webster’s figures may have been grossly inflated, they do suggest the potential severity of the disease.”[4]

 

Hinman and Orenstein: ““…in 1772…measles was a leading cause of death in Boston…”

 

Webster: “M.S. letter from Dr. Tufts. In this year [1772],[5] the measles appeared in all parts of America, with unusual mortality. In Charleston, S. Carolina, died 8 or 900 children.” (Webster, Noah. A Brief History of Epidemic and Pestilential Diseases (Vol. 1). 1799, p. 259.)

 

Sources

 

Anroman, Gilda. Chapter 2: “Infectious Disease in Philadelphia, 1690-1807: An Ecological Perspective.” Pp. 15-34 in Zuckerman, Molly K. (ed.). Modern Environments and Human Health: Revisiting the Second Epidemiologic Transition. Wiley Blackwell. 2014.

 

Grob, Gerald N. The Deadly Truth: A History of Disease in America. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College, Harvard University Press, 2002. Partially Google digitized at: http://books.google.com/books?id=U1H5rq3IQUAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Hinman, Alan R. and Walter A. Orenstein. “A Shot at Protection: Immunizations Against Infectious Disease.” Chapter 4 in Silent Victories: The History and Practice of Public Health in Twentieth Century America (John W. Ward and Christian Warren, eds.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2007. Google preview accessed 1-11-2018 at: https://books.google.com/books?id=YPYRDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Krawczynski, Keith. Daily Life in the Colonial City. Santa Barbara, CO and Denver: Greenwood (An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC), 2013. Google preview accessed 1-8-2018 at: https://books.google.com/books?id=E_QgVyPcmIAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Webster, Noah. A Brief History of Epidemic and Pestilential Diseases…(in two volumes). Hartford, DT: Hudson & Goodwin, 1799, p. 203. Accessed 1-7-2018 at: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N27531.0001.001/1:11?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

 

Zuckerman, Molly K. (ed.). Modern Environments and Human Health: Revisiting the Second Epidemiologic Transition. Wiley Blackwell. 2014. Google preview accessed 1-11-2018 at: https://books.google.com/books?id=EdYVAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=measles&f=false

 

 

[1] From Table 12.1. Epidemics in the Cities.

[2] We have seen references to measles in Philadelphia in 1773, but without an estimate of mortality.

[3] SE Klepp. Philadelphia in Transition: A Demographic History of the City and its Occupational Groups, 1720-1830. (New York” Garland Publishing, Inc., 1989; SE Klepp. “Demography in early Philadelphia, 1690-1860.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 133, 1989, pp. 85-111; SE Klepp. “The Swift Progress of Population”: A Documentary and Bibliographic Study of Philadelphia’s Grown, 1642-1859. (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society).

[4] Grob cites, in footnote 16: Caulfield, “Early Measles Epidemics,” pp. 538-545; Noah Webster, A Brief History of Epidemic and Pestilential Diseases, 2 vols. (Hartford: Hudson & Goodwin, 1799), 1: 259-260.

[5] The lines before and after this entry are devoted to the year 1772.

1771 — May 27, Flooding, esp. James, Rappahannock Riv., Richmond & Henrico Co., VA–~150

—  150  Blanton, et al. in Historical Climate Variability and Impacts in North America. 2009, 16.

–~150  Griggs. Historic Disasters of Richmond. 2016, p. 15.

–~150  Henrico County Historical Society.

–~150  Historical Marker Database, The Flood of 1771.

 

Narrative Information

 

Blanton, Chenoweth and Mock: “This chapter describes the causes and effects of a catastrophic flood on the south Atlantic seaboard early in US history…In Virginia it has been referred to as the Great Fresh of 1771, regarded as perhaps the most catastrophic flood in the region’s history. Our purpose is to offer a more complete account and analytical explanation of the flood itself, and to explore it social, economic, and political implications. The historical sources we draw on are collected not only from Virginia where prior attention has been focused, but from wherever relevant observations were recorded, extending as far southward as Florida and as far northward as Massachusetts. We also bring to bear the perspective of synoptic climatology to reconstruct the weather pattern that accounts for this unusual late spring event. Finally, we attempt to digest existing historical perspectives from colonial Virginia to offer a fuller interpretation of the flood’s meaning at this formative stage in colonial history. The larger goal is to use this case as a means of exploring the place of natural climatic events in human affairs…

 

“A variety of sources allow us to establish the basic facts surrounding the May 1771 flood including personal correspondence and journal entries, official records and correspondence, and newspaper accounts. The great weight of the material is attributed to observers in eastern Virginia, either in the vicinity of towns like Richmond at the falls of rivers, or toward the coast in Tidewater…The same is true of the information from South Carolina, where most reports come from the more populous Low Country districts…. [p. 4]

 

“Based on several reports that put the first visible rise of the water at Richmond on May 25, the deluge in the Virginia mountains would have occurred between about May 14-26. The peak flood stage at all of Virginia’s fall line towns was on May 27…)Virginia Gazette, 1771a, 1771b; Van Horne, 1975; The Farmer’s Register, 1836). Geographically the extent of flooding appears to have been vast, extending at least through the Carolinas and over Virginia… Rivers specifically noted at flood stage in late May were the Savannah, Pee Dee, Wateree, Congaree, Yadkin, Roanoke, Rivanna, James, Pamunkey, Mattaponi, Rappahannock, and Shenandoah, ordered from south to north respectively…. [p. 6]

 

“Reported maximum flood levels in 1771 are impressive and at least in Virginia are not matched in official records (Camp and Miller, 1970; [1]  Bailey et al., 1975[2]). At Richmond the James River floodwater maximum was marked at 40 ft (12.9 m) above normal level (Bland, 1771;[3] The Virginia Gazette, 1771b). At Osborne’s about 10 miles (16.09 km) below Richmond the water level reached ‘five or six lengths of shingles upon the roofs’ (The Maryland Gazette, 1771). Given in relative terms, the peak level at the Fall Line was most commonly noted as 20-25 ft…above the previously observed ‘old record’, probably set in May 1766 (The Virginia Gazette, 1771a). A single account measures the relative height as 10 ft…above the flood levels recalled uncertainly from August ‘1720 or 1724’ (The Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser, 1771.)…. [p. 7]

 

“On the Roanoke River, the 1771 flood is cited as 9 ft…above the previous all-time high mark (The New London Gazette, 1771a)…. [p. 8]

 

“Of all states affected, Virginia sustained the greatest losses from the 1771 flood, and the physical damage compounded already-existing economic and political strains….at the time of the great flood a significant portion of the colony’s wealth was collected at riverside warehouses, and each of the…facilities was affected….. [p. 15]

 

“….An estimated 150 persons drowned in Virginia and regionally economic losses were great. Along with prized floodplain soils, crops and facilities of every description were washed away or damaged. Richard Bland wrote in a letter that, ‘Promiscuous heaps of houses, trees, men, horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, merchandize, corn, tobacco and every other thing…were seen floating upon the water’ (Bland, 1771)….” [p. 16]  (Blanton, Chenoweth and Mock. “The Great Flood of 1771: An Explanation of Natural Causes and Social Effects.” Pages 3-22 in Historical Climate Variability and Impacts in North America. (Dupigny-Giroux and Mock, editors). 2009.)

 

Dupigny-Giroux and Mock: “The regional case studies open with ‘The Great Flood of 1771: An Explanation of Natural Causes and Social Effects’ by Blanton et al. that uses synoptic reanalysis and historical sources to explore the human and societal ramifications of a catastrophic flood along the eastern Atlantic seaboard in May 1771 on the eve of the American Revolution. The study serves to highlight the disproportionate toll of natural hazards on lower income populations as a result of mobility, housing locations and access to resources, a finding that is as true today as it was three centuries ago.” (Dupigny-Giroux and Mock, eds. Historical Climate Variability and Impacts in North America. 2009, p. xii.

 

Griggs: “….By most accounts, the worst flood in Richmond’s history came as a surprise on May 27, 1771. It was not raining in Richmond when the flood surged down the James River and inundated the River City. Unbeknownst to most Richmonders, it had been raining for ten or twelve days in the mountains, and the water was flooding the rivers. Soon, Richmonders saw that the James River had risen above all previous flood levels and was overflowing its banks…the water rose to a height of forty feet above flood stage….It swept through Richmond, destroying buildings and boats and killed about 150 people.

 

Henrico County Historical Society. “On May, 27, 1771, a wall of water came roaring down the James River valley following ten to twelve days of intensive rain.  As water swept through Richmond, buildings, boats, animals and vegetation were lost.  About one hundred fifty people were killed as the river reached a flood state of forty-five feet above normal.  A monument to the flood was inscribed by Ryland Randolph, of Curles, in 1771-71:

 

“…all the great rivers of this country were swept by inundations never before experienced

which changed the face of nature and left traces of violence that will remain for ages.”

 

“The marker recalls the events of the Great Fresh of 1771, the biggest flood to affect the James River valley in our recorded history. The marker suggests a flood stage of 45 feet. The level upriver at Richmond was 40 feet above normal, a level not even approached by the flood caused by Hurricane Camille in 1972.  That “fresh” reached a level of 36.5 feet above normal at Richmond.

 

“The marker also refers to the eighteen-foot-tall obelisk on a six-foot square base, constructed of brick and faced with cement. The eighteenth century monument at Turkey Island purportedly marks the high-water mark of the flood.

 

“Contemporary accounts confirm that it was quite a flood. A letter to the Virginia Gazette of May 30, 1771, said:

 

There is now the greatest Fresh in James River even known, it being at least twenty Feet higher than that in May 1766. The Warehouses at Westham are entirely gone, with three Hundred Hogsheads of Tobacco. At Byrd’s Warehouses, the Water is now Half Way up the Lower Tier of Hogsheads; the other Warehouses of Shocko are almost under Water, and the Tobacco drifting away by thirty and forty Hogsheads at a Time. It is imagined there might have been about three Thousand Hogsheads in the different Warehouses at Shocko. Almost every Lumber House is gone, and destroyed, on each Side of the River, many of them full of Good.

 

“The magazine account continues:

 

Some People who left Richmond the same Day, in the Afternoon, say that the River was then rising at the Rate of two Inches an Hour, but we since learn, that it began to abate about Sunset.

 

All the low Ground have been overflowed, by which inconceivable Damage has been done. Every Thing was carried off to Farrar’s Island, belonging to Colonel Thomas Mann Randolph, and at Elk Island, John Wayles, Esquire, is said to have suffered to the Amount of four thousand Pounds. Nothing being saved but the People and five Horses…

 

The Ships in the River were in most imminent Danger, from the vast Number of huge Trees driving down the Rapidity of the Current, and many of them have sustained great Damage. The Ships at Shirley Hundred were driven from their Mooring over to City Point, and those at City Point down as low as Jordan’s.

 

“The estimate was a bit off, and the river was really rising on May 26 at a rate of 19 inches per hour. On June 6, 1771, John Howard of Botetourt wrote to Dr. William Cabell in Amherst:

 

I received last night by my Fellow Cato accounts of the dismal Destruction made in  James River by the late Fresh, in which I share very deeply, and I understand all my Crop of Tobacco that was growing is ruined as well as all that was in the Tobacco Houses about 6 Hogsheads, together with all my Tobacco Houses except one, are swept away, and 13 Hogsheads that were sent to the Warehouse, or Westham, I suppose are gone, as I hear the water was over both places, my Corn House with the Corn swept away, & some of my stock, and it is owing to the great goodness of God that my People are all alive.

 

“On August 1, 1771, Richard Bland wrote to Thomas Adams:

 

Upon the 27th of May a most dreadful Inundation happened in James, Rappahannock and

Roanoke Rivers occasioned by very heavy and incessant Rains upon the mountains for ten or twelve days…Promiscous Heaps of Houses, Trees, Men, Horses, Cattle, Sheep, Hogs, Merchandise, Corn, Tobacco & every other Thing that was unfortunately within the dreadful sweep were see [sic] Floating upon the Waters, without a possibility of their being saved.

 

“Obviously, the flood was devastating, and it prompted the Assembly to issue 30,000 pounds in Treasurer notes for the tobacco lost at public warehouses.”[4]

 

Historical Marker Database, Inscription:  “On May 27, 1771, a wall of water came roaring down the James River valley following ten to twelve days of intensive rain. As water swept through Richmond, buildings, boats, animals, and vegetation were lost. About one hundred fifty people were killed as the river reached a flood stage of forty-five feet above normal. A monument to the flood was inscribed by Ryland Randolph…in 1771-72: ‘… all the great rivers of this country were swept by inundations never before experienced which changed the face of nature and left traces of violence that will remain for ages’.”  (Historical Marker Database, The Flood of 1771.)

 

Sources

 

Blanton, Dennis B., Michael Chenoweth and Cary J. Mock. “The Great Flood of 1771: An Explanation of Natural Causes and Social Effects.” Pages 3-22 in Historical Climate Variability and Impacts in North America. (Lesley-Ann Dupigny-Giroux and Cary J. Mock, editors). Springer, 2009. Google preview accessed 9-4-2018 at: https://books.google.com/books?id=fNuOhA8SKjsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=1771&f=false

 

Griggs, Walter S. Jr. “Chapter 1: Two Floods Two Hundred Years Apart, 1771 and 1972.” Historic Disasters of Richmond. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2016. Google preview accessed 9-3-2018 at: https://books.google.com/books?id=KjSACwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Henrico County Historical Society, Henrico, VA. News 2011, First Quarter. “Forty Foot High (And Rising?) Flood levels of the Great Fresh of 1771 still stand as a record…” Accessed 9-4-2018 at: http://www.henricohistoricalsociety.org/news2011.firstquarter.html

 

Historical Marker Database. The Flood of 1771. (Contribued by Kathy Walker, Stafford, VA, July 17, 2008). Accessed at: http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=9248


 

[1] J. D. Camp and E. M. Miller. Flood of August 1969 in Virginia. Water Resources Division, Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Richmond, Virginia, 1970.

[2] J. F. Bailey, J. L. Patterson, and J. L. H. Paulhus. Hurricane Agnes Rainfall and Floods, June-July 1972. Geological Survey Professional Paper 924. US Geological Survey and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, 1975.

[3] R. Bland. Letter from Richard Bland to Thomas Adams, August 1, 18771. Adams Family Papers, Mss 1, Ad98a12-167, Sec 6 (B) Folder 2 of 7, The Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, 1771.

[4] Cites:  Williams and Mary Quarterly, vol. 5, 1897; Dupigny-Giroux, Lesley-Ann and Gary J. Mock, eds. Historical Climate Variability and Impacts in North America; Virginia Gazette, May 30, 1771; Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, vol. 2, no 4, April 1921.

1771  — May 16, Battle of Alamance, civ. “Regulators” vs. Royal militia, ~Burlington, NC– <100

Compiled by Wayne Blanchard; last edit 3-8-2024 for upload to: http://www.usdeadlyevents.com/

— <100  Blanchard:

This is speculative and vexing. It is known there were 9 militia killed and many more Regulators killed, though the number is not known. Childs has it that there were 300 fatalities. The American Battlefield Trust on its Alamance webpage has it there were 270 casualties (a casualty can be a wounded or dead man). The Friends of the Alamance Battleground “Alamance” webpage notes that “It is possible that as many as 100 Regulators may have been killed.”

 

There is no definitive number though all appear to agree that the Regulators suffered large numbers of “casualties.” From the Wikipedia webpage one is forced to speculate on the number of killed. We “lowballed” a number from their wording. Given the ambiguity, but knowing the large number of forces involved (several thousand), we choose to use the Friends of Alamance Battleground statement that “as many as 100 Regulators may have been killed.” We also know that seven Regulators were hung afterwards. It seems plausible to speculate that one or more of the wounded on both sides died afterwards.

 

It is possible, though, that the fatalities numbered only in the thirties or forties.

 

—    300  Childs, Emery.  History of the United States. 1886, p. 31.[1]

—    270  Casualties (wounded and killed). American Battlefield Trust. Alamance (webpage).

                        –200  Regulators

                        —  70  NC Royal Governor Tryon’s militia.

—  ~109  Friends of  Alamance Battleground. “Alamance Battleground, Burlington, NC.” No date.

            —      9  NC militia reported killed

            —<100 “It is possible that as many as 100 Regulators may have been killed.”

–18-36  Wikipedia. “Battle of Alamance.” 1-8-2024. Accessed 3-9-2024.

            –9-27  Regulators killed

            —     9  North Carolina Militia under Governor William Tryon

—   >26  NC Dept. Cultural Resources, NC Historic Sites. “Alamance Battleground.”[2]

            [The number of over 26 killed is ours. NCDCR notes only that 9 militia were killed and

that the Regulators “suffered worse losses,” which would have to mean at lest ten killed. Additionally, seven Regulators were hanged. Thus: 9+10+7=26.]

 

Narrative Information

 

Childs, Emery.  History of the United States. 1886, p. 31:

“1771….Some of the inhabitants of North Carolina, complaining of oppressions practiced in the law and by the judicial court, rose in arms, to the number of about fifteen hundred, under the name of regulators, for the purpose of shutting up the courts of justice, opposing the officers of government and all lawyers, and of prostrating government itself. The governor marched against them with about one thousand militia, and in a battle on the 16th of May totally defeated them. Three hundred of the regulators were killed on the field, twelve more of the insurgents were tried and condemned for high treason, and six of them were executed.”

 

North Carolina Dept. Cultural Resources, NC Historic Sites. “Alamance Battleground”:

On this site in 1771, an armed rebellion of backcountry farmers – called Regulators – battled against royal governor William Tryon’s militia….

 

“Formation of the Regulators.

 

“During the years leading up to the American Revolution many North Carolina people became strongly discontented with the way the provincial government was handling the colony’s affairs. However, their quarrel was not with the form of government or the colony’s laws but with abuses by government officials.

 

“Grievances affecting the daily lives of the colonists included excessive taxes, dishonest sheriffs, and illegal fees. Scarcity of money contributed to the state of unrest. Those living in the western part of the province were isolated and unsympathetic with the easterners and it was in those frontier counties that the War of the Regulation began.

 

“Minor clashes occurred until the spring of 1768, when an association of “Regulators” was formed. Wealthier colonists considered them to be a mob. The Regulators never had an outstanding leader, though several men were prominent in the movement; including James Hunter, Rednap Howell, William Butler, and Herman Husband. Husband, a Quaker and follower of Benjamin Franklin, circulated political pamphlets advocating peaceful reform.

 

“Violent Resistance.

 

“Discouraged over failing to secure justice through peaceful negotiations, the reformers took a more radical stand. Violence, lawlessness, and terrorism reigned. When the government retaliated against them, the Regulators defiantly refused to pay fees, terrorized those who administered the law, and disrupted court proceedings.

 

“It fell to royal governor William Tryon to bring the backcountry revolt to a speedy conclusion. In March 1771, the governor’s council advised Tryon to call out the militia and march against the rebel farmers.

 

“Volunteers for the militia were mustered. When the expedition finally got under way, Gen. Hugh Waddell was ordered to approach Hillsborough by way of Salisbury, with Cape Fear and western militia at his command. Tryon and his army proceeded more directly toward Hillsborough. Waddell, with only 284 men, was challenged on his way by a large groups of Regulators. Since he was outnumbered, the general decided to turn back. On May 11, Governor Tryon and his forces left Hillsborough intending to rescue Waddell. After resting on the banks of Alamance Creek in the heart of Regulator country, Tryon gathered his army of approximately a thousand men. Five miles away, 2,000 Regulators had assembled.

 

“The Battle of Alamance

 

“The battle began on May 16 after the Regulators rejected Tryon’s suggestion that they disperse peacefully. Lacking leadership, organization, and adequate arms and ammunition, the Regulators were no match for Tryon’s militia. Many Regulators fled, leaving their bolder comrades to fight on.

 

“The rebellion of the Regulators was crushed. Nine members of the king’s militia were killed and 61 wounded. The Regulator losses were much greater, though exact numbers are unknown. Tryon took 15 prisoners; seven were hung later. Many Regulators moved on to other frontier areas beyond North Carolina. Those who stayed were offered pardons by the governor in exchange for pledging an oath of allegiance to the royal government.

 

“The War of the Regulation illustrates how dissatisfied much of the population was during the days before the American Revolution. The boldness displayed by reformers opposed to royal authority provided a lesson in the use of armed resistance, which patriots employed a few short years later in the American War for Independence.”  (North Carolina Dept. of Cultural Resources, North Carolina Historic Sites.  “Alamance Battleground: Overview.”)

 

Wikipedia: “The Battle of Alamance, which took place on May 16, 1771, was the final battle of the Regulator Movement, a rebellion in colonial North Carolina over issues of taxation and local control. Named for nearby Great Alamance Creek, the battle took place in what was then Orange County and has since become Alamance County in the central Piedmont area, about 6 miles (9.7 km) south of present-day Burlington, North Carolina.

 

“Background

 

“In the spri9ng of 1771, North Carolina Governor William Tryon left New Bern, mustering and marching approximately 1,000 militia troops westwards to address a rebellion that had been brewing in western counties or several years. It had up to this point included only minor, scattered acts of violence, followed by refusals to pay fees, disruptions of court proceedings, and continued harassment of government officials.

 

“About 2,000 so-called “regulators” had gathered, hoping to gain concessions from Tryon by intimidating him with a show of superior force. Funded £6,000 by council member and wealthy merchant Samuel Cornell, on May 11, Tryon left the county seat of Hillsborough with his militia to confront the Regulators, who had made camp south of Great Alamance Creek in western Orange County.

 

“Battle

 

“On the evening of May 15, Tryon received word that the Regulators were camped about six miles away. The next morning, at about 8:00 am, Tryon’s troops set out to a field about one-half mile from the camp of the Regulators. He formed two lines, and divided his artillery between the wings and the center of the first line. The Regulators remained disorganized, with no leadership – no officer ranked higher than captain – and no anticipation of an attack, expecting that their superior numbers would frighten Tryon’s militia…. [But such was not the case and a fight began.]

 

“Aftermath

 

“Losses for both sides are disputed. Tryon reported nine dead and 61 wounded among the militia. Other historians indicate much greater numbers, between 15 and 27 killed.[3] Both sides counted nine dead among the Regulators and from dozens to approximately two-hundred wounded. One of them, James Few, was executed at the camp, and six were executed later in nearby Hillsborough….” (Wikipedia. “Battle of Alamance.” 1-8-2024 edit.)

 

Williamson, Hugh. The History of North Carolina. In Two Volumes. Vol. II, pp. 128-

 

“….Governor Tryon determined to march a body of men, as soon as the season would permit, into the chief settlement of the Regulators; and support the sheriffs in collecting the taxes. That he might obtain troops on whom he could depend, he wrote to the commanding officer in every county, that was not in a state of rebellion, instructing them to draw a company of volunteers from their several regiments, and hold them in readiness for the service. Hugh Waddel was appointed general of the forces, and he was instructed to march with the division from Bladen, Cumberland, and the western counties. Those troops were [end p. 144] to rendezvous at Salisbury the second of May, and join the militia from the southward and eastward in Guildford county. The general was ordered not to court an engagement with the insurgents, but in case they should obstruct his march, he was to force his way. The governor arrived at Bryant’s, in Johnstone county, the first of May, with eight hundred men. He was detained there some days, expecting two pieces of brass artillery. He proposed to be at the place of rendezvous on the thirteenth, and general Waddel was to regulate his march accordingly. The general had been waiting for a supply of powder from Charleston; but the Regulators fell upon the convoy, and destroyed the powder. Waddel took up his march from Salisbury, according to his instructions; but he received a message from the insurgents, the next day after he crossed the Yadkin, ordering him not to advance. To this order he replied, that [end p.145] he should take the liberty of using the public highway; but he discovered, the next morning, that the Regulators were before him, at a small distance, in great force. The militia having a scanty supply of powder, being also without cannon, not desirous of action, and greatly inferior to the insurgents in number, the general resolved, by the advice of his officers, to retreat across the river. The governor had crossed the Haw river, when he was informed of Waddel’s retreat. His situation had become very critical. The troops on whom he depended were considerably reduced in number. The insurgents, elated by their success, were increasing every hour. Nothing but a bold and expeditious stroke could save the country. To hesitate was to suffer a defeat. He suddenly altered his route, and crossed Little Alamance. On the fifteenth [end p146] he crossed Great Alamance, and encamped within six miles of the Regulators. The next morning he advanced until he came within sight of those people. They were about three thousand in number; his militia hardly exceeded one thousand. Citizen against citizen, the difference was in favour of the Regulators; but they were called together in haste, to risk their lives for a nameless something, that was hardly described or understood. The object was painted in different shapes and colors, according to the craft or imagination of different leaders. The militia, well appointed, were commanded by an experienced officer. They resented the turbulence of men, who had compelled them to leave their homes, at a critical season of the year; and they were contending for the security of their possessions. The governor sent Philemon Hawkins, [end p. 147] one of his aids, to inform the Regulators, that unless they should deliver Husbands, Hunter, Howel, and some others whom he named into his hands, and disperse, he would fire upon them immediately. They answered, with a curse, ‘he might fire.’ The militia, by general orders, were to form the line of battle upon the discharge of two cannon. And the discharge of five cannon was to be the signal for action. But the line had been formed before Hawkins returned; and the Regulators began to advance as soon as they heard the report of the first cannon. The militia immediately began to fire; and the action, for a few minutes, was warm. Colonel Fanning, who commanded the left wing, unused to action and deficient in courage, fell back with the whole of his regiment, except captain Nash and his company. In the mean [end 148] time the cannon did great execution, and some of the militia behaved like veterans. The insurgents were thrown into confusion. Their leaders, more factious than brave, escaped at the beginning of the action. Some of their officers who made a good defence were taken prisoners; but the greater number found safety in flight. Seventy of the militia were killed or wounded in battle. The insurgents lost above two hundred. One of the Regulators named Few, was hung the next day, by sentence of a court martial: that man had better claims on a mad house. Merril and five others were executed at Hillsborough, by sentence of a special curt [end 149] of oyer and terminer. General Waddel, who joined the governor a few days after the action, was detached with twenty-five light horse, one field-piece, and a respectable corps of militia, to the southward and westward, to reduce the Regulators to submission. The governor, by his proclamation, offered pardon for treason, insurrection, and rebellion, to all persons who should come to his camp, or to that of general Waddel, before the tenth of July, lay down their arms, take the oath of allegiance, and promise to submit to the laws; excepting outlaws, prisoners, those who blew up general Waddel’s ammunition, and fifteen other persons whom he names. A reward of one hundred pounds, and one thousand acres of land was promised to any persons who should bring in Howel, Husbands, Hunter or Butler, dead or alive, they [end 150] being outlawed. The insurgents in general delivered up their arms, and took the oath of allegiance. Husbands fled to Pennsylvania, and settled to the westward of the Appalachian mountains…[151].”

 

Sources

 

American Battlefield Trust. Alamance (webpage). No date. Accessed 3-9-2024 at: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/battles/alamance

 

Childs, Emery E. A History of the United States In Chronological Order From the Discovery of America in 1492 to the Year 1885. NY: Baker & Taylor, 1886. Google digitized. Accessed 9-4-2017: http://books.google.com/books?id=XLYbAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Friends of  Alamance Battleground. “Alamance Battleground, Burlington, NC.” No date. Accessed 3-9-2024 at: https://alamancebattleground.org/

 

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Office of Archives & History. North Carolina Historic Sites. “Alamance Battleground: Overview.” Accessed 3/21/2010 at:    http://www.nchistoricsites.org/alamance/main.htm

 

Wikipedia. “Battle of Alamance.” 1-8-2024 edit. Accessed 3-9-2024. Accessed 3-9-2024 at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alamance#cite_note-History_of_NC-5

 

Williamson, Hugh. The History of North Carolina. In Two Volumes. Vol. II. Philadelphia; published by Thomas Dobson at the Stone House, 1812. Accessed 3-9-2024 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_North_Carolina/VvExAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=williamson+history+of+north+carolina&printsec=frontcover

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Have found no source to substantiate this statement. Williamson, below,

[2] A minimalist estimate by the author based on statements that nine government militia were killed, that the Regulators suffered worse losses (will assume at least 10), and that seven were hung. We have no record of any deaths from the approximately 200 Williamson writes that “the insurgents lost above two hundred,” which seems to state that they were killed. The North Carolina Dept. Cultural Resources in NC Historic Sites. “Alamance Battleground,” simply notes that “The Regulator losses were much greater” than the nine fatalities from “the king’s militia.”

 

 

[3] Cites: Williamson’s History of North Carolina, Vol. 2, p. 150.

1771 — May-July, Scarlet Fever (especially children), Duxbury, MA — >10

— >10  Blanchard number.[1]

 

Narrative Information

 

Caulfield: “The first good evidence of severe scarlet fever in New England is the newspaper account of a Duxbury epidemic during the spring of 1771. It is worth noting that this, too, was primarily a childhood disease; which is indirect evidence that scarlet fever had been more or less prevalent in New England from 1753 to 1771, even though very few records have been found.

 

Duxboro [Duxbury], July 5, 1771

 

A very malignant putrid Fever has, for some Time past, much prevailed in this Town; about 150 Persons, chiefly Children, having had it in the Course of a few Months; to a considerable Proportion of whom it has proved fatal. More especially of late its Malignity has very much increased. And in one Family in particular, (Mr. Benjamin Wadsworth’s) five Children out of Six have died of it in the short Space of a Week; the only one surviving being now dangerously sick.—This Fever seems to differ from what has been usually called the Scarlet Fever only in Point of Malignity; the Appearances in those who have it favourably being in all Respects the same. It is remarkable that though it has made its Appearance in every Part of this Town, scarce a Family or Person in any of the neighbouring Towns have as yet been visited with it.[2]

 

“The deaths of five Wadsworth and three Soule children in Duxbury during May and June, 1771, and of three Fuller children from “canker rash” in East Haven, Connecticut, during 1773 suggest a malignant type of scarlet fever, one capable of causing multiple deaths.”

 

Source

 

Caulfield, Ernest. “Some Common Diseases of Colonial Children.” Transactions of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Vol. 35, April 1942, pp. 4-65. Accessed 1-17-2018 at: https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/865

 

 

 

[1] Our number. Caulfield notes eight deaths in two families during May-June. We extrapolate from “A considerable Proportion” of “about 150” stricken “of whom it has proved fatal” to conclude that at least two others died.

[2] Essex Gazette, July 16, 1771.

1770-71 — Winter, Influenza Epidemic “took scores of lives,” Philadelphia, PA — >40

—>40  Blanchard translation of “scores” (a “score” means 20), into a number from Hawke, 83.[1]

—    ?  Duffy writes that “Philadelphia was ravaged by an influenza epidemic.”[2]

 

Narrative Information

 

Duffy: “In the winter of 1770-71 Philadelphia was ravaged by an influenza epidemic, “An account of which I have preserved in my notebook,’ wrote a contemporary physician, ‘and have found it to agree exactly with the histories of the Influenza in this and other countries.’” (Duffy. Epidemics in Colonial America. 1979, pp. 199-200.)

 

Hawke: “Rush…estimated that when he began to practice, the annual death rate in Philadelphia was at least one in every twenty-five citizens (in contrast with one in fifty in 1809)….The next winter, 1770-1771, influenza took scores of lives.” (Hawke. Benjamin Rush. 1971, p. 83.)

 

Sources

 

Duffy, John. Epidemics in Colonial America. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1953, reprinted 1979.

 

Hawke, David Freeman. Benjamin Rush: Revolutionary Gadfly. Indianapolis & New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1971. Google preview accessed 4-12-2018 at: https://books.google.com/books?id=z1u9-0UX1E4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] If the plural of “score” is to be taken literally, then there would have been at least two-score (or at least 40) deaths.

[2] While this does not answer the question of how many people died, we know from other colonial experiences with influenza epidemics that many elderly and weakened-by-some-other-malady people died during these epidemics.

1770 — Nov, new Cushing, ME boat, The Industry, lost on first trip to Boston, MA     —   >13

Compiled by Wayne Blanchard; last edit 8-27-2024 for upload to: http://www.usdeadlyevents.com/

— >13  Snow. “The Industry.” Great Storms and Shipwrecks of New England, 1943, p. 184.

Blanchard note: Snow names thirteen people onboard, but writes that “Those on board included…” which leaves open the possibility  that there were more than thirteen. This is why we use the symbol >, meaning “at least.”

Narrative Information

 

Snow. “The Industry.” Great Storms and Shipwrecks of New England, 1943, p. 184:

 

“One of the wrecks recounted around the firesides during the last century was that of the Industry, built at Packards’s Rock, in what is now Cushing, Maine. She was commanded by David Patterson, 2nd, who had previously coasted for some time with Reuben Hall.

 

“No one ever learned what happened to the Industry. She was launched late in the fall, and sailed for Boston on her first trip in November 1770. Wreckage began to come ashore along Cape Ann some time later, but no one from the Industry was ever seen again. Those on board included Major Fales and his son from Massachusetts, George Briggs, John Porterfield, Robert Gamble, John Mastick, David Malcolm, Alexander Baird, Samuel Watson, Mrs. Benjamin Packard and her child, and Abagail Patterson [12 names, to which one must add Capt. David Patterson.] The captain’s brother had been lost two years before at Mosquito Harbor with seventeen persons, all perishing.”

 

Sources

 

Snow, Edward Rowe. “The Industry.” Pp. 183-184 in Great Storms and Shipwrecks of New England. Boston: Yankee Pub. Co., 1943.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1770 — Oct 20, storm, maritime losses off coasts of MA, NH and possibly RI             — ~100

Compiled by Wayne Blanchard; last edit 7-22-2024 for upload to: http://www.usdeadlyevents.com/

–100  Colonial Sense. “New England Weather. The Storm of October 20, 1770.” Cites Perley.

–100  Perley, Sidney. Historic Storms of New England. Salem, MA: Salem Press, 1891, p. 91.

            —       2  Captain Benjamin Parson and crewman; schooner off Thatcher’s Isl., MA

—       1  Skipper of schooner driven onto rocks eastern point of Duck Island, MA

—       1  Body of fisherman washed onto beach between Nantasket and Hingham, MA.

–40-50  Plymouth, MA. Sixty-one vessels driven to shore.

—      11  Fishing schooners from Rye lost in or off the bay at Portsmouth, NH.

 

Narrative Information

 

Perley: “One of the most violent and destructive storms of wind and rain that ever occurred on the New England coast prevailed on Saturday, October 20, 1770. It began Friday night and continued most of the following day, the wind blowing from the north-northeast.

“At noon the tide rose to an extraordinary height, being greater than any that had occurred since the famous tide of 1723, and within a foot as high as that. The tide floated off vast quantities of salt hay from the marshes of Lynn and towns south of Boston, also lumber, wood, and many other things from wharves, and by wetting spoiled valuable stores of salt and sugar. The wind blew down stores, barns and sheds, unroofed houses, and tore up fences and trees. Along the coast it caused a large number of vessels to be wrecked and many lives to be lost. The principal damage was of course done along those shores that lay most exposed to the sweep of the wind. The coasts of Maine and Connecticut were so sheltered that but little if any injury was done in those parts.

“Off the Isles of Shoals, fourteen schooners were engaged in fishing when the storm came on. One of these, a small vessel, belonging to the Shoals, Richard Randall, skipper, with four men on board, was anchored as soon as the gale was upon them, but the wind blew and the waves beat so furiously that the only way of escape that seemed open to them was to lessen as much as possible the surface upon which the wind could exert its force. The mainmast was thereupon cut away, but before this could be done the anchor had been lost, and the vessel was driven through the merciless sea until the wind abated and the storm was past. They were soon afterward overtaken by a sloop from Maine which towed them into the harbor of Salem, Mass. Two of the schooners off the Shoals were driven ashore at Cape Ann, and the men saved. Another, belonging to Kittery, Benjamin Parsons, skipper, was staved to pieces on the rocks near Thatcher’s island, and the captain and one of the men were drowned. Still another was driven on the eastern point of Duck island, and dashed to pieces. The skipper was drowned, but the rest of the men got ashore in safety, though their legs, arms and other parts of their bodies were very much bruised. Several vessels were riding at anchor in the Shoals road, and they were sunk at their moorings. Three or four other small schooners were lost off the Shoals in the same storm.

 

“In the bay at Portsmouth, N. H., two schooners from Rye were out fishing, and were seen about sunset Friday night, but were never again heard from. On one of the vessels were six men, John Sanders and his son John, John Yeaton, William Thomas and two others and two boys; and on the other were Samuel Sanders, Joshua Foss, Samuel Sanders, jr., and two boys. Six of the men left wives and a number of children. How many wives were made widows and children orphans by this storm is not known, but the number must have been large. In the joy and glow of youth and the strength of manhood, the men sailed out from the town, and the widows and the fatherless day after day eagerly watched the offing hoping against hope to witness the approach of the vessels on which their loved ones had gone out; but all in vain….

 

“A new ship, Captain Dunlap, master, left Newburyport as the storm came on, and was driven on Plum island. While pursuing its wayward course it struck a sloop belonging to Newbury, and stove it to pieces.

 

“At Salem, Mass., the wind prostrated fences, tore up trees, and injured bridges. On the south shore of North river, for a distance of mile or more, firewood, timber, all sorts of lumber, as boards, shingles and plank, also staves, barrels, hogsheads, canoes, boats, and other articles belonging to many different persons were so promiscuously thrown together that the owners could not ascertain which of them were each one’s particular property. About fifty cords of wood and fifteen or sixteen hundred bushels of sand for scrubbing floors were carried off from Mr. Barr’s wharf at the North bridge. At the south side of the town, where most of the business was then done, the confusion and destruction were much greater, vast quantities of lumber of various kinds and many boats being violently driven to the opposite shore. All the wharves were overflowed, and salt, sugar, and other perishable articles in the storehouses, of which there was a great amount, were destroyed by the water. The bridges over Forest river, one being on the same site as the present bridge, at the lead mills, and the other farther up the stream, were so much damaged that they were impassable. A large bridge at Danversport was also totally mined. At Salem much damage was done to the vessels in the harbor and at the wharves. A schooner of large size broke away from her mooring, and dashed up against North bridge, being kept off the top of it with difficulty. The bridge was considerably injured. Another schooner, which was fastened at a wharf farther down the stream, also broke her cables and drove over a small sandy beach up on the grassy upland. Still another schooner of nearly eighty tons burden, that had lately arrived from the West Indies, broke away from the wharf and was driven in a similar manner up on the land to so great a height that it lay with its keel considerably above the usual high-water mark. In the southern section of the harbor were anchored a ship, a snow,1 a brig, and nine other vessels. They were driven from their anchorage, and forced up Forest river toward Captain Gardner’s mills, which then occupied the site of the lead mills. Several of these vessels were laden, and ready to sail for the Straits and the West Indies. The brig, which was commanded by Captain Warren, and a schooner by Captain Wather were much damaged. Another schooner, commanded by Captain Motley, was driven so far on the land that it seemed impossible for the waves and wind to have performed the feat. The schooner of Capt. Samuel Webb was forced from its wharf across the harbor, and some distance up on the land of the opposite shore. With great difficulty the other vessels were prevented from leaving the wharves. Only one ship in the harbor out-rode the storm successfully, and that was the Antelope, which was commanded by Captain Putnam.

 

“In the harbor of Marblehead, twenty-one brigs, schooners and sloops were cast ashore, but none of them were very much injured.

 

“Boston, most of the wharves were overflowed, much lumber was floated away, and quantities of sugar, salt, and other stores were destroyed. The water came up King street (now State street), as far as the head-tavern of Admiral Vernon, into Dock square, about the drawbridge, and into the streets nearest the seaside at the northern and southern portions of the town, so far that it ran not only into the cellars, but into the shops and rooms of dwelling houses, compelling several families to retire into their chambers. Some of the stores on the wharves were almost filled with water. Fifteen or sixteen vessels were cast ashore on the several islands in the harbor, but few of them were materially injured. A schooner, with no one on board, was driven on Deer island, it being supposed that it had drifted from Lynn or Marblehead. The men-of war and other shipping in the harbor received little or no damage, A day or two after the storm was over, a chest was found floating in the bay. It was brought on shore, and found to contain a number of papers, among them being private accounts with Hezekiah Blanchard of Boston in 1759, and copies of several orders from Secretary Addington to a committee of the General Court bearing dates 1706, 1707 and 1708, for printing some bills of credit for the Province. The chest was carried to Cape Cod. Where it came from, and to whom it had belonged, was a mystery.

 

“A ship from Glasgow, but last from Newbury, commanded by Captain Dun, was lying at anchor in Nantasket road when the storm began. The cable that held it parted and it was driven upon the flats in Braintree bay, but the masts being cut away it was prevented from driving farther ashore.

 

“All the small vessels at Hingham were carried on shore, and one or two of about forty-five tons burden were floated upon a wharf, which common high tides never covered.

 

“Between Nantasket and Hingham a small fishing boat was sunk. The pump which it carried, a mast that had been cut away, and a boat or canoe came ashore, the other mast that the craft carried, holding to the rigging of the boat. The body of a fisherman washed ashore on the beach, but it was not identified. He was of large size, about six feet in height, wearing thick boots and an under and outer jacket. In his trousers’ pocket was found a fish-hook, and a small knife with two letters cut in the handle.

 

“At Nantasket, Captain Higgins, commanding a sloop bound to Connecticut, was obliged to cut away his mast and bowsprit; and the captain of another sloop was forced to do the same. A ship bound to Africa, commanded by Captain Bennet, was the only vessel at Nantasket that successfully rode out the gale….

 

“At Plymouth, Mass., many of the stores were blown down, and considerable other damage was done by the wind. Sixty-one vessels were driven ashore there, and from forty to fifty lives were lost. One of the vessels was bound from Rhode Island lo Boston, commanded by Captain Ellis. Another was a new schooner of about twenty or thirty tons burden, built wholly of black birch, castaway at Monument Point, and the vessel, with the men and everything on board was lost, bodies of two of the men being found on the sand near the wreck, probably having washed ashore. In a pocket of the jacket on one of them was found a small leather pocket-book, which contained some papers, very much torn, — one being a bill of sale of the schooner Defiance from Lemuel Lattimore to Damon Lattimore of Mount Desert, and another a letter, dated at Mount Desert October 8, 1770, signed by Lemuel Lattimore and Lucretia Lattitmore, and directed to their mother at New London, whose christian name (that being the only one discovered) was Ruth.

 

“At the back side of Eastham, on Cape Cod, a vessel, commanded by Captain Scott, and bound from Turk’s island to Boston, being laden with salt, was driven ashore. A Rhode Island sloop, which was homeward bound from a whaling trip, was wrecked at nearly the same place. Another sloop, belonging to Plymouth, was driven ashore at Race point. The people that were on these vessels were all saved. A whaling schooner, which belonged in Wareham, was beaten to pieces on a sand bar at the entrance to the harbor of Chatham, the crew and oil being saved.

 

“At Tarpaulin cove, on Martha’s Vineyard, a brig belonging in Providence, R. I, and a schooner in Newport, both returning from whaling, were also cast away.

 

“As far inland as Providence, R. I., the storm did some damage to the small vessels, and history relates the wreck at Fisher’s island of a sloop commanded by Captain Vredenburg, that had come up from Newport, the greater part of the cargo being lost.

 

“At Newport, R. I., the spindle on the tower of Trinity church was broken off a little below the upper ball, but was prevented from falling by the lightning rods on the building. Though the town was not much exposed to the storm, two or three stores and stables were blown down, and several vessels were driven ashore, some of them receiving considerable injury, but none were lost.

 

“This storm was more disastrous to the commerce on our coast than any other had been up to this date. Many valuable cargoes went to the bottom of the sea, more than a hundred vessels were wrecked, and a hundred lives lost.”

 

Sources

 

Colonial Sense. “New England Weather. The Storm of October 20, 1770.” Cites Perley. Accessed 7-22-2024 at: http://www.colonialsense.com/Society-Lifestyle/Signs_of_the_Times/New_England_Weather/The_Storm_of_October_20,_1770.php

 

Perley, Sidney. Historic Storms of New England. Salem, MA: The Salem Press, 1891. Google Preview accessed 7-22-2024 at: https://books.google.com/books?id=twkAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1770 — “Chin” (Whooping) Cough epidemic esp. children, Salem (pop. ~5,000), MA — 37

–37  Caulfield. “Some Common Diseases of Colonial Children.” Transactions, 1942, pp. 39-40.

 

Narrative Information

 

Caulfield: “The worst epidemic so far encountered [whooping cough section of paper] occurred in Salem during 1770, when there were thirty-seven “chin-cough” deaths in a population of about five thousand.”[1]

 

Source

 

Caulfield, Ernest. “Some Common Diseases of Colonial Children.” Transactions of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Vol. 35, April 1942, pp. 4-65. Accessed 1-17-2018 at: https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/865

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Caulfield previously notes that whooping cough primarily killed children.

1769 — Aug-Sep, Flux (Dysentery) and Fever Outbreak, esp. children, Boston, MA — ~108

—  180  Krawczynski. Daily Life in the Colonial City. 2013.

–~108  Blanchard estimate based on Duffy and subtracting expected deaths during two months.

 

Narrative Information

 

Duffy: “ ‘In the Months of August and September last,” reported a Boston newspaper in 1769, ‘an epidemical Fever and Flux prevailed among the young children in this Town: The Burials have been…in the whole 165 Whites, 14 Blacks.’[1] The severity of the outbreak is shown by the fact that the annual death rate in Boston only averaged around four hundred and twenty-five at this time.”[2] (Duffy. Epidemics in Colonial America. 1979, p. 220.)

 

Krawczynski: “1769…Dysentery outbreak in Boston kills 180 people.”[3]

 

Webster: “The dysentery was epidemic and fatal in 1769, (p. 257)

 

Sources

 

Duffy, John. Epidemics in Colonial America. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1953, reprinted 1979.

 

Krawczynski, Keith. Daily Life in the Colonial City. Santa Barbara, CO and Denver: Greenwood (An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC), 2013. Google preview accessed 1-8-2018 at: https://books.google.com/books?id=E_QgVyPcmIAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Webster, Noah. A Brief History of Epidemic and Pestilential Diseases; with the principal phenomena of the physical world which precede and accompany them, and observations deduced from the facts stated (in two volumes). Hartford, CT: Hudson & Goodwin, 1799. Accessed 1-7-2018 at: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N27531.0001.001/1:11?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Cites, in footnote 33, p. 220: Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Post Boy and Advertiser, No. 634, October, 9, 1769.

[2] The monthly rate, based on an annual rate of 425, would be 35.4. Multiplied times 2 months = 70.8 (~71). Subtracting 71 (which could be expected) from 179 (actual), derives 108, the figure we use to give a sense of the mortality of this epidemic.

[3] Table 12.1. “Epidemics in the Cities.” This is the number of deaths reported in the press at the time, and noted in Duffy. We, however, subtract the number of deaths which would have been anticipated for a two-month period to derive our smaller number of ~108.

«‹ 4 5 6 7›»