Mercy Leroux

All of the depositions in the appendix of the ironically titled “A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston, perpetrated in the evening of the fifth day of March, 1770. By soldiers of the XXIXth Regiment; which with the XIVth Regiment were then quartered there: with some observations on the state of things prior to that catastrophe” prepared by the Sons of Liberty are interesting, but the ones that stood out to me the most involved the soldiers’ wives (and “Black Peg,” whom I shall look into more someday).

Three depositions indicate soldiers’ wives as suggesting the townspeople would or should suffer violence leading up to the massacre. So who were these people?

First, the tale of Daniel Calfe:

Daniel Calfe of lawful age testifies and says, that on Saturday evening: the third instant, a camp woman, the wife of James McDeed, a grenadier in the 29th, came into Daniel Calfe’s shop, father to the deponent, and the people talking about the affrays at the ropewalk, and blaming the soldiers for the part they had acted in it. The woman said the soldiers were in the rights adding that before Tuesday or Wednesday night they would wet their swords or bayonets in New- England people’s blood. 

What stood out to me is that McDeed is specifically identified as a grenadier in the 29th and thus in the same company as defendants Edward Montgomery, Matthew Kilroy, William Warren, John Carroll, William McCauley, and James Hartigan. It’s also worth noting that at least five grenadiers in the 29th were also involved in the ropewalks fracas and its ensuing aftershocks (Kilroy, Warren, Carroll, John Rodgers, and a man surnamed Dixson).

I’ve always found it really hard to believe that some soldiers got together, plotted mass murder, and managed to kill only five people, only one of whom was present at the ropewalks. To me, it’s more in line with human nature that Mrs. McDeed was expressing frustration that at best got sincerely misinterpreted in the most extreme light after the massacre. (Worst case it was so twisted it became almost fiction and/or was actually completely made up, both possibilities working towards a desperate attempt to prove premeditation. This is Mercy’s twin’s position; she has a far more cynical view of human nature.)

Let’s also consider the source. I couldn’t find a father and son named Daniel Calfe, but there were Daniel Calefs, a father aged ~58 and his son aged ~ 21. Given the deposition, this seems to have been the son. He actually testified in the trial of Captain Preston, claiming:

I looked the Officer in the face when he gave the word and saw his mouth.

Now, the jury, most scholars and historians, and a later confession from a completely different person that he actually said to fire, agree Preston (who was standing in front of the troops at the time and thus in a line of fire) didn’t order the troops to fire… so I’ll let you decide if Calef is a reliable narrator. Which isn’t to call him a liar necessarily, but people’s recollections aren’t always accurate.

Second, the tale from John Wilme:

I, John Wilme of lawful age, testify… And further saith, that he heard a soldier’s wife, named Eleanor Park say that if there should be any disturbance in the town of Boston, and that if any of the people were wounded, she would take a stone in her handkerchief & beat their brains out, and plunder the rebels—And further I say not. 

According to John Wilme, this occurred about ten days before the Massacre, and he names two other soldiers in the 14th as suggesting violence as well.

Personally, I don’t put much stock in hypotheticals – it’s easier to talk violence than to commit it. See: firebrand William Molineux, who made claims that he’d personally put to death those who defied the nonimportation agreement. Yet when these protests erupted and Ebenezer Richardson killed one boy and wounded another, Molineux stepped in to stop the mob from hanging Richardson themselves.

Since no testimony exists of a soldier’s wife doing anything like this, I don’t see this story as anything more than evidence for Eleanor’s contempt towards a town that she believed had not been welcoming to her and her husband, if it indeed happened as described. Which, again, isn’t to accuse Wilme of lying – but people’s interpretations of events aren’t always factual to what actually occurred.

Now let’s look into Wilme. Oh wait, I couldn’t find anything about him, not even a record of his name beyond this deposition, and I’m sad. I wonder if he was a sailor or someone not from the area, but I have zero evidence. (There were approximately 10000001 John Williams, though.)

And finally, there’s Caleb Swan’s deposition “against” Isabella Montgomery, wife to Edward:

Caleb Swan, of lawful age, testifies and says, that last Monday night, the 5th of March 1770, being at Mr. Sample’s door, at the north part of the town near the north battery, at the time of the bells ringing for fire, he heard a woman’s voice, whom he knew to be the supposed wife of one Montgomery, a grenadier of the twenty-ninth regiment, standing at her door, and heard her say it was not fire; the town was too haughty and too proud; that many of their arses would be laid low before the morning. Upon which Susanna Cathcart said to her, I hope your husband will be killed, on which the woman replied, My husband is able and will stand his ground. 

Okay, I definitely believed this happened and mostly as described (and twin agrees). Because this doesn’t exactly make Susanna Cathcart look good. If anything, it makes it sound like Cathcart wished violence on the soldiers, and to my ears, Isabella’s response sounds measured and mature.

Which is why I am very, very curious to know what prompted her initial comment. Swan makes it sound like Isabella just said this out of nowhere, but I have to wonder. Would a woman exulting in the possibility of violence against townspeople respond to a death wish with simple praise of her husband’s abilities? To me, that doesn’t track.

I also find it interesting how Swan describes Isabella as the “supposed wife” of Montgomery. Unless I’m missing context from the time period, supposed? Sir, they had three kids at this point! Which is to say, it reads like a little dig against Isabella and Montgomery, and that raises further questions on Swan’s bias and what details he might be leaving out.

And then there’s Susanna Cathcart. From probate records and her obituary in the American Herald and Worcester Reporter, she appears to have gone by “Sukey,” and died a “spinster” prior to October 2, 1788 at the age of 31. Meaning, at the time of the Massacre, Susanna was… thirteen, and, y’know, her remark sounds exactly like something a distressed teenager overhearing violence might say. (Though I have to say, between Sukey Cathcart and Edward Garrick, it seems the middle school age is always the same no matter how far back you go in history.)

Caleb Swan himself, if I have the right boy, was also quite young – only 15 in March 1770. He seems to have been a gold or silversmith apprentice; different sources gave different metals.

We’ll never know how this exchange began, of course. But personally, this story made me quite interested in, and fond of, Isabella. Don’t I wish someone had a time machine so I could glean Sukey, Caleb, and Isabella’s perspectives on what really happened.

Next week, we’ll look at another rumor related to the Massacre, specifically one about Matthew Kilroy’s life before 1770.