FOUNDERS OF FORT NO. 4, CHARLESTOWN, NH
From:	Farns10th@aol.com - Janice Farnsworth

History of Charlestown, NH, The Old No.4 by Rev. Henry
H. Saunderson, printed by the Claremont Co., Claremont
NH, 1876
             Building Fort 4 and Fort Dummer
p.19
The fort is said to have been built under the direction
of Col. John Stoddard b. Feb 17, 1682, grad. from Harvard
1701 and became a lawyer in Northampton, the colonel of
a regiment and Superintendent of Defence, Judge of Pro-
bate, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, one of
the Governor's Council, etc.  He was a man of superior
intellect, high character and large wealth.  He died
while attending the General Court at Boston, MA June 19,
1748.  His death was a serious loss to the western front-
iers of MA to which his knowledge and skill in military
matters had been of great service.  His inventory was
nearly 180,000 ; viz: real estate f18,238; personal
estate, f17,194, gold watch (lst one had in Northampton
was appraised f150.

He was for many years the principal military engineer
on the CT River Frontier and had twenty years before
superintended the building of the blockhouse at Fort
Dummer.  That Col. Stoddard was consulted and his councel
obtained is probable, though the fact does not appear in
the Proprietors' records.  The fort was constructed in 
the manner of other fortifications of the time which were
only intended to afford a defense against musketry.  It
covered, said Rev. Dr. Crosby, in his Annals of Charles-
town, about three-quarters of an acre, which dimensions
in the absence of any more definite measurement, we are
under the necessity of receiving.  This would make it
about the size of Fort Dummer, which was 180 ft on a 
side; it being built in the form of a square.  The walls
were made of large squared timbers laid horizontally one
above the other and locked together at the angles in the
manner of a log cabin.  Within the enclosure were build-
ings called province houses.  These, before being en-
closed in the fort (No.4), had been the houses of:
                   Capt. John Spafford
                   Capt. Phineas Stevens
                   Lieut. Moses Willard
                   Lieut. Ephraim Wetherbe
                   John Hastings.
In the enclosure was also a house which was newly built
and which was situated on the northwest corner. The fort
was stockaded on the north side by timbers about a foot
in diameter, placed in the ground endwise, which were
not far from twelve feet high.  Fort Dummer was stock-
aded on every side.  This, it appears, was done because,
in the opinion of Lieut. Governor Dummer, from whom it
was named, it would add to its capacity for defense. 
But in this he did not agree with Col. Stoddard who in
writing to him on the subject said: "I forgot to take
notice of your thought of setting stockades around the
fort to keep the enemy at a distance. I dont well appre-
hend the benefit of it, for we intend the fort shall be
built that the soldiers shall be as safe if the enemy
were in the parade" (that is in the open space within
the enclosure of the walls) "as if they were without the
fort".   The province houses were placed directly against
the walls of the fort and so prepared on every side that 
they could be put in an immediate state of defence should
the enemy by any means gain admittance to the enclosure
that they would still have a hard battle to fight before
the place could be taken.

Such was the preparation for their defence which the
inhabitants of No. 4 took the precaution to have in
readiness against the time of war which they correctly
anticipated would very soon come.

Fort Dummer had been projected by Massachusetts, and the
expense of its erection paid by that state.  But the
settlers of No. 4 were under the necessity of making
provision for themselves, as New-Hampshire, within whose
boundaries they had fallen, had no interest in defending
a frontier so far from her other settlements and Massa-
chusetts felt under no obligation to give them protect-
ion as they were not within her jurisdiction; and had it
not been that the circumstances became such that it was
greatly for the interests of Massachusetts to afford 
them aid in consequence of the protection which the fort
afforded to the settlements below, they would have been
neglected and probably been driven away.  It was thus
fortunate that Massachusetts could not afford to neglect
them though they had been cut off from her territory.

When the boundary line was run in 1741 between the
provinces of Massachusetts and New-Hampshire, Fort
Dummer was supposed to be included in the latter Province.
On this account an appeal was made by the government of
Massachusetts to that state to assume its support.  The
subject was brought before the New-Hampshire Assembly on
the 3d of May 1745 when a majority of the lower House
declined making a grant for that purpose and adduced in
support of this decision the following reasons:

"That the fort was fifty miles distant from any town
which had been settled by the government or people of
New-Hampshire; that the people had no right to the lands
which by the dividing line had fallen within New-Hamp-
shire, notwithstanding the plausible arguments which had
been used to induce them to bear the expense of the line
viz. that the land would be given them, or else would be
sold to pay that expense; that the charge of maintaining
this fort at so great a distance and to which there was 
no communication by roads, would exceed what had been 
whole expense of government before the line was estab-
lished; that the great load of debt contracted on that
account and the yearly support of government, with the
unavoidable expenses of the war, were as much as the 
people could bear; that if they should take upon them 
to maintain this fort, there was another, much better
and more convenient fort at a place called Number Four,
besides several other settlements which they should also
be obliged to defend; and finally, that there was no
danger that these forts would want support since it was
the interest of Massachusetts, by whom they were erected,
to maintain them as a cover to their frontier."

This has been quoted to show the position and feeling of
New-Hampshire towards her newly acquired territory.  It
was certainly a cold greeting which the settlements on
the Connecticut River received when they were told that
they had no right to their lands, and that they were of
no consequence, either to the government or people of
New-Hampshire and that it was for the interest of Massa-
chusetts to take care of them, and she might do it.

To the honor of Gov. Wentworth it must be said, that he
had no sympathy with this method of proceeding.  When
the above reasons were given, the Governor dissolved the
Assembly and called another, to whom he recommended the
same measure in the most pressing terms; telling them
"That it was of the last consequence to the present and
future prosperity of the government; that their refusal
would lessen them in the esteem of the King and his
Ministers, and strip the children yet unborn of their
natural rights; and deprive their brethren who were then
hazarding their lives before the walls of Louisburg, of
their just expectations, which were to sit down on that
valuable part of the Province."    But his eloquence
had no effect.  They thought it unjust to burthen their
constituents with an expense which could yield them no
profit and afford them no protection.   Belknap, 286.

The inhabitants of No. 4 were thus forewarned that what-
ever might be their danger, they could expect no pro-
tection from the government of New-Hampshire and that
should they require aid in defending themselves they 
could look for it no where else but to Massachusetts.

Events demonstrated that the inhabitants of No. 4 had not
taken measures for their defence any too soon.  For the
fort was scarcely put in order before war (as had been
anticipated), was declared by Great Britain against
France and Spain.  This declaration was made on March
29, 1744 though it was not proclaimed in Boston until
the June following.  But though war had been declared,
no depredations during the year were committed on the
frontiers which were allowed to remain unmolested. The
time was therefore spent in making preparations for
future emergencies by constructing forts and other de-
fences against the storm which was not long to be de-
ferred.  Probably the French in Canada were employed
in a similar manner and in collecting and arming the
Indians for the terrible part they were to act, in the
next and following years.  (p.22 - to be continued)

*************************************************
* * * * NOTICE: Printing the files within by non-commercial individuals and 
libraries is encouraged, as long as all notices and submitter 
information is included. Any other use, including copying files to other 
sites requires permission from the submitters PRIOR to uploading to any 
other sites. We encourage links to the state and county table of 
contents. 



* * * *
The USGenWeb Project makes no claims or estimates of the validity of the 
information submitted and reminds you that each new piece of information 
must be researched and proved or disproved by weight of evidence. It is 
always best to consult the original material for verification.