This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: MichaelWright12 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.wright/6959.2703.2.1.2.2.2.1.1.3.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Dear Charlie & Ron, I. too, had always accepted the historical account of Sgt Samuel Wright being the first casualty of the Northfield raid on 2 Sept 1675, until I read the custody and probate records for his son, Samuel (III) in the Northampton First Record Book where the testators claim that he received his bothersome leg wound at Bloody Brook 'where his father met his fate". This was written down in 1734, 59 years after the event and directly contradicts the more distant, traditionally accepted narrative as reported to J. Temple and Geo. Sheldon in 1876 by a 95 year old Mrs. Holton who is relating second hand family lore handed down from her grandmother. In the final analysis they are both just family generated stories and, as such, both are suspect, IMO. People have been trying for decades to figure out which "story" to believe. Some uninformed individuals have tried to combine them into a combined narrative that puts Bloody Brook in Northfield instead of South Deerfield and, and therefore, his death as 18 Sept instead of 2 Sept. Obviously this is a mash-up with no merit. But, how much merit the traditional account has versus the Bloody Brook account is a toss up to me. Personally, I don't think it is resolvable with available evidence, so, I admit to favoring the more contemporaneous account in the Northampton Record Book, while admitting the testators in that record could have been as mistaken as Mrs. Holton might have been. I have a perspective on traditional historical accounts and genealogical records which causes me to doubt everything I can't prove with verifiable records. The story of how and where and when Sgt. Samuel Wright died is one of those "facts" that has been created from hearsay and innuendo that took root 136 years ago and has been repeated, stripped of its original context, by so many subsequent authors, that it now has the aura of "fact" in and of itself. I think we need to step back and look for real facts. So, when we do that, these are the facts aside from the already presented 'stories'. 1. The Massachusetts archives contain substantial proof that Samuel Wright was a petitioner to the General Council for settlement of Squakheags (Northfield), that he was granted a plot, and that he did not survive beyond 1675. It shows that he was a settler of Northfield at the time of the 2 Sept 1675, but does not quarantine he was in residence at the time as he had not yet sold his lot in Northampton. This argues that he might not have even been at Northfield 2 Sept 1675 and survived to join Lathrop's troop coming out of Hadley on their way to Deerfield, only to be killed 16 days later at Bloody Brook on the way back to the garrison at Hadley. 2. Sgt Samuel Wright is not listed in any contemporaneous roster or roll of any militia or army engaged in the years of King Philip's War. This makes it impossible to trace his military service in King Philip's war but also suggests that he may not be listed anywhere simply because he may have been killed early in the conflict (e.g. in the Northfield raid) before he was able to join any of the various military groups in the area at the time (Lathorp, Pynchon, Beers, Moyers, etc.). 3. The report by Temple & Sheldon (History of the Town of Northfield, Massachusetts...", p 73) that, "The number of whites officially reported as killed, was eight, viz: Sergt. Samuel Wright, aged about 45,...." is not supported by any Massachusetts archive document I could find giving such an "Official" list. Rather it appears to be a compilation from a number of secondary sources that were judged to be sufficiently 'official' in 1876 but may or may not have all been accurate or complete. This casts doubts about whether Samuel Wright actually died at Northfield on 2 Sept 1675. 4. Samuel Wright does not appear in the service pay petitioner's list from Capt. Lathrop's troop that was compiled between Oct 1675 and summer 1676. This argues he was not a member of Capt. Lathrop's troop at Bloody Brook. 5. The Northfield burying grounds on the 'meadow hill' was supposedly founded on the site where Sgt. Samuel Wright's bones were discovered and interred in 1685, so that no one ever actually identified Samuel Wright's body in Northfield anytime near to the time of the raid. Could be nothing more than a romantic family notion told and retold for the sake of agrandizment in the local community. So you can cherry pick these known 'facts' and make them say anything you want. I'm open to other interpretations, but, personally, still very much on the fence on this one. So, I welcome any additional 'facts' that I may have missed that could swing this one way or the other for me. Thanks for starting the debate, Ron, and, as always, it is good to hear your opinion Charlie. Best Regards, Mike Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.