John Dirlam was reported at Philadelphia in February 1778 by the 23rd Foot to have been "captured by the rebels". We don't know exactly where and when he was captured, because records were made so infrequently. But it was certainly a long way from the the remote towns in western Massachusetts, where he bought land in 1780, and was married in 1781. How would he have even known it existed? Once he got there, how did he find a place to live and work?
RELEASING A PRISONER OF WAR
It seems likely that after
he was captured Dirlam was sent to Albany or Valley Forge or Fishkill with
other prisoners. From there he may have been paroled: British and
Hessian prisoners were often given into the custody of American farmers,
if they promised not to rejoin the army. Farmers liked the arrangement
because the war had created a labor shortage. And since the militias and
Continental Army were operated on a shoestring, they had no POW camps and avoided as much as possible paying for captive enemy soldier's rations - hence parole. And the parolees received a point of entry into a beautiful country rich with opportunity.
Since it was desirable for former enemy soldiers to be held far from the field of
battle, and far from the coast, the hill country of western Massachusetts may have seemed ideal. But somebody from Brandford, or a town very nearby, must have arranged it. I'm not suggesting Dirlam would have objected to settling in a remote place, since he certainly came from one. And since there are risks with going over to the other side, I think it probably seemed safer to be far far away from military action.
After Dirlam's capture in February 1778, one of two things might have happened. He might have been released upon swearing an oath. In 1776 Congress had adopted a report designed to encourage Hessians and other foreigners to quit the British service by extending protection to any who would settle here. Sometimes they were also offered money and land in exchange for their promise "not in any wise to forward or assist the subjects or allies of the King of Great Britain in their operations against the United States of America neither to correspond or have any connection with them during the present war." Alternatively, he might have been paroled into the custody of some trusted citizen.
Either way, he needed help since he was a foreigner in an unfamiliar place without resources. It would need to be someone who traveled, since Philadelphia and Blandford are so far apart. It could have happened through an intermediate location such as Valley Forge or Fishkill. So it might have been a militiaman charged with managing or transferring prisoners, or someone supplying shoes (or leather for shoes) to the army, or someone on a Committee of Correspondence.
TRAVELING TO BLANDFORD
I don't think Dirlam traveled on his own. How would he have known about
Blandford? How would he have known there was a place for him there? The distance from Philadelphia is about 240 miles. Fishkill, New York, is halfway between them. The Continental Army had a major supply depot, manufacturing center and hospital there. A prisoner who was injured, and family lore has Dirlam injured, could have been moved there from Philadelphia, which was then in British hands. Shoes were a major problem for Continental troops and a shoemaker like Dirlam might have found a role after his recovery. Fishkill is also close enough to Westfield that a leather dealer like John Gibbs' uncle might have traveled there. Certainly, as small as Blandford was, Gibbs knew all the soldiers it sent to serve in Capt. Abel Holden's unit at Fishkill.
MOVING INTO A NEW ENGLAND VILLAGE
By comparison, we live in extremely open communities today. Three factors would have made the unassisted route to property ownership and marriage in eighteenth century Blandford difficult for Dirlam: the poor laws, the established church, and the sheltered position of women.
The Province's poor law put the financial responsibility for paupers on the towns. So, towns as big as Boston, and as small as Blandford and Becket, were "warning out" indigents. Town registers record many of these warnings, carried out and certified by the sheriff.
Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion until 1833, requiring every man to belong to a church, and pay taxes towards it. An earlier requirement to belong to a specifically Puritan church was eliminated in 1691. But Church trials for refusal to be governed by one's congregation on matters of belief and behavior could result in excommunication, and resulted in the harassment and eventual exodus of the entire Scots-Irish population of Hopkinton and the settling of Blandford in the 1730s. By the 1780s most towns like Becket had Congregational Churches, but Blandford, with its Scots-Irish immigrants, had a Presbyterian Church. When hymns led by a singing master beating time came into Presbyterian churches, Blandford residents were shocked, and their church affiliated 1800 to the more conservative Congregational Church. The ledgers of these narrow-minded little churches are filled with accounts of church trials over drunkenness, telling lies about other church members, failures to attend church, and accusations of heresy.
BECOMING A PROPERTY OWNER
The transformation from prisoner to married property owner happened rather quickly. John Gibbs bought property in Blandford at a tax auction in partnership with John
Durlam, according to
Ulster Scots and Blandford Scouts, and the Registry of Deeds in Springfield documents that purchase from the sheriff in 1780.
Curiously, Gibbs' son (1763-1840) is described in a 1785 deed as "Samuel Crooks
Gibbs, Cordwainer" and John Dirlam is described the same way in a 1789 deed. A cordwainer was a skilled craftsman who made soft leather goods. Did Samuel Crooks Gibbs learn his trade from John Dirlam? Traditionally a boy would be apprenticed for three years, usually ending at age 17. Masters usually supplied room, board, clothing, and taught the arithmetic used in commerce (fractions, percentages, etc.), in addition to the skills of the trade. And they were paid by the parents. Did Gibbs trade Dirlam land for the apprenticeship?
Another person of interest is John Watson, brother-in-law to John Gibbs. He had a large farm and tannery in Blandford and was accustomed to traveling to Boston and Albany. And Watson's father and brother operated a large tannery in Leicester. As cordwainers, Dirlam and Gibbs' son would have had skills of use to the Watsons, or perhaps been customers. Watson's uncle served on the Committee of Correspondence for nearby Spencer, and represented it at the Provincial Congress called in response to the killings at Lexington and Concord. These were people who traveled, who might have seen the opportunity in a paroled John Dirlam. Now all I need is some proof.
EXPECTATIONS OF MARRIAGE
Although mutual consent and love before marriage were routine in eighteenth century New England, courtship was not only a matter of personal choice. Rev. John Gill
(1697-1771) expressed this clearly, in a discussion of Adam and Eve, saying it "affords a rule and example to be followed by parents and children, the one to dispose of their children in marriage, and the other to have the consent of their parents in it." And by John Wesley
(1703-1791), in a letter to a fellow minister, "I was much concerned yesterday when I heard you were likely to marry a woman against the consent of your parents. I have never in an observation of fifty years known such a marriage attended with a blessing. I know not how it should be, since it is flatly contrary to the fifth commandment."
In this time before contraception, children were inevitable in marriage. So it was common to have a large family, and for the family to grow its own food and to make it's own clothes. To make this subsistence agriculture possible, conventionally a man brought land to marriage, and a woman a dowry of about half of its value. Dirlam would have needed to own property before he could court a woman. So, it would have been impossible for an penniless unemployed stranger, if that's what Dirlam was, to meet the marriageable Sarah Snow, daughter of a war veteran, somewhere far away from her father's home. He would need to have been established in Blandford first. In fact, from the land records, it looks like Dirlam had a place in Blandford before his future father-in-law had a place in nearby Becket. By the way, there would have been pressure on Dirlam to marry - single men were mistrusted in these regulated communities.
This post is substantially rewritten from an earlier post.
