Genealogical notes of Barnstable families - citizen hylbom blog

GENEALOGICAL NOTES OF BARNSTABLE FAMILIES. 233
drawing his sword on an unarmed man, nor did the act of Col.
Freeman warrant the act of Elijah Crocker in rushing upon him
with fixed bayonet.
I have repeatedly heard aged men, who took an active part in
the stirring events of those times, not only justify the act, but
refer to it as an evidence of the patriotic zeal of Col. Freeman.*
He had numerous adherents, more zealous than himself, who
counselled no concession. The Crockers had also many friends.
The wound might at first have been healed ; but frequent irritations
caused it to fester, and its virus spread through the village,
parish, and town, causing divisions in families, and alienation of
old friends. The children and friends of the parties ever entertained
a bitter hostility towards each other, and their grandchildren,
the men of the present generation, are sensitive on the
subject, and refer to it with painful interest.
Tar and feathering. Abigail Freeman, baptized in the East
Church Sept. 21, 1729, was a daughter of Thomas Davis of
Barnstable. The few among the aged who remember her, call
her the Widow Nabby Freeman. April 8, 1753, at the tender age
of fifteen, she married David Freeman of Fairfield, Conn. His
mother, who was a Sturgis, had married for her second husband.
Job Gorham, and it appears that some of her children came with
her to Barnstable. Abigail had a son born March 25, 1757,
named Thomas Davis Freeman, and she became a widow soon
after that date. She united with the East Church March 26,
1758, and continued to be a member, of good standing, till the
close of her life in November, 1788.
She resided in the ancient dwelling house probably built by
Joseph Lothrop, Esq., that stood next east of the new Court
House, where Judge Day now resides. Early in life she became a
widow and had to rely on her own unaided exertions to procure
the means of subsistence. She kept a small grocery store, and
being an outspoken tory, refused to surrender her small stock of
tea, to be destroyed by the Vigilance Committee. She was talkative,
a fault not exclusively confined to her sex, was a frequent
visitor at the house of Otis Loring, made no attempt to conceal
her tory principles, and was sometimes severe in her denunciation
of the acts of leading whigs. Her course was not patriotic and
not to be commended. Even at the present day (1863) there are
persons who condemn, with' more severity, the acts of our government
and the leading politicians, than did Abigail Freeman during
the Revoluntionai-y struggle ; yet no sane man would consider it
wise or expedient to enact laws, restraining the freedom of speech
in regard to the policy of measures, or the motives of individuals.
*I must confess that I have myself used this argument. I had not then investigated
the facts and circumstances of the case. In truth, there Is only one essential fact, and that
is, the assault. No one denies it, and the* question turns on this point; did the circumstances
justify the act? T once thought they did. I now think otherwise.