Parliament in its contest with the king, and had blended her
fortunes with the fortunes of the reformers. She had expressed
her willingness to 'rise and fall with them,' and' sent over
useful men, others going voluntarily, to their aid, who were
of good use, and did acceptable service to the army.' Her
loyalty, therefore, procured for her the protection of
Parliament. Yet the execution of Charles, which royalists have
ever regarded with the utmost abhorrence, was not openly
approved here. 'I find,' says Hutchinson, 'scarce any marks of
approbation of the tragical scene of which this year they
received intelligence.' The few allusions we have discovered
are none of them couched in terms of exultation. Virginia
pursued a different course, and openly resisted Parliament,
refused to submit to its decrees, and adhered to the cause of
royalty. … Yet the legislation of the commonwealth was not
wholly favorable even to Massachusetts.
{2108}
The proclamation relative to Virginia asserted, in general
terms, the power of appointing governors and commissioners to
be placed in all the English colonies, without exception; and
by Mr. Winslow, their agent in England, they were informed
that it was the pleasure of Parliament the patent of
Massachusetts should be returned, and a new one taken out,
under which courts were to be held and warrants issued. With
this request the people were indisposed to comply; and, too
wary to hazard the liberties so dearly purchased, a petition
was drawn up, pleading the cause of the colony with great
force, setting forth its allegiance, and expressing the hope
that, under the new government, things might not go worse with
them than under that of the king, and that their charter might
not be recalled, as they desired no better. This remonstrance
was successful; the measure was dropped, and the charter of
Charles continued in force. Parliament was not 'foiled' by the
colony. Its request was deemed reasonable; and there was no
disposition to invade forcibly its liberties. We have evidence
of this in the course of Cromwell. After his success in the
'Emerald Isle,' conceiving the project of introducing
Puritanism into Ireland, an invitation was extended to the
people of Massachusetts to remove thither and settle. But they
were too strongly attached to the land of their adoption, and
to its government, 'the happiest and wisest this day in the
world,' readily to desert it. Hence the politic proposal of
the lord protector was respectfully declined."
_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Puritan Colonies,
volume 1, chapter 9._
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1651-1660.
The absorption of Maine.
See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of the Quakers.
"In July, 1656, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin came to Boston from
Barbadoes; and shortly after, nine others, men and women,
arrived in the ship Speedwell from London. It was at once
known, for they did not wish to conceal it, that they were
'Friends,' vulgarly called 'Quakers'; and the Magistrates at
once took them in hand, determined that no people holding (as
they considered them) such damnable opinions, should come into
the Colony. A great crowd collected to hear them questioned,
and Boston was stirred up by a few illiterate enthusiasts.
They stood up before the Court with their hats on, apparently
without fear, and had no hesitation in calling governor
Endicott plain 'John.' … The replies which these men and
women made were direct and bold, and were considered rude and
contemptuous. … They … were committed to prison for their
'Rudeness and Insolence'; there being no law then under which
they could be punished for being Quakers." Before the year
closed, this defect of law was remedied by severe enactments,
"laying a penalty of £100 for bringing any Quaker into the
Colony: forty shillings for entertaining them for an hour;
Quaker men who came against these prohibitions were, upon
first conviction, to lose one ear, upon the second, the other
ear; and women were to be whipped. Upon the third conviction,
their tongues were to be bored with a hot iron. But these
things seemed useless, for the Quakers, knowing their fate,
swarmed into Massachusetts; and the Magistrates were fast
getting more business than they could attend to. It was then
determined to try greater severity, and in October, 1658, a
law was passed in Massachusetts (resisted by the Deputies,
urged by the Magistrates), punishing Quakers, who had been
banished, with death." The first to challenge the dread
penalty were a woman, Mary Dyer, and two men, William Robinson
and Marmaduke Stevenson, who, after being banished (September,
1659), came defiantly back the next month. "Governor Endicott
pronounced sentence of death against them. … On the 27th of
October, in the afternoon, a guard of 200 men, attended with a
drummer, conducted them to the gallows." Stevenson and
Robinson were hanged; but Mary Dyer was reprieved. "Her mind
was made up for death, and her reprieve brought her no joy.
She was taken away by her son. … Mary Dyer was a 'comely and
valiant woman,' and in the next Spring she returned. What now
was to be done? The law said she must be hung, and Endicott
again pronounced sentence, and she was led out to die a
felon's death. Some scoffed and jeered her, but the most
pitied; she died bravely, fearing nothing. … There seemed no
end; for Quaker after Quaker came; they were tried, they were
whipped, and the prison was full. … William Ledra [banished
in 1657] came back (September, 1660), and was subject to
death. They offered him his life, if he would go away and
promise not to return; he said: 'I came here to bear my
testimony, and to tell the truth of the Lord, in the ears of
this people. I refuse to go.' So he was hanged in the
succeeding March (14th). Wenlock Christopherson, or
Christison, came, and was tried and condemned to die. … The
death of Ledra, and the return of Wenlock Christison, brought
confusion among the Magistrates, and some said 'Where will
this end?' and declared it was time to stop. Governor Endicott
found it difficult to get a Court to agree to sentence
Christison to death; but he halted not, and pronounced the
sentence. … But a few days afterward the jailor opened the
prison doors, and Wenlock (with 27 others) was set at liberty,
much to his and their surprise." The friends of the Quakers in
England had prevailed upon King Charles II., then lately
restored, "to order the persecutions to cease in New England
(September 1661). Samuel Shattock, a banished Quaker, was sent
from England by Charles, with a letter to Governor Endicott
[the subject of Whittier's poem, 'The King's Missive'],
commanding that no more Quakers should be hanged or imprisoned
in New England, but should be sent to England for trial. This
ended the persecutions; for, on the 9th of December, 1661, the
Court ordered all Quakers to be set at liberty."
_C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 1, chapter 36._
"Some of our writers, alike in prose and in poetry, have
assumed, and have written on the assumption, that the
deliverance of the Quakers was effected by the interposition
in their behalf of King Charles II. … The royal letter …
had … been substantially anticipated as to its principal
demand by the action of the Court [in Massachusetts]. The
general jail delivery of 31 Quakers, including the three under
the death sentence who had voluntarily agreed to go off, was
ordered by the Court in October, 1660. The King's letter was
dated at Whitehall a year afterward. Let us claim whatever of
relief we can find in reminding ourselves that it was the
stern opposition and protest of the majority of the people of
the Puritan Colony, and not the King's command, that had
opened the gates of mercy."
_G. E. Ellis,
The Puritan Age and Rule,
pp. 477-479._
{2109}
While the Quakers first arrested at Boston were lying in jail,
"the Federal Commissioners, then in session at Plymouth,
recommended that laws be forthwith enacted to keep these
dreaded heretics out of the land. Next year they stooped so
far as to seek the aid of Rhode Island, the colony which they
had refused to admit into their confederacy. … Roger
Williams was then president of Rhode Island, and in full
accord with his noble spirit was the reply of the assembly.
'We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only
declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning
the things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal
condition.' As for these Quakers, we find that where they are
'most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only
opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all
desire to come.' Any breach of the civil law shall be
punished, but the 'freedom of different consciences shall be
respected.' This reply enraged the confederated colonies, and
Massachusetts, as the strongest and most overbearing,
threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island, which
forthwith appealed to Cromwell for protection. … In thus
protecting the Quakers, Williams never for a moment concealed
his antipathy to their doctrines. … The four confederated
colonies all proceeded to pass laws banishing Quakers. …
Those of Connecticut … were the mildest."
_J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
B. Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 5.
_R. P. Hallowell,
The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts._
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1657-1662.
The Halfway Covenant.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
Under the Restored Monarchy.
The first collision with the crown.
"In May, 1660, Charles II. mounted the throne of his
ancestors. … In December of this year, intelligence of the
accession of a new king had reached Massachusetts; the General
Court convened and prepared addresses to his majesty. … In
the following May a reply, signed by Mr. Secretary Morrice,
together with a mandate for the arrest of Goffe and Whalley,
the regicides who had escaped to Massachusetts, was received
in Boston. The king's response contained a general expression
of good will, which, however, did not quiet the apprehensions
of the colonists. The air was filled with rumors, and
something seemed to forebode an early collision with the
crown. At a special session of the court, held in June, 'a
declaration of natural and chartered rights' was approved and
published. In this document the people affirmed their right
'to choose their own governor, deputy governor, and
representatives; to admit freemen on terms to be prescribed at
their own pleasure; to set up all sorts of officers, superior
and inferior, and point out their power and places; to
exercise, by their annually elected magistrates and deputies,
all power and authority, legislative, executive, and judicial;
to defend themselves by force of arms against every
aggression; and to reject, as an infringement of their rights,
any parliamentary or royal imposition, prejudicial to the
country, and contrary to any just act of colonial
legislation.' More than a year elapsed from the restoration of
Charles II. to his public recognition at Boston. … Even the
drinking of his health was forbidden, and the event was
celebrated only amid the coldest formalities. Meanwhile the
colonists not only declared, but openly assumed, their rights;
and in consequence complaints were almost daily instituted by
those who were hostile to the government. Political opinion
was diversified; and while 'a majority were for sustaining,
with the charter, an independent government in undiminished
force, a minority were willing to make some concessions.' In
the midst of the discussions, John Norton, 'a friend to
moderate counsels,' and Simon Bradstreet were induced to go to
England as agents of the colony. Having been instructed to
convince the king of the loyalty of the people of
Massachusetts, and to 'engage to nothing prejudicial to their
present standing according to their patent, and to endeavor
the establishment of the rights and privileges then enjoyed,'
the commissioners sailed from Boston on the 10th of February,
1662. In England they were courteously received by king
Charles, and from him obtained, in a letter dated June 28, a
confirmation of their charter, and an amnesty for all past
offences. At the same time the king rebuked them for the
irregularities which had been complained of in the government;
directed 'a repeal of all laws derogatory to his authority;
the taking of the oath of allegiance; the administration of
justice in his name; a concession of the elective franchise to
all freeholders of competent estate; and as 'the principle of
the charter was the freedom of the liberty of conscience,' the
allowance of that freedom to those who desired to use 'the
booke of common prayer, and perform their devotion in the
manner established in England.' These requisitions of the king
proved anything but acceptable to the people of Massachusetts.
With them the question of obedience became a question of
freedom, and gave rise to the parties which continued to
divide the colony until the establishment of actual
independence. It was not thought best to comply immediately
with his majesty's demands; on the other hand, no refusal to
do so was promulgated." Presently a rumor reached America
"that royal commissioners were to be appointed to regulate the
affairs of New England. Precautionary measures were now taken.
The patent and a duplicate of the same were delivered to a
committee of four, with instructions to hold them in safe
keeping. Captain Davenport, at Castle Fort, was ordered to
give early announcement of the arrival of his Majesty's ships.
Officers and soldiers were forbidden to land from ships,
except in small parties. … On the 23d of July, 1664, 'about
five or six of the clock at night,' the 'Guinea,' followed by
three other ships of the line, arrived in Boston harbor. They
were well manned and equipped for the reduction of the Dutch
settlements on the Hudson, and brought commissioners hostile
to colonial freedom, and who were charged by the king to
determine 'all complaints and appeals in all causes and
matters, as well military as criminal and civil,' and to
'proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the
peace and security of the country, according to their good and
sound discretions.' Colonel Richard Nichols and Colonel George
Cartwright were the chief members of the commission.
{2110}
At the earliest possible moment they produced their legal
warrant, the king's letter of April 23, and requested the
assistance of the colonies in the reduction of the Dutch.
Shortly afterwards the fleet set out for New Netherlands. On
the 3d of August the General Court convened, and the state of
affairs was discussed." As the result of the discussion it was
agreed that a force of 200 men should be raised to serve
against the Dutch, and that the old law of citizenship should
be so far modified as to provide "'that all English subjects,
being freeholders, and of a competent estate, and certified by
the ministers of the place to be orthodox in faith, and not
vicious in their lives, should be made freemen, although not
members of the church.' Before the session closed,
Massachusetts published an order forbidding the making of
complaints to the commissioners," and adopted a spirited
address to the king. When, in February, 1665, three of the
commissioners returned to Boston, they soon found that they
were not to be permitted to take any proceedings which could
call in question "the privilege of government within
themselves" which the colony claimed. Attempting in May to
hold a court for the hearing of charges against a Boston
merchant, they were interrupted by a herald from the governor
who sounded his trumpet and forbade, in the name of the king,
any abetting of their proceedings. On this they wrathfully
departed for the north, after sending reports of the contumacy
of Massachusetts to the king. The latter now summoned governor
Bellingham to England, but the summons was not obeyed. "'We
have already furnished our views in writing [said the General
Court], so that the ablest persons among us could not declare
our case more fully.' … The defiance of Massachusetts was
followed by no immediate danger. For a season the contest with
the crown ceased. The king himself was too much engaged with
his women to bestow his attention upon matters of state; and
thus, while England was lamenting the want of a good
government, the colonies, true to themselves, their country,
and their God, flourished in purity and peace."
_G. L. Austin,
History of Massachusetts,
chapter 4._
_Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 4, part 2._
See, also,
NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
The struggle for the charter and its overthrow.
"Although the colonists were alarmed at their own success,
there was nothing to fear. At no time before or since could
England have been so safely defied. … The discord between
the crown and Parliament paralyzed the nation, and the
wastefulness of Charles kept him always poor. By the treaty of
Dover in 1670 he became a pensioner of Louis XIV. The Cabal
followed, probably the worst ministry England ever saw; and in
1672, at Clifford's suggestion, the exchequer was closed and the
debt repudiated to provide funds for the second Dutch war. In
March fighting began, and the tremendous battles with De
Ruyter kept the navy in the Channel. At length, in 1673, the
Cabal fell, and Danby became prime minister. Although during
these years of disaster and disgrace Massachusetts was not
molested by Great Britain, they were not all years during
which the theocracy could tranquilly enjoy its victory. …
With the rise of Danby a more regular administration opened,
and, as usual, the attention of the government was fixed upon
Massachusetts by the clamors of those who demanded redress for
injuries alleged to have been received at her hands. In 1674 the
heirs of Mason and Gorges, in despair at the reoccupation of
Maine, proposed to surrender their claim to the king,
reserving one third of the product of the customs for
themselves. The London merchants also had become restive under
the systematic violation of the Navigation Acts. The breach in
the revenue laws had, indeed, been long a subject of
complaint, and the commissioners had received instructions
relating thereto; but it was not till this year that these
questions became serious. … New England was fast getting its
share of the carrying trade. London merchants already began to
feel the competition of its cheap and untaxed ships, and
manufacturers to complain that they were undersold in the
American market, by goods brought direct from the Continental
ports. A petition, therefore, was presented to the king, to
carry the law into effect. … The famous Edward Randolph now
appears. The government was still too deeply embarrassed to
act with energy. A temporizing policy was therefore adopted;
and as the experiment of a commission had failed, Randolph was
chosen as a messenger to carry the petitions and opinions to
Massachusetts; together with a letter from the king, directing
that agents should be sent in answer thereto. After delivering
them, he was ordered to devote himself to preparing a report
upon the country. He reached Boston June 10, 1676. Although it
was a time of terrible suffering from the ravages of the Indian
war, the temper of the magistrates was harsher than ever. The
repulse of the commissioners had convinced them that Charles
was not only lazy and ignorant, but too poor to use force; and
they also believed him to be so embroiled with Parliament as
to make his overthrow probable. Filled with such feelings,
their reception of Randolph was almost brutal. John Leverett
was governor, who seems to have taken pains to mark his
contempt in every way in his power. Randolph was an able, but
an unscrupulous man, and probably it would not have been
difficult to have secured his good-will. Far however from
bribing, or even flattering him, they so treated him as to
make him the bitterest enemy the Puritan Commonwealth ever
knew. … The legislature met in August, 1676, and a decision
had to be made concerning agents. On the whole, the clergy
concluded it would be wiser to obey the crown, 'provided they
be, with utmost care & caution, qualified as to their
instructions.' Accordingly, after a short adjournment, the
General Court chose William Stoughton and Peter Bulkely; and
having strictly limited their power to a settlement of the
territorial controversy, they sent them on their mission. …
The controversy concerning the boundary was referred to the
two chief justices, who promptly decided against the Company;
and the easy acquiescence of the General Court must raise a
doubt as to their faith in the soundness of their claims. And
now again the fatality which seemed to pursue the theocracy in
all its dealings with England led it to give fresh provocation to
the king by secretly buying the title of Gorges for 1,250
pounds. Charles had intended to settle Maine on the Duke of
Monmouth. It was a worthless possession, whose revenue never
paid for its defence; yet so stubborn was the colony that it
made haste to anticipate the crown and thus became 'Lord
Proprietary' of a burdensome province at the cost of a slight
which was never forgiven.
{2111}
Almost immediately the Privy Council had begun to open other
matters, such as coining and illicit trade; and the
attorney-general drew up a list of statutes which, in his
opinion, were contrary to the laws of England. … In the
spring the law officers gave an opinion that the misdemeanors
alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to avoid her
patent; and the Privy Council, in view of the encroachments
and injuries which she had continually practised on her
neighbors, and her contempt of his majesty's commands, advised
that a 'quo warranto' should be brought against the charter.
Randolph was appointed collector at Boston. Even Leverett now
saw that some concessions must be made, and the General Court
ordered the oath of allegiance to be taken; nothing but
perversity seems to have caused the long delay. The royal arms
were also carved in the courthouse; and this was all, for the
clergy were determined upon those matters touching their
authority. … Nearly half a century had elapsed since the
emigration, and with the growth of wealth and population
changes had come. In March, John Leverett, who had long been
the head of the high-church party, died, and the election of
Simon Bradstreet as his successor was a triumph for the
opposition. Great as the clerical influence still was, it had
lost much of its old despotic power, and the congregations
were no longer united in support of the policy of their
pastors. … Boston and the larger towns favored concession,
while the country was the ministers' stronghold. The result of
this divergence of opinion was that the moderate party, to
which Bradstreet and Dudley belonged, predominated in the
Board of Assistants, while the deputies remained immovable.
The branches of the legislature thus became opposed; no course
of action could be agreed on, and the theocracy drifted to its
destruction. … Meanwhile Randolph had renewed his attack. He
declared that in spite of promises and excuses the revenue
laws were not enforced; that his men were beaten, and that he
hourly expected to be thrown into prison; whereas in other
colonies, he asserted, he was treated with great respect.
There can be no doubt ingenuity was used to devise means of
annoyance; and certainly the life he was made to lead was
hard. In March he sailed for home, and while in London he made
a series of reports to the government which seem to have
produced the conviction that the moment for action had come.
In December he returned, commissioned as deputy-surveyor and
auditor-general for all New England, except New Hampshire. …
Hitherto the clerical party had procrastinated, buoyed up by
the hope that in the fierce struggle with the commons Charles
might be overthrown; but this dream ended with the dissolution
of the Oxford Parliament, and further inaction became
impossible. Joseph Dudley and John Richards were chosen
agents, and provided with instructions bearing the peculiar
tinge of ecclesiastical statesmanship. … The agents were
urged to do what was possible to avert, or at least delay, the
stroke; but they were forbidden to consent to appeals, or to
alterations in the qualifications required for the admission
of freemen. They had previously been directed to pacify the
king by a present of 2,000 pounds; and this ill-judged attempt
at bribery had covered them with ridicule. Further negotiation
would have been futile. Proceedings were begun at once, and
Randolph was sent to Boston to serve the writ of 'quo
warranto'; he was also charged with a royal declaration
promising that, even then, were submission made, the charter
should be restored with only such changes as the public
welfare demanded. Dudley, who was a man of much political
sagacity, had returned and strongly urged moderation. The
magistrates were not without the instincts of statesmanship:
they saw that a breach with England must destroy all
safeguards of the common freedom, and they voted an address to
the crown accepting the proffered terms. But the clergy strove
against them: the privileges of their order were at stake;
they felt that the loss of their importance would be
'destructive to the interest of religion and of Christ's
kingdom in the colony,' and they roused their congregations to
resist. The deputies did not represent the people, but the
church. … The influence which had moulded their minds and
guided their actions controlled them still, and they rejected
the address. … All that could be resolved on was to retain
Robert Humphrys of the Middle Temple to interpose such delays
as the law permitted; but no attempt was made at defence upon
the merits of their cause, probably because all knew well that
no such defence was possible. Meanwhile, for technical
reasons, the 'quo warranto' had been abandoned, and a writ of
'scire facias' had been issued out of chancery. On June 18,
1684, the lord keeper ordered the defendant to appear and
plead on the first day of the next Michaelmas Term. The time
allowed was too short for an answer from America, and judgment
was entered by default. … So perished the Puritan
Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, its life sprang
from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this great
and noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a
priesthood, and during the supremacy of the clergy the
government was doomed to be both persecuting and repressive.
Under no circumstance could the theocracy have endured: it
must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack from
without."
_Brooks Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 6._
"December 19, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Nantasket, in
the Kingfisher, a 50 gun ship, with commissions from King
James for the government of New England."
_T. Hutchinson,
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_G. E. Ellis,
Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts,
chapter 13._
C. Deane,
_The Struggle to Maintain the Charter of Charles I.
(Memorial History of Boston,
volume 1, pages 329-382)._
_Records of the Governor and Company Massachusetts Bay,
volume 5._
See, also,
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1679.
The severance of New Hampshire.
See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.
{2112}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
The tyranny of Andros and its downfall.
"With the charter were swept away representative government,
and every right and every political institution reared during
half a century of conflict. The rule of Andros was on the
model dear to the heart of his royal master—a harsh
despotism, but neither strong nor wise; it was wretched
misgovernment, and stupid, blundering oppression. And this
arbitrary and miserable system Andros undertook to force upon
a people of English race, who had been independent and
self-governing for fifty years. He laid taxes at his own
pleasure, and not even according to previous rates, as he had
promised; he denied the Habeas Corpus to John Wise, the
intrepid minister of Ipswich, arrested for preaching against
taxation without representation, and he awakened a like
resistance in all directions. He instituted fees, was believed
to pack juries, and made Randolph licenser of the press. Worst
of all, he struck at property, demanded the examination of the
old titles, declared them worthless, extorted quit-rents for
renewal, and issued writs of intrusion against those who
resisted; while, not content with attacking political liberty
and the rights of property, he excited religious animosity by
forbidding civil marriages, seizing the old South church for
the Episcopal service, and introducing swearing by the Book in
courts of justice. He left nothing undone to enrage the people
and prepare for revolution; and when he returned from
unsuccessful Indian warfare in the east, the storm was ready
to burst. News came of the landing of the Prince of Orange.
Andros arrested the bearer of the tidings, and issued a
proclamation against the Prince; but the act was vain. Without
apparent concert or preparation Boston rose in arms, the
signal-fire blazed on Beacon Hill, and the country people
poured in, hot for revenge. Some of the old magistrates met at
the town-house, and read a 'declaration of the gentlemen,
merchants, and inhabitants,' setting forth the misdeeds of
Andros, the illegality of the Dudley government by commission,
and the wrongful suppression of the charter. Andros and Dudley
were arrested and thrown into prison, together with the
captain of the Rose frigate, which lay helpless beneath the
guns of the fort, and a provisional government was
established, with Bradstreet at its head. William and Mary
were proclaimed, the revolution was complete, and Andros soon
went back a prisoner to England."
_H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 3, chapters 13-14 (volume 3)._
_The Andros Tracts;
edited by w. H. Whitmore
(Prince Society, 1868)._
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
The procuring of the new Charter.
The Colonial Republic transformed into a Royal Province.
The absorption of Plymouth.
A little more than a month from the overthrow of Andros a ship
from England arrived at Boston, with news of the proclamation
of William and Mary. This was joyful intelligence to the body
of the people. The magistrates were at once relieved from
their fears, for the revolution in the old world justified
that in the new. Three days later the proclamation was
published with unusual ceremony. … A week later the
representatives of the several towns, upon a new choice, met
at Boston, and proposals were made that charges should be
forthwith drawn up against Andros, or that all the prisoners
but Andros should be liberated on bail; but both propositions
were rejected. The representatives likewise urged the
unconditional resumption of the charter, declaring that they
could not act in any thing until this was conceded. Many
opposed the motion; but it was finally adopted; and it was
resolved that all the laws in force May 12, 1686, should be
continued until further orders. Yet the magistrates, conscious
of the insecurity of the position they occupied, used
prudently the powers intrusted to them." Meantime, Increase
Mather, who had gone to England before the Revolution took
place as agent for the colony, had procured an audience with
the new king, William III., and received from him an assurance
that he would remove Andros from the government of New England
and call him to an account for his administration. "Anxious
for the restoration of the old charter and its privileges,
under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent
applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the
wisest statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent
judgment of all that the best course would be to obtain first
a reversion of the judgment against the charter by an act of
Parliament, and then apply to the king for such additional
privileges as were necessary. Accordingly, in the House of
Commons, where the whole subject of seizing charters in the
reign of Charles II. was up for discussion, the charters of
New England were inserted with the rest; and, though enemies
opposed the measure, it was voted that their abrogation was a
grievance, and that they should be forthwith restored." But
before the bill having this most satisfactory effect had been
acted on in the House of Lords, the Convention Parliament was
prorogued, then dissolved, and the next parliament proved to
be less friendly. An order was obtained, however, from the
king, continuing the government of the colony under the old
charter until a new one was settled, and requiring Andros and
his fellow prisoners to be sent to England for trial. On the
trial, much court influence seemed to go in favor of Sir
Edmund; the proceedings against him were summarily quashed,
and he was discharged. Soon afterwards he was made governor of
Virginia, while Dudley received appointment to the office of
chief justice at New York. Contending against the intrigues of
the Andros party, and many other adverse influences, the
agents of Massachusetts were reluctantly forced at last to
relinquish all hopes of the restoration of the old charter,
and "application was made for a new grant, which should
confirm the privileges of the old instrument, and such in
addition as the experience of the people had taught them would
be of benefit. … The king was prevailed upon to refer the
affairs of New England to the two lords chief justices and the
attorney and solicitor-general, all of whom were supposed to
be friendly to the applicants. Mr. Mather was permitted to
attend their meetings." Difficulties arose in connection with
Plymouth Colony. It was the determination in England that
Plymouth should no longer be separately chartered, but should
be joined to Massachusetts or New York. In opposing the former
more natural union, the Plymouth people very nearly brought
about their annexation to New York; but Mather's influence
averted that result. "The first draught of a charter was
objected to by the agents, because of its limitation of the
powers of the governor, who was to be appointed by the king.
The second draught was also objected to; whereupon the agents
were informed that they 'must not consider themselves as
plenipotentiaries from a foreign state, and that if they were
unwilling to submit to the pleasure of the king, his majesty
would settle the country without them, and they might take
what would follow.'
{2113}
Nothing remained, therefore, but to decide whether they would
submit, or continue without a charter, and at the mercy of the
king." The two colleagues who had been associated with Mather
opposed submission, but the latter yielded, and the charter
was signed. "By the terms of this new charter the territories
of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Maine, with a tract farther
east, were united into one jurisdiction, whose officers were
to consist of a governor, a deputy governor, and a secretary,
appointed by the king, and 28 councillors, chosen by the
people. A General Court was to be holden annually, on the last
Wednesday in May, and at such other times as the governor saw
fit; and each town was authorized to choose two deputies to
represent them in this court. The choice of these deputies was
conceded to all freeholders having an estate of the value of
forty pounds sterling, or land yielding an income of at least
forty shillings per annum; and every deputy was to take the
oath of allegiance prescribed by the crown. All residents of
the province and their children were entitled to the liberties
of natural born subjects; and liberty of conscience was
secured to all but Papists. … To the governor was given a
negative upon all laws enacted by the General Court; without
his consent in writing none were valid; and all receiving his
sanction were to be transmitted to the king for approval, and
if rejected at any time within three years were to be of no
effect. The governor was empowered to establish courts, levy
taxes, convene the militia, carry on war, exercise martial
law, with the consent of the council, and erect and furnish an
requisite forts. … Such was the province charter of 1692—a
far different instrument from the colonial charter of 1629. It
effected a thorough revolution in the country. The form of
government, the powers of the people, and the entire
foundation and objects of the body politic, were placed upon a
new basis; and the dependence of the colonies upon the crown
was secured. … It was on Saturday, the 14th of May, 1692,
that Sir William Phips arrived at Boston as the first governor
of the new province."
_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_W. H. Whitmore,
The Inter-Charter Period
(Memorial History of Boston, volume 2)._
_G. P. Fisher,
The Colonial Era,
chapter 13._
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War.
Temporary conquest of Acadia.
Disastrous expedition against Quebec.
Threatened attack by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its beginning.
"The people of Massachusetts in the 17th century, like all
other Christian people at that time,—at least, with extremely
rare individual exceptions,—believed in the reality of a
hideous crime called 'witchcraft.' … In a few instances
witches were believed to have appeared in the earlier years of
New England. But the cases had been sporadic. … With three
or four exceptions … no person appears to have been punished
for witchcraft in Massachusetts, nor convicted of it, for more
than sixty years after the settlement, though there had been
three or four trials of other persons suspected of the crime.
At the time when the question respecting the colonial charter
was rapidly approaching an issue, and the public mind was in
feverish agitation, the ministers sent out a paper of
proposals for collecting facts concerning witchcrafts and
other 'strange apparitions.' This brought out a work from
President [Increase] Mather entitled 'Illustrious
Providences,' in which that influential person related
numerous stories of the performances of persons leagued with
the Devil. The imagination of his restless young son [Cotton
Mather] was stimulated, and circumstances fed the flame." A
poor Irish washerwoman, in Boston, accused by some malicious
children named Goodwin, who played antics which were supposed
to signify that they had been bewitched, was tried, convicted
and sent to the gallows (1688) as a witch. "Cotton Mather took
the oldest 'afflicted' girl to his house, where she
dexterously played upon his self-conceit to stimulate his
credulity. She satisfied him that Satan regarded him as his
most terrible enemy, and avoided him with especial awe. …
Mather's account of these transactions ['Late Memorable
Providences relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions'], with a
collection of other appropriate matter, was circulated not
only in Massachusetts, but widely also in England, where it
obtained the warm commendation of Richard Baxter; and it may
be supposed to have had an important effect in producing the
more disastrous delusion which followed three years after. …
Mr. Samuel Parris was minister of a church in a part of Salem
which was then called 'Salem Village,' and which now as a
separate town bears the name of Danvers. He was a man of
talents, and of repute for professional endowments, but
avaricious, wrong-headed, and ill-tempered. Among his
parishioners, at the time of his installation and afterwards,
there had been angry disputes about the election of a
minister, which had never been composed. Neighbors and
relations were embittered against each other. Elizabeth
Parris, the minister's daughter, was now nine years old. A
niece of his, eleven years old, lived in his family. His
neighbor, Thomas Putnam, the parish clerk, had a daughter
named Ann, twelve years of age. These children, with a few
other young women, of whom two were as old as twenty years or
thereabouts, had become possessed with a wild curiosity about
the sorceries of which they had been hearing and reading, and
used to hold meetings for study, if it may be so called, and
practice. They learned to go through motions similar to those
which had lately made the Goodwin children so famous. They
forced their limbs into grotesque postures, uttered unnatural
outcries, were seized with cramps and spasms, became incapable
of speech and of motion. By and by [March, 1692], they
interrupted public worship. … The families were distressed.
The neighbors were alarmed. The physicians were perplexed and
baffled, and at length declared that nothing short of witchery
was the trouble. The kinsfolk of the 'afflicted children'
assembled for fasting and prayer. Then the neighboring
ministers were sent for, and held at Mr. Parris's house a
prayer-meeting which lasted through the day. The children
performed in their presence, and the result was a confirmation
by the ministers of the opinion of the doctors. Of course, the
next inquiry was by whom the manifest witchcraft was
exercised.
{2114}
It was presumed that the unhappy girls could give the answer.
For a time they refused to do so. But at length, yielding to
an importunity which it had become difficult to escape unless
by an avowal of their fraud, they pronounced the names of
Good, Osborn, and Tituba. Tituba—half Indian, half
negro—was a servant of Mr. Parris, brought by him from
Barbadoes, where he had formerly been a merchant. Sarah Good
was an old woman, miserably poor. Sarah Osborn had been
prosperous in early life. She had been married twice, and her
second husband was still living, but separated from her. Her
reputation was not good, and for some time she had been
bedridden, and in a disturbed nervous state. … Tituba,
whether in collusion with her young mistress, or, as was
afterwards said, in consequence of having been scourged by Mr.
Parris, confessed herself to be a witch, and charged Good and
Osborn with being her accomplices. The evidence was then
thought sufficient, and the three were committed to gaol for
trial. Martha Corey and Rebecca Nourse were next cried out
against. Both were church-members of excellent character, the
latter, seventy years of age. They were examined by the same
Magistrates, and sent to prison, and with them a child of
Sarah Good, only four or five years old, also charged with
diabolical practices."
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_C. W. Upham,
Salem Witchcraft,
part 3 (volume 2)._
_S. G. Drake,
Annals of Witchcraft in New England._
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its culmination.
"Now a new feature of this thing showed itself. The wife of
Thomas Putnam joined the children, and 'makes most terrible
shrieks' against Goody Nurse—that she was bewitching her,
too. On the 3d of April, Minister Parris preached long and
strong from the Text, 'Have I not chosen you twelve, and one
of you is a devil?' in which he bore down so hard upon the
Witches accused that Sarah Cloyse, the sister of Nurse, would
not sit still, but 'went out of meeting'; always a wicked
thing to do, as they thought, but now a heinous one. At once
the children cried out against her, and she was clapt into
prison with the rest. Through the months of April and May,
Justices Hawthorne and Curwin (or Corwin), with Marshal George
Herrick, were busy getting the Witches into jail, and the good
people were startled, astounded, and terror-struck, at the
numbers who were seized. … Bridget Bishop, only, was then
brought to trial, for the new Charter and new Governor
(Phips), were expected daily. She was old, and had been
accused of witchcraft twenty years before. … So, as there
was no doubt about her, she was quickly condemned, and hung on
the 10th day of this pleasant June, in the presence of a crowd
of sad and frightened people. … The new Governor, Phips, one
of Mather's Church, fell in with the prevailing fear, and a
new bench of special Judges, composed of Lieutenant-Governor
Stoughton, Major Saltonstall, Major Richards, Major Gidney,
Mr. Wait Winthrop, Captain Sewall, and Mr. Sargent, were sworn
in, and went to work. On the 30th of June, Sarah Good, Rebeka
Nurse, Susannah Martin, Elizabeth How, and Sarah Wilder, were
brought to trial; all were found guilty, and sentenced to
death, except Nurse, who, being a Church member, was acquitted
by the jury. At this, the 'afflicted' children fell into fits,
and others made great outcries; and the popular
dissatisfaction was so great, that the Court sent them back to
the jury room, and they returned shortly, with a verdict of
Guilty! The Rev. Mr. Noyes, of Salem, then excommunicated
Nurse, delivered her to Satan, and they all were led out to
die. Minister Noyes told Susannah Martin that she was a witch,
and knew it, and she had better confess it; but she refused,
and told him that 'he lied,' and that he knew it; and, 'that
if he took away her life, God would give him blood to drink;'
which curse is now traditionally believed, and that he was
choked with blood. They were hanged, protesting their
innocence; and there was none to pity them. On the 5th of
August, a new batch was haled before the Court. Reverend
George Burroughs, John Proctor and his wife, John Willard,
George Jacobs, and Martha Carrier. Burroughs was disliked by
some of the Clergy, for he was tinctured with Roger Williams's
Heresies of Religious Freedom; and he was particularly
obnoxious to Mather, for he had spoken slightingly of
witchcraft, and had even said there was no such thing as a
witch. Willard had been a constable employed in seizing
witches, but, becoming sick of the business, had refused to do
it any more. The children at once cried out, that he, too, was
a witch; he fled for his life, but was caught at Nashua, and
brought back. Old Jacobs was accused by his own
grand-daughter; and Carrier was convicted upon the testimony
of her own children. They were all quickly convicted and
sentenced. … All but Mrs. Proctor saw the last of earth on
the 19th of August. They were hanged on Gallows Hill. Minister
Burroughs made so moving a prayer, closing with the Lord's
Prayer, which it was thought no witch could say, that there
was fear lest the crowd should hinder the hanging. As soon as
he was turned off, Mr. Mather, sitting on his horse, addressed
the people, to prove to them that Burroughs was really no
Minister, and to show how he must be guilty, notwithstanding
his prayer, for the devil could change himself into an angel
of light. … Giles Cory, an old man of 80, saw that the
accused were prejudged, and refused to plead to the charge
against him. What could be done with him? It was found that
for this, by some sort of old law, he might be pressed to
death. So on the 16th of September, just as the autumn tints
were beginning to glorify the earth, he was laid on the
ground, bound hand and foot, and stones were piled upon him,
till the tongue was pressed out of his mouth; 'the Sheriff
with his cane forced it in again when he was dying.' Such
cruel things did fear—fear of the Devil—lead these people
to do. He was the first and last who died in New England in
this way. On the 22d of September, eight of the sentenced were
carted up Gallows Hill and done to death. Amid a great
concourse of men, women, and children, from the neighboring
villages, and from Boston, the victims went crying and
singing, dragged through the lines of terror-stricken or
pitying people. Some would have rescued them, but they had no
leaders, and knew not how to act; so that tragedy was
consummated; and the Reverend Mr. Noyes, pointing at them,
said, 'What a sad thing it is to see eight fire-brands of hell
hanging there!' Sad indeed!
{2115}
Nineteen had now been hung. One pressed to death. Eight were
condemned. A hundred and fifty were in prison; and two hundred
more were accused by the 'afflicted.' Some fifty had
acknowledged themselves witches, of whom not one was executed.
… It was now October, and this mischief seemed to be
spreading like fire among the dry grass of the Prairies; and a
better quality of persons was beginning to be accused by the
bewitched. … But these accusations made people consider, and
many began to think that they had been going on too fast. 'The
juries changed sooner than the judges, and they sooner than
the Clergy.' 'At last,' says one of them, 'it was evidently
seen that there must be a stop put, or the generation of the
church of God would fall under that condemnation.' In other
words, the better class of church members were in danger! At
the January session, only three were convicted, and they were
reprieved; whereat Chief Justice Stoughton rose in anger, and
said, 'The Lord be merciful to this country!' In the spring,
Governor Phips, being about to leave the country, pardoned all
who were condemned, and the jails were delivered. The
excitement subsided as rapidly as it had arisen, but the evil
work was done."
_C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 2, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_S. P. Fowler, editor,
Salem Witchcraft (including Calef's
"More Wonders of the Invisible World," etc.)._
_C. S. Osgood and H. M. Batchelder,
Historical Sketch of Salem,
chapter 2._
_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 2, chapter 2._
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692-1693.
The Salem Witchcraft madness: its ending, and the reaction.
"On the second Wednesday in October, 1692, about a fortnight
after the last hanging of eight at Salem, the representatives
of the colony assembled; and the people of Andover, their
minister joining with them, appeared with their remonstrance
against the doings of the witch tribunals. Of the discussions
that ensued no record is preserved; we know only the issue.
The general court ordered by bill a convocation of ministers,
that the people might be led in the right way as to the
witchcraft. … They abrogated the special court, established
a tribunal by statute, and delayed its opening till January of
the following year. This interval gave the public mind
security and freedom; and though Phips still conferred the
place of chief judge on Stoughton, yet jurors acted
independently. When, in January, 1693, the court met at Salem,
six women of Andover, renouncing their confessions, treated
the witchcraft but as something so called, the bewildered but
as 'seemingly afflicted.' A memorial of like tenor came from
the inhabitants of Andover. Of the presentments, the grand
jury dismissed more than half; and of the twenty-six against
whom bills were found through the testimony on which others
had been condemned, verdicts of acquittal followed. … The
people of Salem village drove Parris from the place; Noyes
regained favor only by a full confession and consecrating the
remainder of his life to deeds of mercy. Sewall, one of the
judges, by rising in his pew in the Old South meeting-house on
a fast-day and reading to the whole congregation a paper in
which he bewailed his great offence, recovered public esteem.
Stoughton never repented. The diary of Cotton Mather proves
that he, who had sought the foundation of faith in tales of
wonders, himself 'had temptations to atheism, and to the
abandonment of all religion as a mere delusion.'"
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._
"It was long before the public mind recovered from its
paralysis. No one knew what ought to be said or done, the
tragedy had been so awful. The parties who had acted in it
were so numerous, and of such standing, including almost all
the most eminent and honored leaders of the community from the
bench, the bar, the magistracy, the pulpit, the medical
faculty, and in fact all classes and descriptions of persons;
the mysteries connected with the accusers and confessors; the
universal prevalence of the legal, theological, and
philosophical theories that had led to the proceedings; the
utter impossibility of realizing or measuring the extent of
the calamity; and the general shame and horror associated with
the subject in all minds; prevented any open movement. … Dr.
Bentley describes the condition of the community in some brief
and pregnant sentences … : 'As soon as the judges ceased to
condemn, the people ceased to accuse. … Terror at the
violence and guilt of the proceedings succeeded instantly to
the conviction of blind zeal; and what every man had
encouraged all professed to abhor. Few dared to blame other
men, because few were innocent. The guilt and the shame became
the portion of the country, while Salem had the infamy of
being the place of the transactions.'"
_C. W. Upham,
Salem Witchcraft,
volume 2, supplement._
"The probability seems to be that those who began in harmless
deceit found themselves at length involved so deeply, that
dread of shame and punishment drove them to an extremity where
their only choice was between sacrificing themselves, or
others to save themselves. It is not unlikely that some of the
younger girls were so far carried along by imitation or
imaginative sympathy as in some degree to 'credit their own
lie.' … Parish and boundary feuds had set enmity between
neighbors, and the girls, called on to say who troubled them,
cried out upon those whom they had been wont to hear called by
hard names at home. They probably had no notion what a
frightful ending their comedy was to have; but at any rate
they were powerless, for the reins had passed out of their
hands into the sterner grasp of minister and magistrate. …
In one respect, to which Mr. Upham first gives the importance
it deserves, the Salem trials were distinguished from all
others. Though some of the accused had been terrified into
confession, yet not one persevered in it, but all died
protesting their innocence, and with unshaken constancy,
though an acknowledgment of guilt would have saved the lives
of all. This martyr proof of the efficacy of Puritanism in the
character and conscience may be allowed to outweigh a great
many sneers at Puritan fanaticism."
_J. R. Lowell,
Witchcraft
(Among My Books, series 1)._
ALSO IN:
_G. M. Beard,
Psychology of the Salem Witchcraft Excitement._
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1703-1711.
Queen Anne's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1704.
The first Newspaper.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1722-1725.
Renewed War with the northeastern Indians.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
{2116}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War.
The taking of Louisbourg and its restoration to France.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755.
Expedition against Fort Beau Séjour in Nova Scotia.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.
Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
The Writs of Assistance and Otis's speech.
"It was in 1761, immediately after the overthrow of the French
in Canada, that attempts were made to enforce the revenue laws
more strictly than heretofore; and trouble was at once
threatened. Charles Paxton, the principal officer of the
custom-house in Boston, applied to the Superior Court to grant
him the authority to use 'writs of assistance' in searching
for smuggled goods. A writ of assistance was a general
search-warrant, empowering the officer armed with it to enter,
by force if necessary, any dwelling-house or warehouse where
contraband goods were supposed to be stored or hidden. A
special search-warrant was one in which the name of the
suspected person, and the house which it was proposed to
search, were accurately specified, and the goods which it was
intended to seize were as far as possible described. In the
use of such special warrants there was not much danger of
gross injustice or oppression. … But the general
search-warrant, or 'writ of assistance,' as it was called
because men try to cover up the ugliness of hateful things by
giving them innocent names, was quite a different affair. It
was a blank form upon which the custom-house officer might
fill in the names of persons and descriptions of houses and
goods to suit himself. … The writ of assistance was
therefore an abominable instrument of tyranny. Such writs had
been allowed by a statute of the evil reign of Charles II.; a
statute of William III. had clothed custom-house officers in
the colonies with like powers to those which they possessed in
England; and neither of these statutes had been repealed.
There can therefore be little doubt that the issue of such
search-warrants was strictly legal, unless the authority of
Parliament to make laws for the colonies was to be denied.
James Otis then held the crown office of advocate-general,
with an ample salary and prospects of high favour from
government. When the revenue officers called upon him, in view
of his position, to defend their cause, he resigned his office
and at once undertook to act as counsel for the merchants of
Boston in their protest against the issue of the writs. A
large fee was offered him, but he refused it. 'In such a
cause,' said he, 'I despise all fees.' The case was tried in
the council-chamber at the east end of the old town-hall, or
what is now known as the 'Old State-House,' in Boston.
Chief-justice Hutchinson presided, and Jeremiah Gridley, one
of the greatest lawyers of that day, argued the case for the
writs in a very powerful speech. The reply of Otis, which took
five hours in the delivery, was one of the greatest speeches
of modern times. It went beyond the particular legal question
at issue, and took up the whole question of the constitutional
relations between the colonies and the mother-country. At the
bottom of this, as of all the disputes that led to the
Revolution, lay the ultimate question whether Americans were
bound to yield obedience to laws which they had no share in
making. This question, and the spirit that answered it flatly
and doggedly in the negative, were heard like an undertone
pervading all the arguments in Otis's wonderful speech, and it
was because of this that the young lawyer John Adams, who was
present, afterward declared that on that day 'the child
Independence was born.' Chief-justice Hutchinson … reserved
his decision until advice could be had from the law-officers
of the crown in London; and when next term he was instructed
by them to grant the writs, this result added fresh impetus to
the spirit that Otis's eloquence had aroused. The custom-house
officers, armed with their writs, began breaking into
warehouses and seizing goods which were said to have been
smuggled. In this rough way they confiscated private property
to the value of many thousands of pounds; but sometimes the
owners of warehouses armed themselves and barricaded their
doors and windows, and thus the officers were often
successfully defied, for the sheriff was far from prompt in
coming to aid them."
_J. Fiske,
The War of Independence,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_W. Tudor,
Life of James Otis,
chapters 5-7._
_F. Bowen,
Life of James Otis
(Library of American Biographies,
series 2, volume 2), chapter 2-3._
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.
Non-importation agreements.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768.
The Circular Letter to other colonies.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre."
Removal of the troops.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1769.
The Boston patriots threatened.
Virginia roused to their support.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
Committees of Correspondence instituted.
The coming of the Tea Ships.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770; and 1772-1773.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1773.
Destruction of Tea at Boston.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
Free government destroyed and commerce interdicted.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL);
and BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
{2117}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
Organization of an independent Provisional Government.
The Committee of Safety.
Minute-men.
"Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the
General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it
by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members elected
to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved themselves
into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th of October,
adopted a plan for organizing the militia, maintaining it, and
calling it out when circumstances should render it necessary.
It provided that one quarter of the number enrolled should be
held in readiness to muster at the shortest notice, who were
called by the popular name of minute-men. An executive
authority—the Committee of Safety—was created, clothed with
large discretionary powers; and another called the Committee
of Supplies."
_R. Frothingham,
History of the Siege of Boston,
page 41._
Under the Provincial Congress and the energetic Committee of
Safety (which consisted at the beginning of Hancock, Warren
and Church, of Boston, Richard Devens of Charlestown, Benj.
White of Brookline, Joseph Palmer of Braintree, Abraham Watson
of Cambridge, Azor Orne of Marblehead, and Norton Quincy, who
declined) a complete and effective administration of
government, entirely independent of royal authority, was
brought into operation. Subsequently, John Pigeon of Newton,
William Heath of Roxbury, and Jabez Fisher of Wrentham, were
added to the committee.
_R. Frothingham,
Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
page 389._
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The country in arms and Boston under siege.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775-1776.
Washington in command at Cambridge.
British evacuation of Boston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (April-May).
Independence assumed and urged upon the General Congress.
"Massachusetts had for nearly a year acted independently of
the officers of the crown. … The General Court, at their
session in April [1776], passed a resolve to alter the style
of writs and other legal processes—substituting 'the people
and government of Massachusetts' for George III.; and, in
dating official papers, the particular year of the king was
omitted, and only the year of our Lord was mentioned. Early in
May, likewise, an order was passed and published, by which the
people of the several towns in the province were advised to
give instructions to their respective representatives, to be
chosen for the following political year, on the subject of
independence. It is not contended that this was the first
instance in which such a proposition was publicly made; for
North Carolina had, two weeks before, authorized her delegates
to join with the other colonies in declaring independence; and
Rhode Island and Connecticut had indicated their inclination
by dispensing with the oath of allegiance to the king, though
a month elapsed before the Connecticut Assembly instructed
their delegates to vote for independence. The returns from the
towns of Massachusetts were highly encouraging, and in nearly
every instance the instructions to their representatives were
favorable to an explicit declaration of independence."
_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 3, chapter 3._
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (July).
The Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776-1777.
The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
The campaigns in New Jersey and on the Delaware.
Burgoyne's invasion and surrender.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST),
to 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1777-1783.
The Articles of Confederation.
Alliance with France.
Treason of Arnold.
The war in the south.
Surrender of Cornwallis.
Peace.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1783.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1779.
Framing and adoption of a State Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1781.
Emancipation of Slaves.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1785.
Western territorial claims
and their cession to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786.
Settlement of land claims with New York.
The cession of western New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.
The Shays Rebellion.
"The Shays Rebellion, which takes its name from the leader of
the insurgents, Daniel Shays, lately a captain in the
Continental army, had its taproot in the growing spirit of
lawlessness. But special causes of discontent were traceable
to an unequal distribution of wealth and excessive land
taxation in Massachusetts, the sole seat of the outbreak.
Governor Bowdoin and his party strove vigorously to reduce the
State debt and keep up the public credit at a period of great
public depression. But this strained severely the farmers and
citizens of moderate means in the inland towns. Private
creditors pressed their debtors, while the State pressed all.
Attachments were put upon the poor man's cattle and teams, and
his little homestead was sacrificed under the sheriff's
hammer. It was no sign of prosperity that the dockets of the
county courts were crowded, and that lawyers and court
officers put in the sickle. There was common complaint of the
high salaries of public officials and the wasteful cost
attending litigation. One might suppose that a legislature
annually chosen would soon remedy this state of things. But
the inhabitants of the western counties took the short cut of
resisting civil process and openly defying the laws. And
herein their error lay. Shays rallied so large a force of
malcontents about Worcester in the fall of 1786 that the
sheriff and his deputies were powerless against them, and no
court could be held. … This first success of the
Massachusetts insurgents alarmed the friends of order
throughout the Union. … Congress, by this time an adept in
stealthy and diplomatic methods, offered secret aid to the
authorities of Massachusetts upon the pretext of dispatching
troops against the Indians. But the tender was not accepted;
for in James Bowdoin the State had an executive equal to the
emergency. Availing himself of a temporary loan from patriotic
citizens, he raised and equipped a militia force, large enough
to overawe the rebels, which, under General Lincoln's command,
was promptly marched against them. Shays appears to have had
more of the demagogue than warrior about him, and his
followers fled as the troops advanced [being finally surprised
and routed at Petersham, February 4, 1787]. By midwinter civil
order was restored; but the legislature made some concessions
not less just than prudent. The vanquished rebels were treated
with marked clemency. But Governor Bowdoin's energy lost him a
re-election the following spring, and one of the manliest
pioneers of Continental reform was remitted to private life
for the rest of his days. To him succeeded the veteran
Hancock, whose light shone through a horn-lantern of vanity
and love of popular applause."
_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 1, section 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 3._
_J. G. Holland,
History of West Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapters 16-18._
_M. A. Green,
Springfield, 1636-1886,
chapter 14._
_J. E. A. Smith,
History of Pittsfield, 1734-1800,
chapters 21-22._
{2118}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1788.
Ratification of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1812-1814.
Opposition of Federalists to the war with England.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1818-1821.
The founding of Amherst College.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1820.
The district of Maine erected into a distinct State.
See MAINE: A. D. 1820.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April).
Prompt response to President Lincoln's call for troops.
Attack on the Sixth Regiment in Baltimore.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
The Eighth Regiment making its way to Washington.
Butler and Baltimore.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1889.
The founding of Clark University.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1887-1889.
----------MASSACHUSETTS: End----------
MASSACRES.
Of Glenco.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.
MASSACRES:
Of the Mamelukes (1811).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.
MASSACRES:
Of the Mountain Meadows (1857).
See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.
MASSACRES:
Of St. Bartholomew's Day.
MASSACRES:
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572.
MASSACRES:
Of St. Brice's Day (1002).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
MASSACRES:
Of September, 1792, in the Paris prisons.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
MASSACRES:
Of the Shiites.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
MASSACRES:
The Sicilian Vespers (1282).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.
MASSAGETÆ, The.
See SCYTHIANS.
MASSALIANS, The.
See MYSTICISM.