The spirit in which this unrighteous piece is written, speaks for
itself, and is its own antidote. However, it is just what we might
expect from a liberal paper of the liberal town of Barnstable. So one
gang of partizans call it. Deliver us from a "patriot," who would set
his face against all good, and destroy the people themselves. These
writers, if there be more than one of them, seem to have some idea of
piety and religion. I therefore advise them to pluck the motes out of
their own eyes, that they may see clearly enough to make better marks
with their pens. The editor and his correspondents, (if he did not
write the article himself,) have rendered themselves liable to a suit
for defamation; but I think it best to let them go. I will not touch
pitch. The discomfited, hypocritical impostor, renegade and interloper
will forgive, and pray for them. He will not render evil for evil,
though sorely provoked.
Nevertheless, I feel bound to say to these excellent friends of the
Marshpees, who wished them to remain crushed under the burthen of hard
laws forever and ever, that they will go down to their graves in the
disappointment, which, perhaps, will cause them to weep away their
lives. I should be sorry to hear of that, and exhort them to dry their
tears, or suffer a poor Indian to wipe them away.
Notwithstanding all that was said and done by the opposition, the
Marshpee Deputation left the field of battle with a song of triumph
and rejoicing in their mouths, as will presently be seen. I shall
give a brief sketch of the proceedings of one of the most enlightened
committees that ever was drafted from a legislative body. Every thing
was done to sour their minds against the Indians that could be done,
but they were of the excellent of the earth, just and impartial.
The Committee was composed of Messrs. Barton and Strong, of the
Senate, and Messrs. Dwight of Stockbridge, Fuller of Springfield, and
Lewis of Pepperell, of the House. Benjamin F. Hallett, Esq. appeared
as Counsel for the Indians.
Lemuel Ewer, Esq. of South Sandwich, was a witness, and the only white
one who was in favor of the Indians. The Indian witnesses were Deacon
Coombs, Daniel B. Amos, Ebenezer Attaquin, Joseph B. Amos, and William
Apes.
On the other side appeared Kilburn Whitman, Esq. of Pembroke, as
Counsel for the Overseers; Messrs. J.J. Fiske of Wrentham, and Elijah
Swift of Falmouth, both of the Governor's Council; the Rev. Phineas
Fish, the Marshpee missionary, sent by Harvard College; Judge Marston,
Nathaniel Hinckley and Charles Marston, all of Barnstable; Gideon
Hawley of South Sandwich, Judge Whitman of Boston, and two Indians,
Nathan Pocknet and William Amos, by name. It was a notable piece of
policy on the part of the Overseers, to make a few friends among the
Indians, in order to use them for their own purposes. Thus do pigeon
trappers use to set up a decoy. When the bird flutters, the flock
settle round him, the net is sprung, and they are in fast hands. Judge
Whitman, however, could not make his two decoy birds flutter to his
satisfaction, and so he got no chance to spring his net. He had just
told the Indians that they might as well think to move the rock of
Gibraltar from its base, as to heave the heavy load of guardianship
from their shoulders; and, when he first came before the committee, he
said he did not care a snap of his finger about the matter, one way or
the other. But he altered his mind before he got through the business,
and began to say that he should be ruined if the bill passed for the
relief of the Indians, and was, moreover, sure that Apes would reign,
king of Marshpee. The old gentleman, indeed, made several perilous
thrusts at me in his plea; but, when he came to cross-examination,
he was so pleased with the correctness of my testimony, that he had
nothing more to say to me. I shall now leave him, to attend to his
friend Judge Marston.
This gentleman swore in court that he thought Indians an inferior race
of men; and, of course, were incapable of managing their own affairs.
The testimony of the two decoy pigeons was, that they had liberty
enough; more than they knew what to do with. They showed plainly
enough that they knew nothing of the law they lived under. The
testimony of the Rev. Mr. Fish was more directly against us. Some may
think I do wrong to mention this gentleman's name so often. But why,
when a man comes forward on a public occasion, should his name be kept
out of sight, though he be a clergyman. I should think he would like
to make his flock respected and respectable in his speech, which he
well knew they never could be under the then existing laws. Is it
more than a fair inference that it was self-interest that made him
do otherwise, that he might be able to continue in possession of his
strong hold? If he had said to the Indians, like an honest man, "I
know I have no right to what is yours, and will willingly relinquish
what I hold of it," I do not doubt that the Indians would have given
him a house, and a life estate in a farm; and perhaps have conveyed it
to him in fee simple, if he had behaved well. Such a course would have
won him the love and esteem of the Indians, and his blind obstinacy
was certainly the surest means he could have taken to gain their ill
will. He may think slightly of their good opinion, and I think, from
his whole course of conduct, that we are as dogs in his sight. I
presume he could not die in peace if he thought he was to be buried
beside our graves.
It is the general fault of those who go on missions, that they cannot
sacrifice the pride of their hearts, in order to do good. It seems to
have been usually the object to seat the Indians between two stools,
in order that they might fall to the ground, by breaking up their
government and forms of society, without giving them any others in
their place. It does not appear to be the aim of the missionaries to
improve the Indians by making citizens of them. Hence, in most cases,
anarchy and confusion are the results. Nothing has more effectually
contributed to the decay of several tribes than the course pursued by
their missionaries. Let us look back to the first of them for proofs.
From the days of Elliott, to the year 1834, have they made one
citizen? The latter date marks the first instance of such an
experiment. Is it not strange that free men should thus have been
held in bondage more than two hundred years, and that setting them at
liberty at this late day, should be called _an experiment_ now?
I would not be understood to say, however, that the Rev. Mr. Fish's
mission is any criterion to judge others by. No doubt, many of them
have done much good; but I greatly doubt that any missionary has ever
thought of making the Indian or African his equal. As soon as we begin
to talk about equal rights, the cry of amalgamation is set up, as
if men of color could not enjoy their natural rights without any
necessity for intermarriage between the sons and daughters of the two
races. Strange, strange indeed! Does it follow that the Indian or
the African must go to the judge on his bench, or to the Governor,
Senator, or indeed any other man, to ask for a help-meet, because his
name may be found on the voter's list, or in the jury boxes? I promise
all concerned, that we Marshpees have less inclination to seek their
daughters than they have to seek ours. Should the worst come to the
worst, does the proud white think that a dark skin is less honorable
in the sight of God than his own beautiful hide? All are alike, the
sheep of his pasture and the workmanship of his hands. To say they are
not alike to him, is an insult to his justice. Who shall dare to call
that in question?
Were I permitted to express an opinion, it would be that it is more
honorable in the two races, to intermarry than to act as too many of
them do. My advice to the white man is, to let the colored race alone.
It will considerably diminish the annual amount of sin committed.
Or else let them even _marry_ our daughters, and no more ado about
amalgamation. We desire none of their connection in that way. All we
ask of them is peace and our rights. We can find wives enough without
asking any favors of them. We have some wild flowers among us as fair,
as blooming, and quite as pure as any they can show. But enough has
been said on this subject, which I should not have mentioned at all,
but that it has been rung in my ears by almost every white lecturer I
ever had the misfortune to meet.
I will now entreat the reader's attention to the very able plea of Mr.
Hallett, upon our petition and remonstrances. The following are his
remarks after the law which gave us our liberty was passed by his
exertions in our cause:
I will now briefly consider the "documents, relating to the
Marshpee Indians," which have been presented and printed, this
session, by the two Houses.
The first is a Memorial, signed by seventy-nine males and
ninety-two females, of the Plantation. Of the seventy-nine
males, sixty-two are Proprietors, and forty-four write their
own names. They are all united in wishing to have a change of
the laws, and a removal of the Overseership, but desire that
their land may not be sold without the mutual consent of the
Indians and the General Court.
This memorial represents, 1. That no particular pains has been
taken to instruct them. 2. That they are insignificant because
they have had no opportunities. 3. That no enlightened or
respectable Indian, wants Overseers. 4. That their rulers and
the minister have been put over them, without their consent.
5. That the minister, (Mr. Fish,) has not a male member in his
church of the Proprietors, and they believe twenty years
would have been long enough for him to have secured their
confidence. 6. That the laws which govern them and take away
their property, are unconstitutional. 7. That the whites have
had three times more benefit of the Meeting-house and the
minister, than they have had. 8. That the business meetings
for the tribe, have been held off the plantation, at an
expense to them. 9. That their Fishery has been neglected and
the whites derived the most benefit from it. [The Overseers
admit that the Herring Fishery has not been regulated for
fifty years, although in 1763, it appears it was deemed a
highly important interest, and in 1818, the Commissioners
reported that it ought to be regulated for the benefit of the
Indians to the exclusion of the whites.] 10. That the laws
discourage their people, who leave the plantation on that
account. 11. That men out of the tribe are paid for doing what
those in it are capable of doing for the plantation. 12. That
the whites derive more benefit than themselves, from their
hay, wood and timber. 13. That the influence of the whites has
been against them, in their petitions for the past years.
14. That they believe they have been wronged out of their
property. 15. That they want the Overseers discharged, that
they may have a chance to take care of themselves. 16. That
very many of their people are sober and industrious, and
able and willing to do, if they had the privilege. All these
statements will be found abundantly proved.
This memorial comes directly from the Indians. It was drawn up
among them without the aid of a single white man. They applied
to me to prepare it for them. They happened to select me, as
their counsel, simply because I was born and brought up within
a few miles from their plantation, and had known their people
from my infancy. I told them to present their grievances
in their own way, and they have done so. Not a line of the
memorial was written for them.
On the other side, opposite to their memorial for
self-government, is the remonstrance of _Nathan Pocknet_
and forty-nine others, the same Nathan Pocknet, who in
1818 petitioned for the removal of the Overseership. This
remonstrance was not prepared by the Indians. It came wholly
from the Rev. Mr. Fish, and the Overseers. It speaks of the
"unprecedented impudence" of the Indians, and mentions a
"_Traverse Jury_." No one who signed it, had any voice in
preparing it. It shows ignorance of the memorial of the tribe,
by supposing they ask for liberty to sell their lands; and
ignorance of the law, by saying that the Overseers have not
power to remove nuisances from the plantation.
This remonstrance is signed by fifty persons, sixteen males
and thirty-four females; seventeen can write. Of the signers,
_ten_ belong to Nathan Pocknet's family. Ten of the males
are Proprietors, of whom two are minors, and one a person non
compos. Of the non-proprietors, one is a convict, recently
released from State prison, who has no right on the
Plantation. Two of the Proprietors, who signed this
remonstrance, (John Speen and Isaac Wickham,) have since
certified that they understood it to be the petition for Mr.
Fish, to retain his salary, but that they are entirely opposed
to having Overseers and to the present laws.
Thus it is shown that out of the whole Plantation of 229
Proprietors, but _five_ men could be induced, by all the
influence of the Minister and the Overseer, to sign in favor
of having the present laws continued, and but _eleven_ men out
of the whole population of 312. The signers to the memorial
for a change of the laws are a majority of all the men, women
and children belonging to the Plantation, at home and abroad.
Another document against the Indians who ask for their
liberty, is the memorial of the Rev. Phineas Fish, the
missionary. Of the unassuming piety, the excellent character,
and the sound learning of that reverend gentleman, I cannot
speak in too warm terms. I respect him as a man, and honor him
as a devoted minister of the gospel. But he is not adapted
to the cultivation of the field in which his labors have been
cast. Until I read this memorial, I should not have believed
that a severe expression could have escaped him. I regret the
spirit of that memorial, and in its comparison with that of
the Indians, I must say it loses in style, in dignity and in
Christian temper.
In this memorial, Mr. Fish urges upon the Legislature the
continuance of the laws of guardianship as they now are, and
especially the continuance of the benefits he derives from the
property of the plantation. What are the reasons he gives for
this. Do they not look exclusively to his own benefit, without
regard to the wishes of the Indians?
He states, as the result of his ministry, twenty members of
the tribe added to his church in _twenty-two_ years. This
single fact proves that his ministry has failed of producing
any effect at all proportioned to the cost it has been to the
Indians. Not from want of zeal or ability, perhaps, but from
want of adaptation. If not, why have other preachers been so
much more successful than the missionary. There never has been
a time that this church was not controlled by the whites.
Mr. Fish now has but five colored members of his church, and
sixteen whites. Of the five colored persons, but one is a
male, and he has recently signed a paper saying he has been
deceived by Mr. Fish's petition, which he signed, and that he
does not now wish his stay any longer among them.
On the other hand, "blind Jo," as he is called, a native
Indian, blind from his birth, now 28 years of age, has
educated himself by his ear and his memory, has been regularly
ordained as a Baptist minister, in full fellowship with that
denomination, and has had a little church organized since
1830. The Baptist denomination has existed on the plantation,
for forty years, but has received no encouragement. Blind
Jo has never been taken by the hand by the missionary or the
Overseers. The Indians were even refused the use of _their_
Meeting-house, for the ordination of their blind minister, and
he was ordained in a private dwelling. Though not possessing
the eloquence of the blind preacher, so touchingly described
in the glowing and chaste letters of Wirt's British Spy,
yet there is much to admire in the simple piety and sound
doctrines of "Blind Jo;" and he will find a way to the hearts
of his hearers, which the learned divine cannot explore.
There is another denomination on the plantation, organized
as "The Free and United Church," of which William Apes is the
pastor. This denomination Mr. Fish charges with an attempt
to _usurp_ the parsonage, wood-land and the Meeting-house; he
denounces, as a "_flagrant act_," the attempt of the Indians
to obtain the use of _their own Meeting-house_, and appeals
to the sympathies of the whole civilized community to maintain
_by law_ the Congregational worship, which, he says, "is the
most ancient form of religious worship there!" "Why should
Congregational worship be excluded to make room for others?"
asks the Rev. Mr. Fish. "Where will be the end of vicissitude
on the adoption of such a principle, and how is it possible,
amid the action of rival _factions_, for pure religion to be
promoted." [Pages 7, 8, 9, of Mr. Fish's memorial. Senate, No.
17.] Is this language for a Christian minister to address
to the Legislature of Massachusetts? To petition for an
established Church in Marshpee? Can he ever have read the
third Article of the Bill of Rights, as amended?
What has been the result of those "rival factions," in
Marshpee? Blind Jo and William Apes, have _forty-seven_ Indian
members of their churches, (fourteen males,) in good standing,
collected together in three years. The missionary has baptized
but twenty in twenty-two years. The Indian preachers have also
established a total abstinence Temperance Society, without any
aid from the missionary, and there are already sixty members
of it, who, from all the evidence in the case, there is no
reason to doubt, live up to their profession.
I do not say this to detract from the good the missionary has
done; I doubt not he has done much good, and earnestly desired
to do more; but when he denounces to the Legislature other
religious denominations, as _usurpers_ and "_rival factions_,"
it is but reasonable that a comparison should be drawn between
the fruit of his labors and that of those he so severely
condemns.
I confess, I am struck with surprise, at the following
remarks, in the memorial of the Rev. Mr. Fish. Speaking of the
complaint of the Indians respecting their Meeting-house, that
it is not fit for respectable people to meet in, being
worn out; he says, "As it was built by a _white_ Missionary
Society, and repaired at the expense of the _white_
Legislature of the State, perhaps the _whites_ may think
themselves entitled to some wear of it, and being no way fit
for '_respectable_ people,' the church and congregation
hope they may the more readily be left unmolested in their
accustomed use of it." [Page 4.] Again he says of the
complaints of the Indians, that they were forbidden to have
preaching in their School-houses. "The School-houses, built
by the munificence of the State, began to be occupied for
_Meeting-houses_, soon after their erection, and have been
more or less occupied _in this fashion_! ever since; and your
memorialist desires to affirm that _in this perversion_ of
your _liberal purpose_, he had no share whatever!"
Is this possible? Can it be a _perversion_ of buildings
erected for the mental and moral improvement of the Indians,
that religious meetings should be held there, by ministers
whom the Indians prefer to the Missionary?
The inequality in the appropriations for religious
instruction, is remarked upon by the Commissioner, Hon.
Mr. Fiske, who says in his report that if the present
appropriations are to be restricted to a Congregationalist
minister, some further provision, in accordance with religious
freedom, ought to be made for the Baptist part of the colored
people. [Page 29. No. 14.]
I regret too, the unkind allusion in the Rev. Mr. Fish's
memorial to Deacon Coombs, the oldest of the Marshpee
delegation, formerly his deacon, and the last proprietor to
leave him. He says the deacon "once walked worthy of his holy
calling." Does he mean to insinuate he does not walk worthily
now? I wish you, gentlemen, to examine Deacon Coombs, who is
present, to inquire into his manner of life, and see if you
can find a Christian with a white skin, whose heart is purer,
and whose walk is more upright, than this same Deacon Coombs.
In point of character and intelligence, he would compare
advantageously with a majority of the Selectmen in the
Commonwealth.
With the religious concerns of Marshpee, I have no wish to
interfere. I only seek to repel intimations that may operate
against their prayer for the liberties secured by the
Constitution. Neither do I stand here to defend Mr. Apes, who
is charged with being the leader of the "sedition." I only
ask you to look at the historical evidence of the existence of
discontent with the laws, ever since 1693, and ask if Mr.
Apes has been the author of this discontent. Let me remind
you also, of the fable of the Huntsman and the Lion, when
the former boasted of the superiority of man, and to prove it
pointed to a statue of one of the old heroes, standing upon a
prostrate lion. The reply of the noble beast was, "there
are no _carvers_ among the lions; if there were, for one man
standing upon a lion, you would have twenty men torn to pieces
by lions." Gentlemen, by depressing the Indians, our laws have
taken care that they should have no _carvers_. The whites have
done all the _carving_ for them, and have always placed them
_undermost_. Can we blame them, then, that when they found
an educated Indian, with Indian sympathies and feelings, they
employed him, to present their complaints, and to enable them
to seek redress? Look at this circumstance, fairly, and I
think you will find in it the origin of all the prejudice
against William Apes, which may be traced to those of the
whites who are opposed to any change in the present government
of Marshpee. If aught can be shown against him, I hope it
will be produced here in proof, that the Indians may not be
deceived. If no other proof is produced, except his zeal in
securing freedom for the Indians, are you not to conclude that
it cannot be done. But his individual character has nothing to
do with the merits of the question, though I here pronounce it
unimpeached.
I will allude to but one other suggestion in the memorial
of the Rev. Mr. Fish, [page 10.] To show the necessity of
continuing the present laws, he says, "already do we witness
the force of example in the visible increase of crime. But a
few weeks since, a peaceable family was fired in upon, during
their midnight repose; while I have been writing, another has
been committed to prison for a high misdemeanor."
Now what are the facts, upon which this grave allegation
against the whole tribe is founded. True, a ball was fired
into a house on the plantation, but without any possible
connection with the assertion of their rights by the Indians,
and to this day it is not known whether it was a white man or
an Indian who did it. The "high misdemeanor," was a quarrel
between Jerry Squib, an Indian, and John Jones, a white
man. Squib accused Jones of cheating him in a bargain, when
intoxicated, and beat him for it. The law took up the Indian
for the assault, and let the white man go for the fraud.
Respecting then, as we all do, the personal character of the
missionary, can you answer his prayer, to continue the present
government, in order to protect him in the reception of
his present income from the lands of the Indians? Are the
interests of a whole people to be sacrificed to one man?
What says the Bill of rights? "Government is instituted for
the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity, and
happiness of the _people_, and not for the _profit_, honor or
_private interest_ of any _one_ man, family, or class of men."
I have now only to consider the report of the Commissioner,
Mr. Fiske, who visited Marshpee in July last. The
impartiality, candor and good sense of that report, are highly
honorable to that gentleman. Deriving his first impressions
from the Overseers and the whites, and instructed as he was
with strong prepossessions against the Indians, as rebels
to the State, the manner in which he discharged that duty,
deserves a high encomium. He has my thanks for it, as a friend
of the Indians. As far as the knowledge of the facts
enabled the Commissioner to go, in the time allowed him, the
conclusions of that report, substantiate all the positions
taken in defence of the rights of the Indians. The
Commissioner was instructed by the then Governor Lincoln, to
inform the Indians that the government had no other object
than their best good; "let them be convinced that their
grievances will be inquired into, and a _generous_ and
_paternal_ regard be had to their condition." They were so
convinced, and they come here now, for a redemption of this
pledge.
But his Excellency seems to have been strangely impressed
with the idea of suppressing some rebellion, or another Shay's
insurrection. Mr. Hawley, one of the Overseers, had visited
the Governor, at Worcester, and because a few Indians had
quietly unloaded a wood-cart, the calling out of the militia
seems to have been seriously contemplated by the following
order, issued to the Commissioner, by the Governor, dated July
5. "Should there be reason to fear the insufficiency of the
_posse comitatus_, I WILL BE PRESENT PERSONALLY, TO DIRECT ANY
MILITARY REQUISITIONS."
Think of that, gentlemen of the Committee! Figure to
yourselves his Excellency, at the head of the Boston and
Worcester Brigades, ten thousand strong, marching to Marshpee,
to suppress an insurrection, when scarce twenty old muskets
could have been mustered on the whole plantation?
With the utmost respect for his Excellency, I could not
refrain on reading this "order of the day," from exclaiming,
as Lord Thurlow did, when a breathless messenger informed him
that a rebellion had broken out in the Isle of Man--"pshaw--a
tempest in a tea pot."
Let us not, however, because the Indians are weak and
in-offensive, be less regardful of their rights.
You will gather from the Report of Mr. Fiske, conclusive
evidence of the long continued and deep rooted dissatisfaction
of the Indians with the laws of guardianship, that they never
abandoned the ground that all men were born free and
equal, and they ought to have the right to rule and govern
themselves; that by a proper exercise of self-government, and
the management of their own pecuniary affairs, they had it
in their power to elevate themselves much above their present
state of degradation, and that by a presentation of new
motives for moral and mental improvement, they might be
enabled, in a little time, to assume a much higher rank on
the scale of human existence. And that the Legislature would
consider their case, was the humble and earnest request of the
natives.
Is not the conclusion then, from all the facts in the case,
that the system of laws persisted in since 1763, have failed
as acts of paternal care? That the true policy now is to try
acts of kindness and encouragement, and that the question of
rightful control over the property or persons of the Indians
beyond the general operation of the laws, being clearly
against the whites; but one consideration remains on which the
Legislature can hesitate: the danger, that they will squander
their property. Of the improbability of such a result, Mr.
Fiske informs you in his report, [page 26.] He found nearly
all the families comfortably and decently clad, nearly
all occupying framed houses, and a few dwelling in huts or
wigwams. More than thirty of them were in possession of a cow
or swine, and many of them tilled a few acres of land, around
their dwellings. Several pairs of oxen, and some horses are
owned on the plantation, and the Commons are covered with an
excellent growth of wood, of ready access to market. Confine
the cutting of this wood to the natives, as they desire, and
they never can waste this valuable inheritance.
Mr. Fiske also says in his report, [page 30,] "that it is
hardly possible to find a place more favorable for gaining a
subsistence without labor, than Marshpee." The advantages of
its location, the resources from the woods and streams, on one
side, and the bays and the sea on the other, are accurately
described, as being abundant, with the exception of the
_lobsters_, which Mr. Fiske says are found there. The
Commissioner is incorrect in that particular, unless he adopts
the learned theory of Sir Joseph Banks, that _fleas_ are a
species of lobster!
Is there, then, any danger in giving the Indians an
opportunity to try a liberal experiment for self-government?
They ask you for a grant of the liberties of the constitution;
to be incorporated and to have a government useful to them as
a people.
They ask for the appointment of magistrates among them, and
they ask too for an _Attorney_ to advise with; but my
advice to them is, to have as little as possible to do with
Attornies. A revision of their laws affecting property by the
Governor and Council, would be a much better security for them
than an Attorney, and this they all agree to. Is there any
thing unreasonable in their requests? Can you censure other
States for severity to the Indians within their limits, if you
do not exercise an enlightened liberality toward the Indians
of Massachusetts? Give them then substantially, the advantages
which they ask in the basis of an act which I now submit to
the Committee with their approval of its provisions. Can you,
gentlemen, can the Legislature, resist the simple appeal of
their memorial? "Give us a chance for our lives, in acting for
ourselves. O! white man! white man! the blood of our fathers,
spilt in the revolutionary war, cries from the ground of our
native soil, to break the chains of oppression and let our
children go free."
The correctness of Mr. Hallett's opinions are demonstrated in the
following article.
Other editors speak ill enough of Gen. Jackson's treatment of the
Southern Indians. Why do they not also speak ill of all the head men
and great chiefs who have evil entreated the people of Marshpee. I
think Governor Lincoln manifested as bitter and tyrannical a spirit as
Old Hickory ever could, for the life of him. Often and often have our
tribe been promised the liberty their fathers fought, and bled, and
died for; and even now we have but a small share of it. It is some
comfort, however, that the people of Massachusetts are becoming
gradually more Christianized.
[From the Daily Advocate.] THE MARSHPEE INDIANS.
The Daily Advertiser remarks that the Indian tribes have been
sacrificed by the policy of Gen. Jackson. This is very true,
and we join with the Advertiser in reprehending the course
pursued by the President toward the Cherokees. If Georgia,
under her _union_ nullifier, Governor Lumpkin, is permitted to
set the process of the Supreme Court at defiance, it will be a
foul dishonor upon the country.
But while we condemn the conduct of General Jackson toward the
Southern Indians, what shall we say of the treatment of our
own poor defenceless Indians, the Marshpee tribe, in our own
State? The Legislature of last year, with a becoming sense of
justice, restored to the Marshpee Indians a _portion_ of their
rights, which had been wrested from them, most wrongfully, for
a period of _seventy-four_ years. The State of Massachusetts,
in the exercise of a most unjust and arbitrary power, had,
until that time, deprived the Indians of all civil rights, and
placed their property at the mercy of designing men, who had
used it for their own benefit, and despoiled the native owners
of the soil to which they hold a better title than the whites
hold to any land in the Commonwealth. These Indians fought
and bled side by side, with our fathers, in the struggle for
liberty; but the whites were no sooner free themselves, than
they enslaved the poor Indians.
One single fact will show the devotion of the Marshpee Indians
to the cause of liberty, in return for which they and their
descendants were placed under a despotic guardianship, and
their property wrested from them to enrich the whites. In
the Secretary's Office, of this State, will be found a muster
roll, containing a "Return of men enlisted in the first
Regiment of Continental troops, in the County of Barnstable,
for three years and during the war, in Col. Bradford's
Regiment," commencing in 1777. Among these volunteers for that
terrible service, are the following names of Marshpee Indians,
proprietors of Marshpee, viz.
Francis Webquish, Samuel Moses, Demps Squibs, Mark Negro,
Tom C├Žsar, Joseph Ashur, James Keeter, Joseph Keeter, Jacob
Keeter, Daniel Pocknit, Job Rimmon, George Shawn, Castel
Barnet, Joshua Pognit, James Rimmon, David Hatch, James
Nocake, Abel Hoswitt, Elisha Keeter, John Pearce, John Mapix,
Amos Babcock, Hosea Pognit, Daniel Pocknit, Church Ashur,
Gideon Tumpum.
In all twenty-six men. The whole regiment, drawn from the
whole County of Barnstable, mustered but 149 men, nearly
_one-fifth_ of whom were volunteers from the little Indian
Plantation of Marshpee, which then did not contain over one
hundred male heads of families! No white town in the
County furnished any thing like this proportion of the 149
volunteers. The Indian soldiers fought through the war; and as
far as we have been able to ascertain the fact, from documents
or tradition, all but one, fell martyrs to liberty, in the
struggle for Independence. There is but one Indian now living,
who receives the reward of his services as a revolutionary
soldier, old Isaac Wickham, and he was not in Bradford's
regiment. Parson Holly, in a memorial to the Legislature in
1783, states that most of the women in Marshpee, had lost
their husbands in the war. At that time there were _seventy_
widows on the Plantation.
But from that day, until the year 1834, the Marshpee Indians
were enslaved by the laws of Massachusetts, and deprived of
every civil right which belongs to man. White Overseers had
power to tear their children from them and bind them out where
they pleased. They could also sell the services of any adult
Indian on the Plantation they chose to call idle, for three
years at a time, and send him where they pleased, renewing the
lease every three years, and thus, make him a slave for life.
It was with the greatest effort this monstrous injustice was
in some degree remedied last winter, by getting the facts
before the Legislature, in spite of a most determined
opposition from those who had fattened for years on the spoils
of poor Marshpee. In all but one thing, a reasonable law was
made for the Indians. That one thing was giving the Governor
power to appoint a Commissioner over the Indians for three
years. This was protested against by the friends of the
Indians, but in vain; and they were assured that this
appointment would be safe in the hands of the Governor. They
hoped so, and assented; but no sooner was the law passed, than
the enemies of the Indians induced the Governor to appoint
as the Commissioner, the person whom of all others they least
wished to have, a former Overseer, against whom there were
strong prejudices. The Indians remonstrated, and besought, but
in vain. The Commissioner was appointed, and to all appeals to
make a different appointment, a deaf ear has been turned. It
seems as if a deliberate design had been formed somewhere, to
defeat all the Legislature has done for the benefit of this
oppressed people.
The consequences have been precisely what the Indians and
their friends feared. Party divisions have grown up among
them, arising out of the want of confidence in their
Commissioner. He is found always on the side of their greatest
trouble; the minister who unjustly holds almost 500 acres of
the best land in the plantation, wrongfully given to him by an
unlawful and arbitrary act of the State, which, in violation
of the Constitution, appropriates the property of the Indians
to pay a man they dislike, for preaching a doctrine they will
not listen to, to a _white_ congregation, while the native
preachers, whom the Indians prefer, are left without a cent,
and deprived of the Meeting-house, built by English liberality
for the use of the Indians. The dissatisfaction has gone on
increasing. The accounts with the former Overseers remain
unadjusted to the satisfaction of the Selectmen. The Indians
have no adviser near them in whom they can confide; those who
hold the power, appear regardless of their wishes or their
welfare; no pains is taken by the authorities to punish the
wretches who continue to sell rum to those who will buy it;
and though the Indians are still struggling to advance in
improvement, every obstacle is thrown in their way that men
can devise, whose intent it is to get them back to a state of
vassalage, that they may get hold of their property. All this,
we are satisfied, from personal inspection, is owing to the
injudicious appointment made by Gov. Davis, of a commissioner,
and yet the Governor unfortunately seems indisposed to listen
to any application for a remedy to the existing evils.
The presses around us, who are so eloquent in denouncing the
President for his conduct towards the Southern Indians, say
not a word in behalf of our own Indians, whose fathers poured
out their blood for out independence. Is this right, and ought
the Indians to be sacrificed to the advantage a single man
derives from holding an office of very trifling profit? Let
us look at home, before we complain of the treatment of the
Indians at the South.
The following; extract refers to the act passed to incorporate the
Marshpee District, after so much trouble and expense to the Indians.
I should suppose the people of Massachusetts would have been glad to
have done us this justice, without making so much difficulty, if they
had been aware of the true state of facts.