Affairs of the Indians—birth of Mr. Williams’ fourth child—disputes at
Providence about boundaries—Committee of Arbitration—account of
Samuel Gorton.
Little is known of transactions, during two or three subsequent years,
which can shed light on the conduct or character of Mr. Williams.
Winthrop[221] mentions one circumstance, that shows the confidence which
the Indians reposed in the founder of Rhode-Island, and the invincible
opposition to him that was maintained in Massachusetts. Rumors were
circulated, that the Indians were again forming plots against the
colonists; that Miantinomo, the Narraganset sachem, had sent a large
present of wampum to the Mohawks, inviting them to an alliance against
the English, and that the Mohawks had complied with the invitation. The
government of Massachusetts took the precaution to strengthen the
military defences of the towns, and to send an officer, with three men
and an interpreter, to Miantinomo, to ascertain his real dispositions.
He denied all hostile intentions against the colonists, and, says
Winthrop, “promised to come to Boston (as he was desired) if Mr.
Williams might come with him, (but that we had denied.”)
It is pleasing to observe the readiness of this savage chief to visit
those who evidently distrusted him, provided that Mr. Williams might
accompany him, in whose knowledge of his language, and firm friendship,
he felt a confidence proportioned to the suspicions which savages feel
towards all whom they have not thoroughly tried. And it is remarkable,
that the rulers of Massachusetts would not relax the sentence of
banishment, even for the advantage of a personal interview with the
powerful sachem.
Mr. Williams was doubtless employed at Providence, in labors for the
welfare of the colony, and for the subsistence of his family. He
possessed no property, and was obliged to support his wife and children
by his personal labor. We have already seen, that, at his first coming,
he planted his field, _Whatcheer_, with his own hands. He engaged, also,
in traffic with the natives, and must have spent much time in travelling
among them. The knowledge of their language, which he displayed in his
Key, published a few years afterwards, could have been acquired only by
a familiar and frequent intercourse with them, in their own habitations.
He assures us, in his preface, that, “of later times, (out of desire to
attain their language,) I have run through varieties of intercourses
with them, day and night, summer and winter, by land and sea. Many
solemn discourses I have had with all sorts of nations of them, from one
end of the country to another.”[222]
His fourth child, Marcy, was born on the 15th of July, 1640.
The tranquillity of the town of Providence was early disturbed, by
disputes respecting the boundaries of lands. The town was divided into
two settlements, the original one at Moshassuck, and that on the
Pawtuxet river. These two communities were much agitated, at various
times, by dissensions concerning their respective limits. The loose
phraseology of the memorandum attached to the deed of the sachems, “up
the streams of Pawtucket and Pawtuxet, without limits, we might have for
our use of cattle,” was construed, by some, as a cession of the land up
to the sources of the streams; while Roger Williams, more reasonably,
insisted, that the Indians merely meant to allow the cattle to feed
occasionally on the banks of the rivers. Of this dispute we shall see
more hereafter. It seems to have commenced very early, and to have
seriously disturbed the peace of the town. It became evident that a more
energetic government was necessary. A committee was appointed by the
town, consisting of Robert Coles, Chad Brown, William Harris, and John
Warner, who were authorized to decide, by arbitration, the existing
disputes. Their report is dated “Providence, the 27th of the 5th month,
in the year (so called) 1640.”[223] It settles the boundaries between
the Pawtuxet purchasers and the other inhabitants of Providence. It
proposes that five men be chosen, to meet once a month, to dispose of
lands, with a right of appeal to the town. It further recommends, that
disputes be settled, in future, by arbitration, according to certain
rules which it prescribes. It provides for the choice of a town clerk,
and for a general town meeting for business, to be called by the clerk,
every three months.
This report is highly characteristic of the times, and of the community.
One of its prominent articles is in these words: “We agree, as formerly
hath been the liberties of the town, so still, to hold forth liberty of
conscience.” This fundamental principle was recognised, and announced,
on all occasions.
The democratic spirit appears in the provision, that the “five
disposers” should present their accounts every quarter, and a new choice
be made.
No form of government could be more simple than this. Mr. Callender
says, (p. 43) in allusion to this period, that the inhabitants of
Providence “did, to the number of near forty persons, combine in a form
of civil government, according to a model drawn up by some of
themselves, as most suitable to promote peace and order in their present
circumstances, which, however, left them in a very feeble condition.”
The government on Rhode-Island was more regularly organized the same
year, as we have already stated. An act, which was passed on the 16th of
March, 1641, says: “It was ordered, and unanimously agreed upon, that
the government which this body politic doth attend unto in this island
and the jurisdiction thereof, in favor of our Prince, is a Democracy, or
popular government, that is to say, it is in the power of the freemen,
orderly assembled, or major part of them, to make or constitute just
laws, by which they will be regulated, and to depute from among
themselves such ministers as shall see them faithfully executed between
man and man.”
The genuine Rhode-Island doctrine is recognised in the following act:
“It was further ordered, by the authority of this present Court, that
none be accounted a delinquent for doctrine, provided it be not directly
repugnant to the government or laws established.” And on the 17th of
September following, 1641, they passed this act: “It is ordered, that
that law of the last Court, made concerning liberty of conscience in
point of doctrine, be perpetuated.”[224]
It thus appears, that the settlements at Providence, and on
Rhode-Island, though, at that time, having no political connection, were
founded on the same principles. Mr. Williams continued his friendly
offices with the Indians, on behalf of the colony on Rhode-Island. On
the 19th of September, 1642, he was requested “to consult and agree with
Miantinomo, for the destruction of the wolves that are now upon the
island.”
The history of Samuel Gorton is a prominent event among the occurrences
of this period. We cannot enter into a minute detail of his conduct, his
opinions, and his sufferings; but a brief account of him is required, by
his connection with Mr. Williams.
Mr. Gorton was born in London, and came to Boston in 1636. Here, his
religious opinions and conduct occasioned, as we are told, much
disturbance, and he removed to Plymouth, in 1637. He there engaged in a
controversy with Mr. Smith, the pastor, who appealed to the civil power.
Gorton was summoned before a court in Plymouth, at which he maintained
his opinions with firmness, and, as the court thought, with insolence.
He was amerced in a large fine, and banished, after having suffered,
according to some writers,[225] corporal punishment. He removed to
Newport, on Rhode-Island, in June, 1638. There he remained for a year or
two; but he gave offence to the government, and, as some authors
assert,[226] he was imprisoned, whipped, and banished from the island,
probably in the course of the year 1641. These transactions are not
vouched by very satisfactory evidence; and we know not, admitting that
they occurred, to whom the blame belongs, or in what proportion it must
be shared by Mr. Gorton and his judges.
From Newport, he proceeded to Providence, where, says Hutchinson, “Roger
Williams, with his usual humanity, although he disliked his principles
and behavior, gave him shelter.” Mr. Williams, many years afterwards,
publicly averred,[227] that he did not approve of Mr. Gorton’s
principles; but this disapprobation did not induce him to refuse the
rights of hospitality to the fugitive. He had himself tasted of the same
cup, and, like Dido, had been taught by suffering to succor the
miserable.
Mr. Gorton, in January, 1641–2, purchased land at Pawtuxet, in the south
part of the territory then included under the name of Providence, and
within the limits of the present town of Cranston. He was soon joined by
a number of persons, who were disfranchised at Newport, on account,
perhaps, of their attachment to him.
A disturbance soon arose between Mr. Gorton’s friends and the former
inhabitants. The parties became so much exasperated, that they proceeded
to acts of violence and bloodshed. Winthrop states, that “they came
armed into the field, each against the other, but Mr. Williams pacified
them for the present.” Mr. Williams could not but deplore such a feud,
in his infant colony, and, with the pacific disposition which ever
characterized him, he endeavored to allay the tumult, and produce a
reconciliation; but his efforts were unsuccessful. The passions of the
parties were too strongly excited, to admit of any arbitration but
force. The government at Providence was then, as we have seen, a simple
compact; and the citizens being divided in opinion and feeling, there
was no superior power to control the disturbers of the public peace. In
this exigency, in November, 1641, some of the weaker party had recourse
to the strange, and, as it proved, most disastrous expedient, of
applying to the government of Massachusetts for aid or counsel.[228] The
country was beyond the limits of Massachusetts, which could not
interfere. “We answered them,” says Winthrop,[229] “that we could not
levy any war, without a General Court. For counsel, we told them, that
except they did submit themselves to some jurisdiction, either Plymouth
or ours, we had no calling or warrant to interpose in their contentions,
but if they were once subject to any, then they had a calling to protect
them.”[230]
The proposition to submit, either to Massachusetts or to Plymouth, did
not meet with a very prompt reception by the aggrieved party at
Pawtuxet. But, in September, 1642, four of them (William Arnold, Robert
Cole, William Carpenter, and Benedict Arnold,) appeared before the
General Court, at Boston, and yielded themselves and their lands, to be
governed and protected by Massachusetts. They were accepted, and
Winthrop acknowledges that Massachusetts was desirous to spread her sway
over the whole of the rising colonies around the Narraganset Bay. The
right of these individuals to submit to the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts must be denied; for the territory had been purchased by
Mr. Williams, and sold to his companions and others, with the evident
design, and the implied, if not express condition, that a new colony be
established, as a refuge from the laws of Massachusetts, as well as from
oppression elsewhere. To invite the extension of these laws over any
portion of the colony, was to defeat the purpose of its settlement, and
was, virtually, a violation of the covenant which the settlers had
subscribed.
But if these individuals had possessed the right to yield allegiance to
Massachusetts, their surrender could not bind their fellow-citizens, and
give to Massachusetts any claim to obedience from Mr. Gorton, or any
other inhabitant of Providence. Yet Massachusetts immediately assumed a
jurisdiction over all the inhabitants of Providence. In October, the
Governor and three of the assistants signed a warrant, requiring them to
submit to Massachusetts[231] and commanding Mr. Gorton and his friends
to come to Boston, to answer to the complaints of Mr. Arnold and his
associates. To this summons a reply was returned, dated November 20, and
signed by Mr. Gorton and eleven other persons, in which they denied the
authority of Massachusetts, and refused to obey.[232] This answer is
said to have been long, mystical, and contemptuous; but the principle,
which it maintained, was, indisputably, sound.
Mr. Gorton, and his eleven friends, thought it prudent to remove from
Providence. They accordingly crossed the Pawtuxet river, the southern
boundary of the territory purchased by Mr. Williams. They obtained from
Miantinomo the cession of a tract of country, called Shawomet,
afterwards named Warwick, for which they paid one hundred and forty-four
fathoms of wampum.[233] Here they fixed their residence; but, if the
object of their removal was to escape the grasp of Massachusetts, they
fared like many others, who have fled from apparent into real danger.
Two Indian sachems, Pomham and Sochonocho, who lived at Shawomet and
Pawtuxet, claimed the territory as their own, and went to Boston, in
June, 1643, where they complained of Mr. Gorton and his friends, as
having taken their lands from them. These sachems then made a surrender
of themselves, and of the lands which they claimed, to Massachusetts,
and promised fidelity, for themselves and their descendants.
It appears, however, that Miantinomo, as the greatest and most powerful
sachem, claimed the right to dispose of the land.[234] Pomham himself
had signed the deed; and he and Sochonocho, as subordinate sachems, seem
to have had no authority to dispute the validity of the sale, or to cede
the territory to Massachusetts. Roger Williams, the best authority on a
question touching the usages of the Indians, says, in a letter written
several years afterwards, to the General Court of Massachusetts,
concerning this transaction: “What was done was according to the law and
tenor of the natives, I take it, in all New-England and America, viz.
that the inferior sachems and subjects shall plant and remove at the
pleasure of the highest and supreme sachems; and I humbly conceive, that
it pleaseth the Most High and Only Wise to make use of such a bond of
authority over them, without which they could not long subsist in human
societies, in this wild condition wherein they are.”
These facts must be deemed a sufficient proof, that Mr. Gorton and his
friends had a fair title to the lands, or, at least, that they must be
acquitted of the charge of defrauding the inferior sachems. But
Massachusetts was not destitute of the inclination, which all states
have usually possessed, to extend her authority. The submission of these
sachems gave her a plausible pretext; and her rulers again summoned
Gorton and his friends to appear at Boston, informing them that they
were within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. They again refused; and
an armed force of forty men was sent to Shawomet, who seized Mr. Gorton
and ten of his friends, and carried them to Boston, where they were
imprisoned. Their cattle were carried away with them, their property
otherwise injured or seized, and their families left to the mercy of the
Indians.
At Boston, they were tried for their lives, not for any specific civil
crime, but on the general charge of being enemies to true religion, and
to civil authority. They were saved from death, by a majority, it is
said, of two votes only. They were, nevertheless, sentenced to a severe
punishment. Mr. Gorton was ordered to be confined at Charlestown, and
the others in different towns. Each was compelled to wear an iron chain,
fast bolted round the leg, and in this manner to labor. If they spoke to
any person, except an officer of church or state, they were to suffer
death. They were kept at labor during the winter, and were then
banished, from Massachusetts, and from the lands at Shawomet, on pain of
death.
Mr. Gorton, and two of his friends, afterwards went to England, where
they obtained an order from the Earl of Warwick and the other
commissioners of the plantations, dated August 19, 1644, requiring
Massachusetts not to molest the settlers at Shawomet. Massachusetts
reluctantly complied, and Mr. Gorton and his followers occupied their
lands in quiet. Mr. Gorton lived to a great age.[235]
We have stated these proceedings at considerable length, because they
are connected with the history of Mr. Williams. They exhibit strongly
the temper of those times. The conduct of Massachusetts none will now
defend. It was a manifest usurpation, and a cruel abuse of power. It is
a profitable example of the manifold evils of erecting the civil
government into a court of inquisition. It was the alleged heresies and
blasphemies of Mr. Gorton and his friends, against which the edge of
this persecution was directed; and these unhappy men narrowly escaped
the fate which, a few years later, befel the Quakers. The rulers and
clergy of Massachusetts, undoubtedly, thought that they were impelled by
an honest zeal for the purity of religion and the glory of God. Their
conduct proves, that a being so fallible as man, is unfit to be
intrusted with power over the conscience.
It is difficult to ascertain the true character and real opinions of Mr.
Gorton. If the statements of his opponents could be safely received, we
should view him as a wild and turbulent fanatic. But we have seen much
reason to distrust the representations, which writers of that age have
furnished of Mr. Gorton, and others. He was, unquestionably, a bold,
zealous, eloquent man, of considerable talents and learning, and easily
exasperated, by opposition, to stubborn and contumacious resistance. He
possessed the art of securing the firm attachment of his friends; a
proof that he possessed some virtues, besides consistency of character.
A competent authority, quoted in a preceding page, has testified to the
general purity of his morals, and to the high estimation in which he was
held by his fellow-citizens, as indicated by the fact, that, “from the
first establishment of government, he was almost constantly in office.”
As to his religious opinions, it is affirmed, by the same authority,
that “he spiritualized every thing, and one would almost have thought
that he had taken the tour of Swedenborg.”[236]
It is certain that Roger Williams disapproved Mr. Gorton’s religious
opinions, but did not consider them as dangerous, or as impairing his
civil rights.[237]