USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1 > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73
In England, Williams and Clarke were striving to obtain the repeal of Coddington's commission. The disturbed condition of affairs re- sulting from the Dutch war, and the vigorous opposition of the other New England agents greatly hindered them in their undertaking.3 But the influence of Sir Henry Vane-the "shcet-anehor of our ship", as Williams ealled him-coupled with the fact that the colony, in its disordered condition, might fall into the hands of the Duteh, finally induced Parliament to revoke the commission. The document, dated October 2, 1652, empowered the magistrates and people of the colony to administer the government by virtue of previous instructions, until further directions should be given.4 With the hope of obtaining a final determination, and also for the purpose of settling some private affairs,5 Williams continued to remain in England until the spring of 1654. The news of the provisional repeal, however, was immediately conveyed to the colony by William Dyer, who arrived there in the early part of the year 1653.
There was no reason now why the towns should not unite again under the terms of the Charter of 1644. But local animosities and
1R. I. C. R. i, 50, under date of Apr. 14, 1652.
2O'Callaghan's Doc. Col. Hist. of N. Y. i, 497.
3See Williams's Letters in Narr. Club. Publ. vi, 254, and Copies of Warwick Records, p. 4 in R. I. H. S. Library.
4The document is printed in Palfrey ii, 557. It makes special provision for defending the colony against the Dutch, and advises the appointment of William Dyer as a sort of admiralty officer to report the capture of Dutch vessels, etc.
"Narr. Club. Publ. vi, 236. While in England, Williams tutored, read Dutch with Milton (Narr. Club Publ. vi, 262) and published four controversial pamphlets (see titles in J. C. Brown Catalogue). Clarke also published his Ill Newes from N. E. in 1652.
1
93
THE PERIOD OF THE FIRST CHARTER, 1648-63.
jealousies prevailed. Freed as they had been for so many years from the restrictive influence of a religious supervision, accustomed as they were to almost complete political freedom, these colonies had yet to learn that the wish of the individual must be subordinated to the good of the state. The two northern towns held that as their government under the charter had never been interrupted, they constituted the legal colony.1 The two island towns, since they possessed the greater population and importance, acted most independently, and paid scarcely any attention to Providence plans for union, unless the main- land towns should sue for it from island assemblies. Thus, for nearly two years there were two distinct governmental bodies, each profess- ing to act for the whole colony, and each often passing laws directly in repudiation of the other's action.2
1See the letter from Providence to Roger Williams in Staples's Annals of Providence, p. 89.
2Since the action of these separate assemblies has never been given in orderly detail, and since unused manuscripts throw some new light on the subject, it is here briefly summed up in a footnote. In February, 1653, Dyer wrote to both Providence and Warwick that he had some letters of trust which he would communicate to them at a meeting in Portsmouth. (Prov. Rec. xv, 52.) Thereupon the commissioners of the two northern towns met on Feb. 25, and sent down messengers with overtures of union, to which they received no reply; nor did a request, at a meeting of Mar. 9, for the mutual appointment of committees avail anything further (R. I. C. R. i, 239, 269). The two island towns met on Mar. 1, and, styling themselves the "Assembly of the colony", declared that all officers should stand until the May election. (Idem, p. 240.) On Mar. 18, they wrote a letter to Providence and Warwick, informing them of the approaching election in May, and telling what legis- lation was to be discussed. The mainland towns replied that they would meet to discuss reunion, upon ten days' notice. Receiving no reply to this they met on May 16 and elected officers for their own two towns (Idem, p. 258; see also Prov. Rec. xv, 34, 64, 65). On May 17 the island towns met, elected officers for the colony including assistants for Providence and Warwick, made several laws, and granted commissions to privateers to go against the Dutch. (R. I. C. R. i, 263.) The northern towns met on June 3, and drew up a re- monstrance, stating how their attempts at reunion had been disregarded, and complaining of the issue of commissions in the name of the colony. (Idem, p. 267.) At a special meeting of Aug. 13, they addressed a letter to Massachu- setts concerning her subjects at Pawtuxet. (Idem, p. 271.) The Island assembly met at Portsmouth Aug. 16, and drew up a letter in reply to one sent by Massachusetts protesting against the capture of a French prize by Capt. Hull, acting under a Rhode Island commission. ( Mass. letter copied in Extracts from Mass. MSS. i, 56, in R. I. H. S. Library.) Their reply was in substance, that the Bay protests of illegality would be referred to English courts. They transacted various items of business, appointed one committee to negotiate with Providence and Warwick, and another to reconcile the difficulties on the Island itself. This latter committee reported that "Mr. Coddington only will agree to a compliance in case he may be governor and act upon his commission". (The records of this important assembly are not in R. I. Col. Rec. They are copied in Extracts from Mass. MSS. i, 59, in R. I. H. S. Library.) On Sept. 5, William Arnold, at Pawtuxet, communicated to
94
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
Although some of the men of the northern towns strove to heal the breach by attending Island assemblies, it was not until August, 1654, that a complete reconciliation was effected. The noise of the disorders had reached England and drew forth from Sir Henry Vane a stinging letter which did much to quicken the union. "Are there no wise men among you", he writes, "no publie self-denying spirits that at least upon grounds of common safety, equity and prudence can find out some way or means of union, before you become a prey to common enemies"? The reply of Providence to this letter, although ascribing the chief eause of disorders to Newport contentions, admitted that which was really the key to the whole situation, namely, the possibility that imbibing too much from the "sweet eup [ of liberty] hath ren- dered many of us wanton and too aetive". On August 31, 1654, a few weeks after the receipt of this letter, commissioners from the four towns met and signed general articles of reunion, in which the transac- tions of each set of towns during the period of separation were allowed to stand, and the government under the Charter of 1644 was resumed.
The danger of a Coddington monarchy was at last warded off, and the disthroned ruler later stated publiely in the General Assembly that he did "freely submit to the authority of his Highness in this Colony as it is now united, and that with all my heart".1 The separated settlements had come together, but the renewed aggressiveness of their neighbors, combined with the exuberant politieal activity of some of their own number prevented them from enjoying the fruits of such a union. The insecurities of disjunction were replaced by the perils arising from tumultuous town-meetings, especially at Providence,2 from outside greed for Rhode Island lands, from Indian depredations,
the Bay intelligence as to the document sent to England in response to Massa- chusetts' protest-a document, by the way, which his own son was one of those appointed to draw up (Hutchinson, Collections, p. 253). There were apparently no meetings of the northern towns in 1654; but on May 16 of that year, there met on the Island a general assembly in which both Providence and Warwick were represented. A committee was chosen to compose the difficulty with "our dissenting friends". (R. I. C. R. i, 273.) In July came the letter from Vane, written Feb. 8, 1654, which did much to bring in the dissenters, and which was answered by Providence on Aug. 27. (Idem, p. 285.) On Aug. 31, commissioners from each of the four towns met and adopt- ed articles of reunion. (Idem, p. 276.)
1R. I. C. R. i, 327, under date of Mar. 12, 1656.
2See Prov. Rec. ii, 81; R. I. H. S. Coll. ix, 60; R. I. H. S. Proc. 1883-84, p. 79. A paper, circulated in 1654 by some seditious citizen at Providence, as- serting that it was "against the rule of the gospel to execute judgment upon transgressors against the public or private weal", drew forth from Williams his oft-quoted "parable of the ship" (see Narr. Club Publ. vi, 278; Backus, History of Baptists, 1, 297.)
95
THE PERIOD OF THE FIRST CHARTER, 1648-63.
and from a dozen other dangers that might beset an unstable state. Roger Williams, in a letter to Massachusetts in 1655, refers to those difficulties with which the Bay was particularly concerned. The Indians near Warwick, says Williams, constantly committed such insolences that he remained in daily expectation of a great fire or massacre. When questioned for their conduct, they claimed to be within Massachusetts jurisdiction. At Pawtuxet also, the four famn- ilies who had submitted to the Bay in 1642, continued to evade the colony taxes and disobey the colony laws under shelter of the Bay authority. Another cause of complaint was the refusal of Massachu- setts to sell any powder or guns to Rhode Island people. Williams asserted that it was most unjust for the Bay magistrates to allow their own race and kindred to be exposed to the horrors of an Indian mas- sacre, merely through lack of the means for an adequate defense. In his apt metaphor he remarks that although Rhode Island had often been esteemed a thorny hedge in the side of Massachusetts, yet even a hedge must be maintained as a bulwark against common enemies.1
An event now occurred which has laid Williams open to the charge of inconsistency, and which seems to show that for once at least his personal animosities got the better of his usual peace-making spirit. William Harris, always in active opposition to Williams, had written a tract in which, according to his own account, he sought to defend "some simple, harmless people" whose conscientious principles for- bade them to fight, take oaths, or conform to other colony regulations. Williams, who was the president of the colony, inferred from this tract that Harris was against all government, and at the May session of the Assembly, in 1657, brought against him the charge of high treason. The court put the matter over until the July session, and then came to the following negative decision. Having found that Harris had "much bowed the Scriptures to maintain that he who can say, it is his conscience, ought not to yield subjection to any human order amongst men", they admitted that it was "contemptuous and seditious", and discreetly referred the whole matter to John Clarke, the agent in Eng- land. All the papers, however, were probably lost at sea, and the subject was never again revived.
Harris may have given vent to his opinions in a contemptuous and irritating manner, and expressions of disloyalty and sedition could
1Williams's letter dated Nov. 15, 1655, is in Narr. Club Publ. vi, 293. See also the letter of May 12th, 1656, on page 299. Winthrop had previously admitted the error of state policy in refusing the settlers of Aquedneck pow- der for their defence. (Hist. of N. E. ii, 173.)
96
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
have undoubtedly been inferred from his vigorous writings. But Williams must have realized that the charge of high trason could never have been supported, and that nothing more could have been accom- plished than the possible blackening of his opponent's name. Even if the opinions that Harris held were dangerous in principle, they should not have formed the ground of such a severe charge unless he attempt- ed to carry them into action by resisting the state. The condition of the colony at the time was so precarious that it would have been far better to pacify than to accusc.1
Whether or not on account of his action against Harris, Williams was not re-elected President of the colony in the spring of 1657. Ben- edict Arnold, who was one of the seceders to Massachusetts and who had removed to Newport in 1651, was chosen in his stead. His elcva- tion to this high position must have made his father, William Arnold, and his other relatives and friends at Pawtuxet realize that their posi- tion as subjects of another colony, was not exactly conducive to the most harmonious family interests. For on May 26, 1658, William Arnold and William Carpenter, in behalf of the inhabitants of Paw- tuxet, petitioned for a dismissal from their subjection to the Bay government, which the court immediately granted.2 We must notice, however, that Roger Williams, filling his usual role of peace-maker, is partially accredited with bringing about the reconciliation.
Rhode Island was finally freed from the troublesome intrusion of an alien government, and was now able with a more united front to cope with new state problems. One of the first of these difficulties arose from the arrival of a sect which, much despised and persecuted in the neighboring colonies, brought to Rhode Island a legacy the value of which cannot be too highly estimated. For the principles of the Friends-or Quakers, as they were termed-being soon espoused by inany of the leading inhabitants of Rhode Island, exerted a most mod- erate and beneficial influence on colony legislation for over a hundred years. The first comers of this sect to New England shores arrived at
1Williams states his side of the controversy in his warrant for Harris's arrest (Arnold, i, 263), in a letter of 1668 (Prov. Rec. xv. 122), in a letter of 1669 (R. I. H. S. Proc. 1877-78, p. 72), and in his George Fox digged out of his Burrowes (Narr. Club Publ. v, 21, 31, 316). See also Book Notes, xiii, 267. The Harris side is given in a letter printed in a small pamphlet published in 1896 by Robert Harris, entitled Some William Harris Memoranda, in the Plea of the Pawtuxet Purchasers (R. I. H. S. Publ. i, 204) and in Fox, N. E. Firebrand quenched, p. 282. See also Dorr, in R. I. H. S. Coll. ix, 73. The official action is in R. I. C. R. i, 361, 363, 396.
2Mass. Rec. iv, pt. 1, 333. The petition itself and other documents are in R. I. H. S. Coll. ii, 206.
97
THE PERIOD OF THE FIRST CHARTER, 1648-63.
Boston in 1656, and from that time on those "cursed heretics" became the special object of Massachusetts legislation. Imprisonment and fines, branding and mutilation, banishment and death, were rapidly meted out to them until the bigotry of the magistrates seemed to spend itself by its own force.
Rhode Island, ever a haven for distressed consciences, soon became a refuge for many of these persecuted people. The Commissioners of the United Colonies, perceiving this, wrote to Rhode Island in Septem- ber, 1657, asking her to banish the Quakers already there and to pro- hibit all future inhabitation. The Rhode Island Assembly immediately answered : "We have no law among us whereby to punish any, for only declaring by words their minds concerning the things and ways of God".1 When again urged in October, 1658, and even threatened with commercial excommunication, Rhode Island steadfastly adhered to her principles of religious toleration. A letter was sent to John Clarke in England asking him to plead "that we may not be com- pelled to exercise any civil power over men's consciences, so long as human orders in point of civilization are not corrupted and violated."
While the Quakers were thus being protected in Rhode Island ter- ritory, those of the sect who had the temerity to visit the neighboring colonies were being subjected to the fiercest persecution. As the letter to Clarke expressed it, "The Quakers are constantly going forth amongst them about us, and vex and trouble them in point of their religion and spiritual state, though they return with many a foul scar in their bodies for the same". Several who incurred the censure of the magistrates were fined, imprisoned and whipped. But the acme of cruelty, so far as Rhode Islanders were concerned, occurred in the case of Mary Dyer, wife of William Dyer of Newport. She was a brave, devout woman, who hoped that her persistent defiance of the Bay laws would force from the rulers a repeal of the cruel death penalty. Returning to Boston for the third time under pain of deatlı, she was arrested and hung, June 1, 1660. But these revolting scenes were put to a stop in the following year by the royal command of Charles II, and the increasing number of the Quakers finally forced the magistrates to respect their rights.2
Soon after the arrival of the Quakers, Rhode Island embarked upon a series of disputes concerning the Narragansett country that was to
1R. I. C. R. i, 374; Rogers's Mary Dyer, p. 83.
2The story of Mary Dyer is graphically told in Horatio Rogers's mono- graph on the subject. For a list of references on the Quaker persecution, see the preface to Judge Rogers's volume and Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist. iii, 359, 503.
7
98
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
last for many years. This great tract of land, extending from the south line of the Warwiek purehase to the occan, and from Narragan- sett Bay to Conneetieut's eastern boundary line, was in a most unset- tled state as regards both ownership and jurisdiction. The original territory of the Narragansetts stretched towards the southwest at least as far as Wecapaug Brook, a little stream about five miles east of the Pawcatuck.1 This whole traet, "extending about twenty-five English miles into the Pequod river and country", was ineluded under the authority of Rhode Island in the Charter of 1644. Rhode Island, therefore, henceforth assumed jurisdiction of the traet. Connectieut, replying upon the Lords Say and Seal Patent of 1631, which granted territory as far east as the "Narragansett river", also laid elaim to it. Massachusetts, although having no elaim to Narragansett lands, de- manded a share of the Pequot country as her portion of the spoils of the Pequot war; and in 1658 the Federal Commissioners decided that her claim was good, as far as the Mystie River.2 Still another elaim- ant for the Rhode Island lands were the heirs of the Duke of Hamilton, to whom the Plymouth Couneil had granted in 1635 all the territory between the Connecticut and Narragansett rivers.3
This mueh desired Narragansett country, which had so many elaim- ants, contained no permanent settlement until long after the arrival of the 1644 Charter. Richard Smith, John Wileox and Roger Williams had bought land of the Indians, and had erected trading-houses near the present Wickford about 1641.4 But no settlement of a permanent nature was attempted until July, 1658, when Samuel Wilbur and three others of Portsmouth, and John Hull of Boston bought from the In-
1Nearly all the early Massachusetts and Connecticut authorities set Weca- paug as the boundary between the Narragansetts and Pequots. (See R. I. H. S. Coll. iii, 27, 56, 233, 263-267; R. I. H. S. Publ. viii, 72.) But Williams supposed the Narragansett country to have extended originally as far as the Pawcatuck (Narr. Club Publ. vi, 340). The testimony of several Narragan- sett sachems in 1661-2 also favors this latter view. (See R. I. H. S. Coll. iii, 242-247.)
2Plym. Col. Rec. x, 209. Massachusett's claim affected the present R. I. territory only upon condition that the conquered Pequot country had pre- viously extended as far east as Wecapaug.
3This claim never had any force, and was finally declared obsolete in 1697. (See Bowen, Boundary Disputes of Conn. p. 21.)
4J. W. Gardiner, in Narr. Hist. Reg. ii, 25, shows with much degree of plausibility that Williams may more properly be considered the pioneer of Narragansett than Richard Smith. John Wilcox's claim as "first settler" is advanced in Narr. Hist. Reg. ix, 60; see also Idem, viii, 269. The claim of the Dutch, who had trading stations at Charlestown even before the planting of Providence, should not be forgotten ( Dawson's Hist. Mag. vii, 42.)
99
THE PERIOD OF THE FIRST CHARTER, 1648-63.
dians what was known as the Pettaquamscut Purchase. This com- prised approximately the southeastern quarter of the Narragansett country. In the following year Major Humphrey Atherton and his partners purchased two tracts from the Indians-Quidnesset and Boston Neck-or roughly speaking, the eastern half of the present North Kingstown.1
If the Narragansett country was included within the patent of 1644 -as it undoubtedly was-then the Atherton purchase was in direct contravention of Rhode Island law ; for in November, 1658, the General Assembly had ordered that all unauthorized purchases from the In- dians of lands within the colony would be made under penalty of for- feiture.2 This law received a still further wrench in September, 1660, when the Narragansett sachems, unable to pay a heavy fine of 500 fathoms of wampum forced upon them by the United Colonies, mort- gaged all their land to Major Atherton and his associates on condition that the mortgagees should pay the fine. This Atherton did, and since the Indians did not discharge the mortgage within the specified time of six months, the Atherton company took formal possession of the territory.3 All this action, according to the "forfeiture laws" of November, 1658, was illegal and void. Rhode Island never attempted to oust the Atherton men from those lands that they had purchased from the Indians before that date, but, rely- ing upon her sole jurisdiction under the Charter of 1644, she fought persistently to the end against this questionable mortgage.
Another dispute had already been begun concerning the lands in the extreme southwestern part of the Narragansett country. It will be remembered that the territory between the Wecapaug and Pawcatuck Rivers had been claimed by Massachusetts under the Commissioners' award of 1658. Immediately after this decision, the Bay magistrates
1These two purchases took in the most fertile and desirable parts of the Narragansett country. For matters of detail concerning the Pettaquamscut Purchase, see R. I. H. S. Coll. iii, 275-299. Atherton's partners in his pur- chase were Gov. Winthrop of Connecticut, Richard Smith and his son of Narragansett and three Massachusetts men. The Atherton partners also pur- chased Point Judith in 1660, which sale, however, was made invalid by the previous Pettaquamscut Purchase. They made much pretension towards settlement, even ordering in 1660 that all lots not built and settled upon with- in two years should be forfeited. For boundaries and other details of their purchase, see The Fones Record, and R. I. H. S. Coll. iii, 269. See also the map showing the original purchases in Narragansett in J. N. Arnold's State- ment of the Case of the Narragansett Tribe of Indians.
2R. I. C. R. i, 403; also Narr. Club. Publ. vi, 343.
3See Plym. Rec. x, 227, 248; R. I. C. R. i, 465; R. I. H. S. Coll. iii, 61, 234.
100
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
erected the lands on both sides of the Pawcatuck into a town, by the name of Southertown.1 Two years later, in 1660, some inhabitants of Newport, acting upon the principle that Massachusetts' claim to the territory was without foundation, purchased from the Narragansett sachems the tract of land between the Wecapaug and Pawcatuck Rivers, and began a settlement there.2 This tract, called by the Indians Misquamicuck, was later named Westerly. The Bay magistrates im- mediately took action, and after sending a letter of protest to Rhode Island through the Federal commissioners, issued warrants for the arrest of the trespassers. Three were captured and brought to Bos- ton, two of whom-Tobias Saunders and Robert Burdick-were fined and committed to jail for non-payment. To this summary act Rhode Island naturally took exception, affirming that the settlement was legally made and proposing to refer the whole matter to the King.3 The matter remained in abeyance for over a year, during which period the inhabitants on either side of the Pawcatuck kept up a virtual border warfare most injurious to the peace of the colony.
These claims and encroachments upon Rhode Island territory, made possible by the ill-defined bounds of the First Charter, were the prin- cipal cause of a desire for a new and more specific instrument. This document, moreover, had been granted by Parliament, which was dis- placed in 1660 by the allies of the King. The monarchy was now restored in the person of Charles II. If Rhode Island wished to receive royal favor and recognition, she must needs exist under a charter other than that granted by a body whose proceedings were not recognized by the present ruling power.
Connecticut, however, had forstalled Rhode Island in this matter of procuring a charter. Through the able negotiation of John Win- throp, the younger, she had obtained in May, 1662, a charter granting powers and privileges of the most unusual latitude. According to its terms, the eastern boundary of Connecticut extended as far as "Nar- rogancett River, commonly called Narrogancett Bay". These bounds,
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.