USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1 > Part 4
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
Can this act of banishment, although natural, be considered as justi- fiable ? The clergy clearly showed their position in the Williams controversy, when in an official opinion given to the Court, they declared "that he who should obstinately maintain such opinions, whereby a church might run into heresy, apostasy, or tyranny, and yet the civil magistrate could not intermeddle, were to be removed."1
This declaration, which alone would explain the cause of Williams's expulsion, unmistakably evidenced their desire to censure, to persecute or to banish those who opposed the civil authority in spiritual matters. That some of them, even in that intolerant day, realized that such persecution was against all human progress, is shown by their attempt to shield their action under the pretense that it was done to suppress civil disturbance. A keen observer of the period, in referring to the banishment of Williams and others by the clergy, remarked that "they found out a pretty fine distinction to deceive themselves with, that the magistrate questioned and punished for those opinions and errors, not as heresies and such opinions, but as breaches of the civil peace and disturbances to the Commonwealth".2 This fine distinction, as the author infers, was not a distinction at all, but merely an excuse. The greater number of the theocrats, however, pursued their domineering course without any other justification than the professed purpose to suppress heresy and thereby "secure a true religion to posterity".
1Winthrop, i, 163.
2Thomas Edwards, Antapologia, (1644) p. 165.
28
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
We have already noted the significant reply of the clergy to the Court in the Williams case, and a year or two later we find Governor Win- throp thus censuring Mrs. Hutchinson for daring to differ in doc- trine: "Your course is not to be suffered. We see not that any should have authority to set up any other exercises besides what authority hath already set up." By 1644 a law was passed decreeing banishment upon any one who openly condemned the baptizing of infants; and this was only the beginning of what was to follow.
But why should we attempt to apologize for those who themselves sought no other excuse than the necessity of securing a dominant re- ligion? We condemn the inquisitorial proceedings of the thirteenth century popes, we loudly declaim against Philip II for his insufferable persecution of the Jews and Moors, we never seek to defend Louis XIV for banishing the Huguenots from France-and yet when we come to consider our own Puritan forefathers, we allow ourselves to be de- ceived by the sophistical argument that that which was admittedly wrong in the Old World was right and best in the New.1 It is true that the proceedings against the Quakers and other late offenders deserve our condemnation more than does the banishment of Williams, which was but the warning note of the persecution to follow. But even this early course of action does not admit of justification. Unless we believe that a protest against the spiritual assumption of temporal authority should be visited with punishment, unless we consider the union of church and state to be the highest form of political organiza- tion, then we cannot defend the founders of Massachusetts in banish- ing Roger Williams.
1The writings of Charles Francis Adams, who has done more than any other historian to give a clear insight into early Massachusetts history, are particularly pertinent at this point. In one place he says: "The trouble with the historical writers who have taken upon themselves the defense of the founders of Massachusetts is that they have tried to sophisticate away the facts. In Spain it was the dungeon, the rack and the fagot; in Massachusetts it was banishment, the whip and the gibbet. In neither case can the records be obliterated. Between them it is only a question of degree -one may in color be a dark drab, while the other is unmistakably a jetty black. The difficulty is with those who, expatiating with great force of lan- guage on the sooty aspect of the one, turn and twist the other in the light, and then solemnly asseverate its resemblance to driven snow. Unfortunately for those who advocate this view of the Old and New World records, the facts do not justify it." (Massachusetts, its historians and its history, p. 34.)
CHAPTER III.
THE FOUNDING OF PROVIDENCE.
The primary purpose of Roger Williams, when contemplating the project of settling near Narragansett Bay, was to spread Christianity among the Indians and to elevate them both morally and socially. "My soul's desire," he says, "was to do the natives good, and to that end to learn their language, and therefore desired not to be troubled with English company".1 But the impracticability of this idea and the forced companionship of several who were also under the displeas- ure of the Bay government, made him change his purpose, and become the founder of a "shelter for persons distressed of conscience"-a community where complete religious toleration might be secured.
The planting of a settlement on the banks of the Mooshassuck was no suddenly conceived idea. Long before the settlers began the creation of their rude houses, Roger Williams, in consistency with his opinions concerning the ownership of the soil, negotiated for its purchase from the natives. Through his knowledge of their language and manners, and through his favor with them, he procured what "monies could not do," and obtained from Canonicus and Miantonomi a gift of land upon the Mooshassuck and Woonasquetucket Rivers. This agreement, perhaps a verbal one, does not appear on the records, but is mentioned in the following "memorandum", dated March 24th in the second year of the plantation, or 1638.2
1Answer to W. Harris, 1677, in Rider's Tracts, xiv, 53. Had Williams merely desired to live apart from his Puritan brethren, he might have fol- lowed the plan of William Blackstone, who had preceded him to Rhode Island. This striking and somewhat mysterious personage had sold his estate in Boston in 1634, and removed to a spot in the present town of Cum- berland, named by him "Study Hill." He lived a solitary life with his family until his death in 1675. For particulars of his life, see Savage's Winthrop, i, 53; Mem. Hist. of Boston, i, 84; R. I. H. S. Coll. vii, 25; American Magazine, vii, 707; A. Gilman's Pathfinders, p. 112; S. C. Newman's Address before Blackstone Monument Assoc. 1855; L. M. Sargent, Blackstone Family; and biographical sketches of Blackstone by T. C. Amory, 1877, B. F. De Costa, 1880, and J. C. Crane, 1896.
2Prov. Rec. iv, 70. The original of this deed, in a mutilated condition, is
30
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
"Memorandum, that we Caunanicusse and Meianantunnomu, the two chief Sachems of Nanheggansuck, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers called Mowshausuck and Wanasquatuckett, do now by these presents establish and confirm the bounds of those lands from the rivers and fields of Pautuckett, the great hill of Neotaconkonitt on the norwest and the towne of Mashapauge on the west. As also in consideration of the many kindnesses and services he hath continually done for us both with our friends of Massachusett, as also at Quinitikticutt, and Apaum or Plimouth, we do freely give unto him all that land from those rivers, reaching to Pautuxett River, as also the grass and mea- dows upon Pautuxett River.1 In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands."
still preserved in the City Hall. In 1659 it was for the first time recorded, with certain additions, said to have been necessary through the mutilation of the original deed. In 1662 it was again recorded, but without the said additions.
1This last sentence Sidney S. Rider, in an interesting and forceful treatise (R. I. Hist. Tract, ser. 2, no. 4) considers to be a forgery, "interpolated by William Harris and his partners". George T. Paine, in an equally interesting tract (A denial of the charges of forgery in connection with the sachem's deed to Roger Williams), denies this claim. Mr. Rider's chief support to his assertion, is that the above sentence, while given in the record of 1659, does not appear in the record of 1662. Leaving aside all discussion as to motives for forgery, the original deed itself seems to show eradication rather than interpolation. A careful examination of the photographic reproductions in both the tracts will show that there are certain marks on the lower half of the deed which seem to be part of missing letters which do not appear in the upper half. There are several early allusions to the fact that the deed was torn (see Paine's Denial, p. 10, 41), but none whatever to the fact that it was interpolated. There is a manuscript, which has never yet been printed, that throws much light upon the "forgery". It is a testimony of William Field, and the following extract will show its importance in the question: "Now, sir, I conceive this William Arnold, to obtain his own ends, to deprive us of our right of the said lands of Pawtuxet, that we might have nothing to show for it . cunningly cut out or otherwise got out of the said evidence all concerning the said our right of Pawtuxett and pasted the said writing together again so cunningly that it could hardly be discerned but by those who well knew by rote what was formerly in the Evidence; but so it happeneth that by God's providence, there is a copy or two of his own handwriting ( which I conceive he had forgot) to be seen, which compared with the de- formed evidence doth fully demonstrate his naughty and evil intent." ( Prov. Town Papers, no. 01293.) William Harris himself says that the deed fell into a certain person's hands, and the "part concerning Pawtuxet was taken out, and the paper on both sides thereof put edge to edge and pasted together on another paper." He also says that the word "Pawtuxet" in the memorandum was "blotted", and the original deed bears evidence of this fact. (R. I. H. S. Publ. i, 2030.) If this forgery had ever been perpetrated Roger Williams would certainly have alluded to it in his voluminous writings on the subject. He would have been only too glad to find another crime to lay explicitly at the door of William Harris. The sentence under discussion gave to Roger Williams his only clear title to the lands bordering on the north side of Pawtuxet, which, in 1638, he deeded to his associates, using
31
THE FOUNDING OF PROVIDENCE.
This deed is signed by Canonicus and Miantonomi in the presence of Indian witnesses, and is followed by a second "memorandum".
"3. month, 9. day. This was all again confirmed by Miantenomu, he acknowledged this his act and hand up the stream of Pautuckett and Pautuxett without limits we might have for our use of cattle,
"Witness hereof
ROGER WILLIAMS BENEDICT ARNOLD. ''1
The absence of legal phraseology in this deed has little signification, as the knowledge of what we call modern law was very rudimentary. Williams had no idea of buying land for a political community, but intended only to procure a title which should be vested in him alone. When pressed by some of his companions to admit them into the fel- lowship of his purchase, he consented, agreeing that the place should be a shelter for "persons distressed for conscience". In considera- tion of £30 as a compensation for his own expenses, he made over equal rights in the whole purchase to twelve of his associates and "such others as the major part of us shall admit into the same fellowship of vote with us.''2
almost exactly the same words as in the so-called interpolated clause. Will- iams, himself, in a hitherto unpublished letter, explicitly mentions the "knowne stated bounds fixt us in our grand Original deed, to wit Pawtuck- quit, Notaquonckanit, Maushapog and Pawtuxet." (R. I. H. S. Publ. viii, 158.) Although there are many assertions concerning land troubles in Mr. Rider's tract that are incontrovertible, I believe that most historical scholars cannot accept the claim that the above sentence concerning the Pawtuxet lands was a forgery.
'This memorandum, according to William Harris, is in the handwriting of Thomas James. (R. I. H. S. Publ. i, 210.) The date 1639 is prefixed to it in the enrollment of 1659. Mr. Rider asserts that this is an interpolation, which is undoubtedly true, as it is not in the original deed. He asserts that the signatures of the two witnesses are also forgeries. Roger Williams, however, denied the recording of the testimony and not his signature as a witness. The evidence as to the forgery of Arnold's name may have been adduced from the following source "Mr. Benedict Arnold upon his engagement saith the name subscribed in the paper where the Evidence of Providence is was not his handwriting. But he saith that he did subscribe his name to such a paper as that is about that time." Taken in Court, March, 1659. ( Harris Papers in R. I. Hist. Soc. p. 87.)
2Prov. Rec. xv, 86. The text of this deed is obtained from an officially certified, but undated, copy of 1661. It is known as the "Initial Deed", since the names of the twelve associates are indicated by their initials. In 1666 Will- iams re-executed this deed, assigning to it the date of Oct. 8, 1638, and giving the full names of his associates. They were Stukely Westcott, William Arnold, Thomas James, Robert Cole, John Greene, John Throckmorton, Will- iam Harris, William Carpenter, Thomas Olney, Francis Weston, Richard Waterman, and Ezekiel Holliman. (Prov. Rec. iii, 90.) Five years previous, in 1661, Williams had executed a similar deed having a seal, release of dower, and other formalities. (Prov. Rec. v, 306.) In this latter document, in
32
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
The vague boundaries of this decd to his associates, and the omission of a clear definition of the capacity of the grantecs and of the qualifica- tions of subsequent purchasers led the way to the various interpreta- tions of the deed which were to disturb Providence town-meetings for the next half-century. Williams intended that newcomers should pay thirty shillings into a town stock, and believed that he had transferred his Indian purchase to an association or corporate succession to hold in trust until a future town was ready to receive it. William Harris and several of the proprietors thought that those who had borne the burden of settlement should reap some reward, and apparently be- lieved in the diversion of the whole estate to the profit of a private corporation, without regard to the interest of the commonwealth.1 The latter class at a very early day seem to have been anxious to possess larger individual holdings. "W. Harris and the first twelve of Providence were restless for Pawtuxet," says Williams. In 1638, the same year of the "Initial Deed", all the meadow ground at Paw- tuxet was "impropriated unto thirteen persons, being now incorporate into our town of Providence", and a consideration of £20 was paid to Roger Williams.2 The lack of boundaries in this deed was another great source of discussion among the proprietors. For years the town surveyors could not settle upon the line between the "grand purchase of Providence" and the "Pawtuxct purchase", and in fact the matter was not decided until 1712.
By the time Roger Williams had deeded away all the land he had purchased from the Indians, the little settlement had been somewhat augmented by new arrivals from Massachusetts. The first division of lands within the "grand purchase of Providence" gave to each one of the early settlers, fifty-four in number, a "home lot", a six acre lot and a number of acres of meadow land. The home-lots, of five acres each, extended from the "Towne Streete", now North and South Main strects, to what is now Hope street, and the six-acre lots were situated in the southerly part of "Providence Neck", and upon the Woonas- quatucket River.3
referring apparently to the initial deed, he assigns to it the date 1637, which differs from his date of October 8, 1638, given five years later. Undoubtedly 1637 is an error of memory, as he did not obtain the lands from the sachems until March 24, 1638. Four of the grantees, moreover-Westcott, Weston, Waterman and Holliman-did not come to Providence until after March, 1638.
'There is a careful discussion of this "Initial Deed" in Dorr, Prov. pro- prietors and freeholders," pp. 12-20.
2R. I. Col. Rec. i. 20.
3These early divisions of land are described in H. C. Dorr's Planting and Growth of Providence, and in C. W. Hopkins's Home-lots of the early settlers. See also Book Notes, iv, 21.
33
THE FOUNDING OF PROVIDENCE.
The numerical weakness and the few political requirements of the earliest settlers did not necessitate a carefully organized government. The masters of families simply met once a fortnight to consult "about our common peace, watch and planting", and chose one of their num- ber, named the "officer", to call the meeting at the appointed time. But, before the settlement was a year old, several young men who had been admitted to freedom of inhabitation became discontented with their estate and sought freedom of voting and equality. Roger Will- iams realized fully the danger of not having some sort of civil compact and prepared a "double subscription", one to be signed by the masters of families, the other by the young men recently admitted.1 Whether the former of these subscriptions was ever submitted to the townsmen, the meagre records do not show. The latter was formally adopted in town meeting, August 20, 1637, being known as the "civil compact". It was in these words :
"We, whose names are hereunder, desirous to inhabit in the town of Providence, do promise to subject ourselves in active or passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for public good of our body, in an orderly way, by the major assent of the present inhabitants, masters of families, incorporated together into a town fellowship, and others whom they shall admit unto them, only in civil things.''2
The masters of families and such others as they admitted unto them now exercised all functions-executive, legislative, and judicial. It was the town meeting that made such little ordinances as were neces- sary for safety, decided the ever besetting questions concerning land, and passed judgment upon all offenders. There was one matter, how- ever, to which their authority did not extend. The compact provided for perfect religious liberty by limiting their authority to civil things
1We find the text of these compacts in a letter from Williams to Winthrop, written in the autumn of 1636. (See Narr. Club Publ. vi, 3.) It is to this letter also that we owe our knowledge concerning the earliest government at Providence.
2Prov. Rec. i, 1. The date, August 20, 1637, according to the transcript of 1800, was upon the original record, but the page upon which it was originally written is now gone. There should be no hesitancy in assigning this date, however, as Daniel Abbott, in a memorandum of several years later, says, "And in the year 1637, became a Towne incorporated August the 20th." (Prov. Rec. 4th Rep't. p. 11.) This statement of Abbott's would seem to make against the theory that the householders had adopted some express form of organization previous to the compact. The names of the thirteen signers were Richard Scott, William Reynolds, John Field, Chad Brown, John War- ner, George Rickard, Edward Cope, Thomas Angell, Thomas Harris, Francis Wickes, Benedict Arnold, Joshua Winsor and William Wickenden.
3
34
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
only. The great principle of freedom of conscience was for the first time recognized in the New World.
The first change from pure democracy came in 1640. Disputes, chiefly concerning land, had become too frequent to be settled in town meetings where it was difficult to secure even a quorum. The settlers desired a government which would be less onerous to individuals and more energetic for the increasing needs and population of the commu- nity. Accordingly, a committee, chosen to devise some plan of relief, considered "all these differences, being desirous to bring them to unity and peace". Their report, dated July 27, 1640, is subscribed to by thirty-nine of the inhabitants as "laying themselves down subject to it". According to this agreement, the inhabitants were to choose five men, called "disposers", who were to "be betrusted with disposals of land and also of the town's stock, and all general things". A town clerk was also to be chosen, who should call the disposers together every month and a general town meeting every quarter. The dis- posers were to hold office for one quarter, and the clerk for one year. All private differences were to be settled by arbitration, the disposers being empowered to select arbitrators in case the disputants refused to do so. If a person should be wronged and not prosecute the offender, the disposers could call up the case themselves. All the inhabitants were required to assist in the pursuit of a delinquent ; but if any per- son raised a "hubbub" without just cause, he must make satisfaction for his error. If any inhabitant thought himself wronged by the action of the disposers, he might make appeal to the town meeting or, if necessary, have the clerk call a special meeting. All former grants of land were to stand, and subsequent deeds were to be given to the purchasers by the disposers. It was also specifically provided "as formerly hath been the liberties of the town, so still to hold forth liberty of conscience."1
This agreement, though it seems to have been the only form of gov- ernment for several years, was but little removed from the perfect democracy of the first compact. The disposers had practically no dele- gated power when an appeal from their action to the judgment of the town could be made by a single inhabitant. The method of arbitra- tion, moreover, was not particularly effective among men whose lati- tude of opinion concerning civil government was about as broad as their ideas upon religion. As Roger Williams says: "Our peace was
1The original report of the committee is not in existence. A copy, attested to in 1662, is in the Prov. Rec. xv, 2. Another copy, taken apparently in 1650, is in Suffolk Deeds, i, 124.
35
THE FOUNDING OF PROVIDENCE.
like the peace of a man who hath the tertian ague." An attempt to enforce the decision of the arbitrators sometimes ended in bloodshed and riot. On one occasion of this kind, in November, 1641, thirteen of the colonists, fearing the outcome of events, addressed a letter to the Massachusetts government. They stated how the endeavor to enforce a decision upon one Francis Weston had been frustrated by the riotous action of Samuel Gorton and his company, and ended by imploring the governor, "for the sake of humanity and mankind to lend us a neighborlike helping hand". The reply from Massachusetts was that "except they did submit themselves to some jurisdiction, either Ply- mouth or ours, we had no calling or warrant to interpose in their con- tentions".1 Fortunately this impolitic action of a few inhabitants of Providence was not productive of any evil results.
It was only a few months later that the harmful precedent thus set was followed, but with much more pernicious consequences. In Sep- tember, 1642, William Arnold, William Carpenter, Robert Cole and Benedict Arnold, all of whom had purchased land near Paw- tuxet, subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.2 The reasons assigned by Governor Winthrop in accepting the sub- jection thus offered were "partly to secure these men from unjust vio- lence, and partly to draw in the rest in those parts either under ourselves or Plymouth," and because "the place was likely to be of use to us, especially if we should have occasion of sending out against any Indians of Narragansett, and likewise for an outlet into the Nar- ragansett Bay". The effect of this treachery of the Arnold party upon the weak little settlement can readily be perceived. The new subjects of Massachusetts being bound to obey the laws of that colony, did not scruple to evade any impositions put upon them by the Provi- dence government. The legal aspects of the case do not seem to have had much weight at that day. It is indeed difficult to conceive how the Bay Colony could accept jurisdiction over land outside of the bounds of their patent, or how the Pawtuxet men could violate the
1The address is in 3 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. i, 2; and the reply in Winthrop, ii, 59.
2There is an excellent summary of the subjection of Arnold in Paine's Denial of the charges of forgery, pp. 28-37. From this account it seems clear that the Arnold party hoped, by placing themselves under Massachusetts, to get their deeds from Pumham and Sacononoco confirmed. These two Indians, in 1643, submitted themselves to Massachusetts, and if it could be proved that they were independent of the Narragansetts, their deeds would hold good over lands previously granted by Miantonomi to Williams. The Arnold party apparently cared not to what jurisdiction they were subject, as long as they were confirmed in the ownership of their lands.
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.