State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1, Part 7

Author: Field, Edward, 1858-1928
Publication date: 1902
Publisher: Boston : Mason Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 700

USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1 > Part 7

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).

1R. I. Col. Rec. i, 103, 106, 124.

2From the absence of many Newport records between 1643 and 1647 it is not shown when this prison was built, but there is a reference to its existence in 1649 (R. I. Col. Rec. i, 219.) It is worthy of remark that these provisionary laws were not a dead letter, and also that the distinction of rank offered no obstacle to their execution. In the same month that two miscreants were fined for drunkenness, Nicholas Easton, an assistant, was fined for attending public meeting without his weapon.

"Ill Newes from N. E. (4 Mass. H. S. Coll. ii, 25.)

THE ANTINOMIANS AND AQUEDNECK.

of the majority of his associates was to obtain as much land as possible in the new settlement. It was this aim, together with the presence of so many varying views on theology, that induced four-fifths of the community to take no part in the forming of what for many years was the only church in the town. Dissent in religion or else entire absence of it were for a long time obstacles to spiritual progress.

As for courts, there was a much more striking dissimilarity with the Newport settlement. Since judicial, as well as legislative, affairs were transacted in open town meeting, there was no court organization, no judge, no jury. After arbitration had failed, a suit was carried before the freemen as a body, where wrangling and lack of defined powers often left it to languish for several years. It was exactly this method of investing the town meeting with all the different powers of government that formed the great point of dissimilitude between the two settlements. A democracy, when possessing constitutional safe- guards as to representation and division of authority, may be an excellent mode of government. But at Providence all possible contin- gencies were settled by the general body of freemen, and laws were inevitably the results of momentary suggestion. Such a method tended to aggravate rather than remedy existing disorders, and the government proved inefficient from sheer inability to enforce its own decisions. When we consider that to these faults of system were added the totally differing political views of the settlers, we can per- haps realize the justice of Sir Henry Vane's admonition sent to the Providence Colony in 1654 at the request of Roger Williams: "How is it there are such divisions amongst you ? Such headiness, tumults, disorders and injustice ? The noise echoes into the ears of all, as well friends as enemies, by every return of ships from those parts. Are there no wise men amongst you ? No public, self-denying spirits, that at least, upon the grounds of public safety, equity and prudence, can find out some way or means of union and reconciliation for you amongst yourselves, before you become a prey to common enemies ?''1

What were the reasons for the contrast in the condition of affairs at the two towns? The dangers incident to settlement, such as famine and Indian depredations, threatened both alike. The chief cause of contrast lay not in any exigencies due to geographical location, nor yet in the slight disparity of population that existed, but in the difference of motive that inspired the planters of each community. Roger Will- liams's first design was to christianize the Indians, and when circum-

1R. I. Col. Rec. i, 285, under date of Feb. 8, 1654. The Town of Providence answered the letter on Aug. 27.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.

stances induced him to alter this plan and lay the foundation of a town, he was compelled to make many political concessions to his asso- ciates, some of whom cared as little for his opinions as did the people of the Bay. The primary settlement, then, was hasty and unprepared. Those who arrived later to help in the process of formation and who subsequently constituted the bulk of the population, came for the most part for two reasons : cither as exiles from the Bay for various offenses, or else hoping to better an impoverished condition by obtaining profit- able grants of land. Neither class was the most desirable to aid in the building of a town.

At Aquedneck, on the other hand, the motive was first and solely to form a political and religious community outside of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. With this end always in view, the emigrants decid- ed upon a suitable location and carefully laid their plans of settle- ment. Although a separation in their number occurred about a year after the planting, a reconciliation soon took place and thenceforth they were at one on most points of policy. Whatever petty strifes did arise-whether over land or debt or some criminal case-were quickly settled in orderly constituted courts. Their government possessed enough power to enforce execution of its decrees, and if obnoxious persons threatened their existence, they did not appeal to Massachusetts for aid in solving the difficulty. It is true that their order, their power and their unity were greatly furthered by the fact that as a class their social rank was superior to that of their Providence breth- ren. Of the latter, Williams was the only one who possessed a liberal education or who had attained to any prominence in Massachusetts. But at Newport, Coddington, Clarke, Coggeshall, Jeffries, the Hutch- insons, were men of wealth, learning and social acquirements, all of whom had been highly esteemed at their coming to New England. It was undoubtedly due to the influence of these men that such early provision was made for public education.1 But in spite of the con- trast between the two settlements in their legislatures, their courts, their churches, and their schools, the counteracting influence of such dissimilar communities undoubtedly worked for good in the end.

'On August 20, 1640, Robert Lenthal was called by the town to keep a "publick school", land being set aside for his use and for the school. This school has been claimed to be the first school supported by public taxation in America. Although schools were established in Ipswich, Boston, Charles- town, and Salem between 1633 and 1637, they were wholly or partially sup- ported by private subscription. The school organized at Dorchester in 1639, being supported by a tax upon the proprietors, has a well established claim to priority. (See summary in Davis, N. E. States, iv, 1833, and W. A. Mowry's The first Amer. public school in Education, xxi, 535.)

SAMUEL GORTON AND THE FOUNDING OF WARWICK.

While the Newport idea tended toward conservatism in public affairs, the Providence principle injected considerable vitality into political assemblies. If a "vigorous political life", as was once re- marked, could save a colony from "mental atrophy", then Rhode Island's future was insured forever.

CHAPTER V.

SAMUEL GORTON AND THE FOUNDING OF WARWICK.

The third settlement instituted within the borders of the future Rhode Island was Warwick, founded by Samuel Gorton and his follow- ers. Like the two preceding settlements, it was primarily formed through stress of circumstances-the disinclination of the Puritan magistrates to tolerate certain views far too advanced for their narrow minds. It was a community, moreover, whose earliest history cen- tered closely about the person and fortune of a single man. This man, who, through his peculiar political and religious opinions and his pertinacity in stating them, has been assailed with much undeserved abuse, was Samuel Gorton.1 The story of his life must be briefly told. Arriving at Boston in March, 1637, at the age of forty-four, he found that colony in the throes of the Antinomian controversy. He must have soon observed that this austere commonwealth was no place for liberal thinkers, for we find him two months later removed to Ply- mouth, where he "gave hopes of proving an useful instrument". But little by little, the narrative runs, "he discovered himself to be a proud and pestilential seducer, and deeply leavened with blasphemous and familistical opinions".2 At last the Plymouth magistrates became

1For the chief accounts of Gorton, see under Biography and Warwick in Bibliography at end of last volume. The most important original authorities are Winslow, Hypocrisie Unmasked, 1646, and a MS. draft in Deane's Gorton; Gorton, Simplicities Defence, 1646 (reprinted by Staples as v. 2 of R. I. H. S. Coll.), and his Letter to Morton, 1669 (printed in Force's Tracts, iv, no. 7); and Winthrop, Hist. of New England. See also an enumeration of authorities by Justin Winsor in Mem. Hist. of Boston, i, 171.

2Morton, N. E. Memorial, p. 108. The accusations of familism made against Gorton by several early writers are, from all evidence now at hand, utterly without foundation. None of his writings show that he espoused the doctrines of the disciples of Nicholas. He was guilty of this charge only in so far as familism could be construed as a general term for heresy. (See A. C. Thomas, Family of Love in Haverford College Studies, no. 12.)

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.

alarmed, and Gorton had to go the way of the Brownes, of Williams, of Wheelwright, and of Mrs. Hutchinson. An excuse to be rid of him was soon found. Gorton and his family, upon eoming to Plymouth, had hired part of the house of one Ralph Smith. This man, alleging that Gorton had bceome "troublesome and insolent", had him brought before authority, where he was ordered "to provide other ways for himself". Gorton, however, affirmed that his aeeuser's enmity was due to the faet that Mistress Smith preferred his family serviees to those of her husband. But he was soon to answer to a more serious charge.

A servant in the Gorton family, named Ellin Aldridge, was accused of "offensive speeches and carriages", and was threatened with being sent out of the colony as a vagabond. Gorton, believing that her only offense was smiling in congregation, spoke in her behalf, and defied the governor's order that she must depart from the jurisdiction. For this eontumacy and upon the implied eharge that by hiding the servant he had "deluded the court", he was bound over to the next General Court which was to meet Deeember 4, 1638. He obtained sureties and appeared at the appointed time. It was not in Gorton's eharaeter to be overawed by authority, especially when he perceived an absence of justice or legal formalities in any proceeding. Seareely had the pros- eeutor stated the ease, when Gorton stretched out his hand and loudly eried, "If Satan will accuse the brethren let him come down from Jehoshuah's right hand and stand here"; and then turned toward the people and said, "Ye see, good people, how ye are abused; stand for your liberty, and let them not be parties and judges." True English-

man that he was, he made a decided objeetion to the principle which allowed his accuser to be likewise his judge. In conformity with the rest of the proceedings, it was moved that he should not speak in his own behalf at all, and as there was no attorney at hand, this meant that he was praetieally eut off from all means of defense. The trial soon eame to an end, and he was to pay the penalty for his rashness. The Court fined him £20 and sentenced him to depart from Plymouth within fourteen days.1 The time of his departure, says Gorton, "fell to be in a mighty storm of snow as I have seen in the country, my wife being turned out of door in the said storm with a young child sueking at her brcast". Thus, at the hazard of his life, he left Plymouth and went to Portsmouth, where the government of the Antinomian exiles had been in existenee for nearly a year.

'The authorities for the proceedings at Plymouth are in Winslow (and MS. draft in Deane's Gorton), Gorton's Letter to Morton, and Plymouth Rec.

SAMUEL GORTON AND THE FOUNDING OF WARWICK.

As far as concerns this difference between Gorton and the Plymouth magistrates, "there was enough of wrong apparent on both sides to excuse in some measure the conduct of each, according as the sympa- thies of the writer might incline him to either party".1 Although his heresies undoubtedly operated to his disfavor and increased the sever- ity of his sentence, the plea of religious persecution should not bias us against the Plymouth Court. The chief cause of their action against him was his exasperating independence and his absolute con- tempt of their legal modes and forms, all of which combined to make his actions seem to them a breach of the civil peace.

Gorton arrived at Portsmouth in the winter of 1638-39.2 In a previous chapter has been described the affairs in that infant settle- ment and the influence of Gorton in establishing a more democratic form of government, in which allegiance to the king was a controlling condition. As long as this government existed Gorton seems to have lived peacefully. But when a majority of the Portsmouth settlers joined with the Newport government, in March, 1640, he refused to enter into the agreement, thinking himself "as fit and able to govern himself and family as any that then was upon Rhode Island".3 Soon after this, probably toward the very last of the year 1640, he became involved in a legal controversy that was to give him a good opportunity to display his utter contempt for Newport law, authority and magis- trates in general. A servant maid of Gorton's had been brought before the court charged with assault upon an old woman and had been bound over to the Court of Trials. When the appointed time came she did not appear, Gorton answering the summons in her behalf. He had his friend John Wickes brought to the stand, and both proceeded to deny the authority of the Court and its right to existence. After much controversy, Governor Coddington summed up the case to the jury and committed Gorton to prison. Upon his resistance, the governor said, "All you that own the King, take away Gorton and carry him to prison." Whereupon Gorton cried out, " All you that own the King, take away Coddington and carry him to prison." Soon after this affair he was indicted by the grand jury on

1Arnold, i, 166.

2Callender, Staples, and Arnold, relying solely upon the R. I. Col. Rec. i, 91, infer that Gorton was admitted to Pocasset, June 20, 1638. But the Plymouth Records, i, 105, the direct statement of Morton, the inherent evi- dence of Gorton's own statement (see Brayton, p. 41) and the absence of his name from early Portsmouth records, all go towards establishing the date accepted by his later biographers, that of December, 1638.

3Letter to Morton, p. 8.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.

fourteen separate counts, sentenced to be whipped, and banished from the island. If all these fourteen charges were true-and Gorton never denied them-he must have had something to say to nearly every one in the court-room. He termed the magistrates "just asses", said that the deputy-governor was "an abettor of riot" and "unfit to make a warrant", charged the judges with being corrupt and "wresting wit- nesses", ealled a freeman "jaek-an-apes", and made sundry inapt remarks about one of the women witnesses.

But the real issue involved concerned the legal existence of any courts of government at all in the settlement. Gorton himself freely admits that this was the issue. In none of his writings does he go into the details of the trial, which, he says, "the aetors may be ashamed of" and which he "has not forgotten", but he clearly states his view of the general question. "I earried myself obedient to the government at Plymouth," he says, "so far as it became me at the least for I understood that they had Commission wherein authority was derived, which authority I reverenced ; but Rhode Island at that time had none, therefore no authority legally derived to deal with me

. But such fellows as you [Morton] ean bring men to the whip- ping-post at their pleasure, either in person or name, without fault committed or they invested with any authority. Some of the men are living on Rhode Island still; tell them in print what I say and belie me not; my aneestors have not been so used, as the records in the Heraldry of England ean testify. And I would have you know that I would rather suffer among some people than be a ruler together with them, aeeording to their principles and manner of management of their authority.''1

The above is the sum and substance of Gorton's whole argument against a government which he considered illegal and inoperative because not vested with royal authority. However acceptable the argument may be as an abstraet principle, its establishment in praetiee would have proved a source of much confusion and disorder in some of our earliest New England colonies. These small settlements had necessarily to show some eapaeity for government and obtain obedi- enee to their laws, before they could even think of applying for a royal patent. For the settlers of Aquedneek government was a necessity, and "the presence of that necessity was alike the authority and the limitation upon the authority, to establish and maintain a govern- ment".2 Gorton's independent spirit and plainly-voieed contempt for

1Letter to Morton, p. 8.

2Sheffield's Gorton, p. 38.

SAMUEL GORTON AND THE FOUNDING OF WARWICK.

those in power probably offended the Aquedneck settlers more than his political principles. But in spite of his vehemence of expression, it should be remembered that he was always sincere in his views. There was no power on earth that could compel him to forego a cherished principle, and it was precisely this fearless and persistent attitude displayed by him and others a few years later, that saved Rhode Island from the continued attacks of neighboring colonies.

Accompanied by a few inhabitants who had become sharers of his views, Gorton departed from Aquedneck and went to Providence, where he arrived probably in the winter of 1640-41.1 At first he gained many proselytes, but by March 8, 1641, we find Roger Williams writing despairingly to Winthrop: "Mr. Gorton, having foully abused high and low at Aquedneck, is now bewitching and madding poor Providence some few and myself do withstand his in- habitation and town privileges." On May 25, after the application of the Gorton company to be received as townsmen had been once denied, William Arnold wrote a letter in which he attempted to prove that the newcomers were "not fit persons to be made members of such a body in so weak a state as our town is in at present". The epistle is filled with abuse of Gorton, yet contains strong arguments as to the danger of admitting such active characters.2

The condition of affairs was now becoming alarmingly serious. We have seen in a previous chapter how weak and precarious the Provi- dence government really was. It will be remembered that at this juncture, in November, 1641, an attempt to enforce a decision of the court upon one of the Gorton party had ended in the spilling of blood, and that as a result several of the inhabitants had petitioned Massa- chusetts to lend a helping hand. Shortly after this Gorton and his followers removed to Pawtuxet,3 where they built houses and labored to "raise up means to maintain their wives and little ones". But they were not destined to remain in peace very long. A dispute over land induced four of the Pawtuxet proprietors to submit themselves and

1Arnold (i, 172), through mistaking the date of Williams's letter to Win- throp, places his arrival at Providence a year too early. The letter is in Winslow, p. 55, also in Deane's Gorton, p. 31, Arnold and elsewhere.

2The letter is in Winslow, p. 59; Deane's Gorton, p. 31.

3Deane (S. Gorton, p. 13) quotes that Gorton purchased land at Pawtuxet in January, 1641-42. The statement in Winslow (Deane's Gorton, p. 35) is that Robert Cole, "a faverrit" of Gorton's, and John Greene gave him land at Papaquinepaug, where he and his companions built houses. (See also Bray- ton's Gorton, p. 73.) Gorton's sundry remarks about Cole would not imply that he was a favorite.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.

their property to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.1 That colony accepted the submission and immediately sent out a warrant to the people of Providence, warning them that all cases against the Paw- tuxet men must now be tried in Massachusetts courts.2 Gorton and his friends, alarmed at this unjust assumption of power, quickly ad- dressed a lengthy and indignant protest to the rulers of the Bay. This remonstrance, which denied the claim of the larger colony to extend her jurisdiction beyond her chartered limits, was couched in no very gentle terms and was interlarded with theological invective. In spite of its religious mysticism, the position taken was stated clearly enough, as the following extracts will show :

"Whereas you say Robert Cole, William Arnold, with others, have put themselves under the government and protection of your jurisdic- tion, we wish your words were verified, that they were not elsewhere to be found, being nothing but the shame of religion, disquiet and dis- turbance of the places where they are; for we know, neither the one nor the other, with all their associates and confederates, have power to

enlarge the bounds, by King Charles limited unto you. In that you invite us into your Courts, to fetch your equal balanced justice upon this ground, that you are become one with our adversa- ries . now if we have our opponent to prefer this action against us, and not so only, but to be our counsel, our jury and our judge (for so it must be, if you are one with them, as you affirm), we know, before- hand, how our cause will be ended, and see the scale of your equal justice turned already, before we have laid our cause therein.

We will not be dealt with as before; we speak in the name of our God, we will not, for, if any shall disturb us as above, secret hypocrites shall become open tyrants, and their laws appear to be nothing but mere lusts, in the eyes of the world.""

Smarting under the rebuke which this letter contained, and incensed at the frequent Scriptural invective, the magistrates and ministers of the Bay took counsel together and "perusing the writings, framed out of them twenty-six particulars, or thereabouts, which they said were blasphemous ; changing of phrases, altering of words and sense ; not, in any one of them taking the true intent of our writings".

1Winslow says (Deane's Gorton, p. 35) that the dispute was brought about by the attempt of Gorton to buy "pawtuxet lands again over the heads of those men that had dwelt there three or four years before, who had bought the said lands of Socannanoco the true owner and sachim of pawtuxet lands". But the facts seem to show a deeper motive in the submission. (See ante p. 35.)

2The warrant, dated Oct. 28, 1642, is in Simp. Defence (R. I. H. S. Coll. ii, 53.)

3Simp. Defence. (R. I. H. S. Coll. ii, 60-86.) The remonstrance is dated Nov. 20, 1642.

SIMPLICITIES DEFENCE

againft SEVEN-HEADED POLICY. R true complaint of a peaceable people, being part of the Englith in New England, made unto the ftate of UN England, againit cruel perfecutors

United in Church - Government in thofe parts.

Wherein is made manifefl the r anifold out-rages cruelties, oppreffions, and taxations, by cruell and clofe im- prifonmenis, fire and f word, deprivation of goods, Lands, and live- lvhood, and fuch bike barbarous 'nhumanities, exercifed upon the people of Picvidence plantations ir The Nanhyganfet Bay by thofe of the Maffachefers, with the refl of the united Colonies, Bretching themfelves bcoynd the hound of all their own Juridictions, perpetrated and afted in fuch an unreafonsole and barbarous mannez, as many thereb, have loft their lives.

As it hath been faithfully declared to the Honourable Committee of Lords and Commons to- Forrain Plantations, whernapon they gave prefent Order for Redreft.

The light and confideration whereof hath moved a great Country of the Indians and Natives in thofe parts, Princes and . people to fubmit unto the Crown of England, and carneftly to fue to the Stare thereof for fafeguard and theles from like cruelties.

Jeprimatur, eAug. 3d. 1646. Diligently perufed, approved, and Licenfed to the Preffe, according to Order by publike Authority.

LONDON, Printed by Job Marock, and are to be fold by George Whitting .. som at the blue Anchor neer the Royal Exchange in Cernbil. x 647.

TITLE PAGE OF GORTON'S "SIMPLICITIES DEFENCE." FROM THE ORIGINAL IN THE LIBRARY OF THE RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.

Gorton and his friends, in the meanwhile, thinking it prudent to retire further from Massachusetts, had removed late in November to the vicinity of Shawomct. Here they decided to make their homes, and on January 12, 1643, purchased of Miantonomi a tract of land extending from Gaspee Point to Warwick Neck, and running inland twenty miles. The consideration paid was 144 fathoms of wampum, and the decd was signed by Miantonomi, Pumhamn, and other natives.1 But the peace they desired was again denied them. The objects sought by Massachusetts, in accepting the jurisdiction of Pawtuxet, had not yet been attained-the "outlet into Narragansett Bay" was still ob- structed, and "the rest in those parts" had not been "drawn in". Since the Gortonists, however, were now beyond their claimed terri- tory, some new pretext for molestation was rendered necessary. A plan was soon devised which would give Massachusetts a semblance of control over the Shawomet lands, and would also be of great benefit to her henchmen at Pawtuxet. Early in 1643 Pumham and Sacanon- oco, called by Winthrop "two sachems near Providence", went to Boston, and through Benedict Arnold, their interpreter, asked to be taken under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, alleging that one of them had been forced by Miantonomi to sign the deed of Shawomet.2 In May the Boston magistrates appointed a committee to "treat with Pumham and Socononoco about their submission to us, and to con- clude with them and to receive them under our jurisdiction, if they see cause, and to warn any to desist which shall disturb them". Ac- cordingly, in June, these two Indians, styling themselves sachems of Shawomet and Pawtuxet, went to Boston with one of the Arnolds, and submitted themselves and their lands to the jurisdiction of Massachu- setts.3 The motive in all these proceedings is apparent. If Massachu-

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.

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1, Part 7

Author: Field, Edward, 1858-1928 Publication date: 1902 Publisher: Boston : Mason Pub. Co. Number of Pages: 700

Author: Field, Edward, 1858-1928
Publication date: 1902
Publisher: Boston : Mason Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 700