USA > Rhode Island > The lands of Rhode Island : as they were known to Caunounicus and Miantunnomu when Roger Williams came in 1636 : an Indian map of the principal locations known to the Nahigansets, and elaborate historical notes > 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).
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
71
DIVISIONS INTO TOWNS.
Williams notes "a sinful opinion amongst many, that Christians have a right to Heathen lands" (Key to Indian Language, Narr. Club, Ed. 1, 120).
This formation into counties began in June, 1703. The Islands beginning with the Island of Rhode Island and including all the islands were made a county named "Rhode Island County". New- port was the shire town. All the mainland was made into another county named the County of Providence Plantations, Providence being the shire town. In 1729 the Colony was divided into three counties, named respectively Newport. Providence, and Kings. Directly following the Decree of George the Second concerning the lands on the eastern side of Narragansett Bay, Bristol County was formed : and in 1750 Kent County was established ; since that time , there has been no change. The origin of this last name came front the charter. The tenure of land ran "as of the manor of East Greenwich in our County of Kent, in free and common soccage, and and not in capite, nor by Knight service".
The "confused" condition caused by the Confirmation Deeds, and . the destructive work of William Harris and his partners, William Arnold and William Carpenter, which followed, prevented the polit- ical or judicial organization of the newly acquired territory. These conditions, followed as they were by the anarchy of 1686-1696, still further postponed this action. In May, 1697, the General Assembly placed the Mashanticut lands under the jurisdiction of the town of Providence, and fixed the southern bounds of this jurisdiction also in Providence on the south branch of the Pawtuxet river ( R. I. Col. . Rec. 3, 323, 4). Having fixed the southern bonnds of the town of Providence, no further action was taken by the General Assembly. and Providence was gradually allowed to assume jurisdiction over this entire tract north, east. and west. This jurisdiction was recog- nized by the General Assembly by taking lands of the town of Provi- dence in 1730-I and incorporating Glocester, Scituate, and Smithfield as towns ( R. I. Col. Rec. 4, 442).
In June, 1686. the Andros government was established over the King's Province. This was done in violation of the Charter of 1663 and of the Acts of the King's Commission of 1664 in placing the jurisdiction of that country in Rhode Island. A council was
72-73
DIVISIONS INTO TOWNS.
held by the Andros government at Richard Smith's house, near which is now Wickford, and formal seizure of the lands was made. This council consisted of Gov. Dudley of Massachusetts, Edmund Randolph and practically of the Atherton partners. Almost the. first act was the re-naming of three of the chief towns then existing in Rhode Island. Kingston was re-named Rochester; Westerly was named Haversham; and Greenwich was named Dedford. Andros was seized by the Massachusetts government in 1680 and sent to England, and Rhode Island resumed her government, and the former names of these towns were resumed. The General Assembly met in February, 1690. It had not been in session in nearly four years, May, 1686, being the last preceding session.
-
.
THE
BOUNDS OF THE PROVIDENCE PURCHASE
AS FIXED BY
MIANTINOMI, IN PERSON, ABOUT 1642, AT LEAST
FOUR YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL DEED .
WAS GIVEN.
BOUNDS OF THE PROVIDENCE PURCHASE.
There are certain English names upon the Indian Map prefixed to this volume which require some explanation : among them are the names, "the River and Fields of Pawtucket; Sugar Loaf Hill : Buitt's Brow ; Observation Rock ; Absolute Swamp : Ox-foord ; and Hipses Rock." These names appear in a paper reproduced in the Early Records of Providence (v. 2, p. 73). The author of the paper is not known. It states that "about 20 years since" four men were appointed to "set onr bounds," Chad Browne. Hugh Buitt, Gregory Dexter, and Wlli Wickenden. There being no date given to the paper, it is not possible to fix with absolute certainty the time when the names were given. They were given, of course, by the English settlers, but the localities possess great interest, being the natural objects selected by Miantinomi in his own person, as the bounds of the lands covered by the Deed given by Canonicus and himself to Roger Williams. This fact is stated, or perhaps I should say a fact like it was stated, by Williams (Narr. Club 6, p. 390). At what time Miantinomi led Williams and his companions to these bounds we cannot now prove. But it was probably in 1642, and the reason for this opinion lies in the fact that the boundary troubles with William Harris and William Arnold were then just beginning. Miantinomi was murdered in September. 1643. In the document known as "The Combination," or "The Combynatione," which was dated 27th, 5th month ( July), 1640, there was an attempt to fix certain bounds. Chad Browne was one of the men who fixed them ( Early Records, Providence, v. 15, p. 2). It may have been this agreement to which Williams referred when he wrote, "The truth is that Chad Browne, that Holy man now with God. and myself brought the remaining after comers, and the first monopolizing twelve to a one-ness by arbitration" (R. I. Hist. Tract Soc .. Ser. 14. P. 58). Roger Williams makes another reference to these bounds.
(73)
76
THE BOUNDS UNDER THE SACHEM'S DEED.
styling them "bounds set under the hands of those Great Sachems, Canonicus and Miantinomi" ( Narr. Club 6, 329). The precise locality of neither bound is now known. We know, of course. where Pawtucket is, but we do not know the extent of the "river and fields of Pawtucket." It is nevertheless clear that the line began at or near Pawtucket and ended with Hipses Rock .. Leaving Pawtucket, or, to be more precise, some point above the "Fields," we come first to "Sugar Loaf Hill". This hill is now unknown. The name is lost in any town in this locality. I venture to suggest that it was the hill at Lonsdale. in Cumberland, which once was the grave of William Blackstone. It was of a sugar loaf form. as every Englishman then living saw and knew it: thence going westerly we come to Buitts Brow." Hugh Buitt had been assigned land along the Moshassuck, hence Buitts Brow must have been one of the over- hanging rocks, of which there are many along the river. The same may be said of Observation Rock ; but just where it was we do not know. Absolute Swamp may now be some mill reservoir. possibly the one now known as the Wanskuck. Ox-ford was a fording place on the Woonasquatucket river, near Allendale: thence we go to Hipses Rock. This rock is directly west of the hill Notaquanckanet. There was doubtless a cave beneath it when Miantinomi led Chad Brown and Hugh Buitt and Gregory Dexter, and William Wickenden, to it in 1642. This name is so peculiar that I have con- sidered it in a special sketch. When the Indian Deed was written. the bounds were much extended beyond the first verbal agreement. This verbal agreement covered only the "lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers Mooshausuck and Wanasquatucket." By the Deed in 1638, the bounds were extended, and the Sachems "confirm the bounds of these lands from the rivers and fields of Pawtuckett : the great hill Neotaconkonitt on the northwest. and the towne of Mashapauge on the ( south ) west" ( Early Rec. 4. 71). The next extension was that of 1642 called subsequently the "Short Bounds." and last came in 1659 the great extension covered by the "Confirma- tion" Deeds. From the Indian village Mashapauge the lands were quickly absorbed, chiefly by William Arnold and William Harris to the mouth of the Pawtuxet river. where it falls into Narragansett Bay. These six bounds came to be known as "the Short Bounds."
-------
77
THE BOUNDS FIXED BY MIANTINOMI.
But this was not until after the "Confirmation" Deeds of 1659 had established "Longer Bounds."
The paper to which I have referred at the beginning of this chap- ter appears in the Prov. Early Records. v. 2, p. 73. It is there called Salus Populi. I have said the author is not known. It has been attributed to Thomas Clemence and to Gregory Dexter. It may have been the work of both. There is no date upon the docu- inent. It reads, "We declare that our bounds are limited in our Town Evidence ( the original Deed ) and by us stated about 20 years since, and known to be the river and fields of Pawtucket: Sugar I.oafe Hill; Bewit's Brow; Observation Rock: Absolute Swamp: Ox Ford, and Hipses Rock, and the men that were appointed to set it ( these bounds) were Chad Browne, Hugh Buitt, Gregory Dexter, and Will Wiekenden". The precise date of the paper cannot be fixed; but it was written between 1660 and 1669, probably in 1662. This matter of a date has been more thoroughly considered by the writer in another place ( Book Notes, v. 10, 134. 5). The facts here stated are proved by the sworn testimony of William Wickenden in March. 1659 (Coll. R. I. Hist. Soc. (Harris Papers ) 55). Stukely Westcott was the first named in the Deed given by Roger Williams to the thirteen original proprietors in 1638. Westcott also confirmed practically these bounds in open court ( Coll. R. I. Hist. Soc .. Harris Papers, 55). William Harris fought these bounds twenty years after they had been established with all the force of his fiery character ( Harris Papers, 93). But he admitted their . establishment, in this phrase, written in 1677. "by pretence of Provi- dence litle old bounds" (Coll. R. I. Hist. Soc. ( Harris Papers), v. IO. 1. 200 ).
It is not creditable to those who have hitherto written what has been considered as the history of Rhode Island that they have failed to discover. or have ignored, this remarkable paper, Salus Populi. It asserts the bounds of the lands intended to be conveyed by the Sachems' Deed to Roger Williams, given in 1638, and the bounds fixed about 1642. by Miantinomi, in the presence of Chad Browne. Hugh Buitt. Gregory Dexter, William Wickenden, and. I think, Roger Williams. These bounds are numbered 1, 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 on the little outline map printed in the succeeding chapter. It was
78
THE BOUNDS FIXED BY MIANTINOMI.
this small territory which by various acts was divided between the First Thirteen Proprietors and the Men of Pawtuxet, but not divided individually. The men above mentioned were all Proprietors, but not all first proprietors. These two groups of men were at first, per- sonally, precisely the same, but by sundry secret deals became very different. The author of Salus Populi practically asserts that to acquire by the "Confirmation" Deeds all the lands covered by numbers 11, 12. 13. 14, 15, 16, 17 on the little outline map above mentioned. and then to "divide to the men of Pawtuxet ( practically William Arnold. William Harris, and William Carpenter ) twenty miles is hereby declared against. as unjust and unreasonable, not being healthful, but hurtful to the body." And further. "The Acts. Orders, and Records written in ye towne Book" are "so destructive to the common benefit. and peace of this town and being so unrea- sonable, dishonest. and unlawful, that we cannot according to the rules of common prudence, and humanity, but declare against them" ( Prov. Early Rec. 2. 72. 73). These conditions were the results of the work of three or four men, to wit. William Arnold, Benedict Arnold, William Harris. and William Carpenter, beginning with their attempts to get individual possession of the earth by terrible forgeries of the original deed : the alleged "Combynatione" of 1640; the secret Indian Deeds, all recorded at Boston : the fraudulent at- tempt to antedate the purchase of Showomet. all will be considered in the following chapter on the Forgeries of the Deed by Arnold and Harris. Out of these great crimes covering the period 1638-1675 came all these stories of the quarrelsome character of the people of Rhode Island which have so long burdened New England histories : their obstreperous individuality in religion ; their. refusal to accept leadership in religion or in any other line; their aversion to the formation of a government. etc. Even in this year Roger Williams has been described as a "Fighter. a Kicker, and a Crank" by a Rhode Island citizen who assumes to write history.
1
if Neorhan sich or providence
birra of Mansig 2 years Sice Fotos inte - williams
down and the la
Jonas quanticlique
2. Sounds of Those
great hill of Data
Phone Rane
let our dân
presence
of
9
-
2
Mian the
.
of A botandoit
-
A FAC SIMILE OF THE ORIGINAL DEED FROM THE SACHEMS TO ROGER WILLIAMS.
THE FORGERIES BY WILLIAM ARNOLD AND WILLIAM HARRIS ONE OR BOTH
IN CONNECTION WITH THE ORIGINAL DEED GIVEN BY CANONICUS AND MIANTINOMI
TO ROGER WILLIAMS
THE FORGERIES OF THE ORIGINAL DEED BY ARNOLD AND HARRIS.
In the autumn of 1800, the writer in the preparation of a series of papers on "The Great Land Conspiracy of the 17th Century in Rhode Island" discovered certain Forgeries in the Sachems' Deed to Williams, as it is now always printed. Certain of these Forgeries were then pointed out ( Book Notes, v. 7, p. 158). An under current of talk, by two or three individuals, led the writer to come again to the subject in a more thorough and elaborate manner. This was done in a Historical Tract, bearing this title, "The Forgeries con- nected with the Deed given by the Sachems Canonicus and Mian- tinomi to Roger Williams, of the land on which the town of Provi- dence was planted" (Rhode Island Hist. Tract Sec. Ser. No. 4, 1896). This was immediately followed by a paper read before the R. I. Historical Society by Mr. George T. Paine, and printed in a Tract similar to the Tract issued by myself. Mr. Paine attempted to have the members of the Society present at his reading vote in condemnation of my Tract and its researches. This vote was not taken, but Mr. Paine printed his Tract bearing the title, "A Denial of the Charges of Forgery in Connection with the Sachems' Deed to Roger Williams, by George T. Paine, 1896". Mr. Paine became President of the Society and proceeded at once with the publication of the tenth volume of the Collections of the Society. He was President about six months, when death came to him. Since that event this tenth volume has been published. It bears no specific title : but it consists wholly of documents concerning the efforts of William Harris and those interested with him, to wit, William Arnold, William Carpenter, and others, as the "Pawtuxet Partners" in a tremendous conspiracy to secure their individual possession of more than three hundred thousand acres of these Rhode Island lands. In 1897, the Historical Society again loaned itself to the publication of the ancient forgeries, with much matter in detail, in
($1)
82
FIRST RECORD OF THE GENUINE DEED.
support of these forgeries. The title of this essay is "The Pro- prietors of Providence, and their Controversies with the Freeholders, by Henry C. Dorr". Never was there a title more false to the fact than this. The "Controversies with the Free Holders" was neither begun nor prosecuted by the "Proprietors of Providence". These controversies were founded upon forgery, and prosecuted by Harris, Arnold, and Carpenter, and their associates as the "Pawtuxet Part- ners". Mr. Dorr's essay was severely handled by the writer as to its alleged statements of fact, immediately upon its publication. The writer said: "Never with all my experience with Rhode Island books have I known anything so utterly bad as is this ( Mr. Dorr's) book; it might well require a book as large as itself to correct its blunders" (Book Notes, v. 14, p. 206). My views of the purpose of a Historical Society are that it should confine its publication to "Collections," to Documents, or to Records, and never permit men to use its "Collections" as controversical vehicles, as has been the case with Paine and Dorr. These considerations lead me again to affirm these Forgeries, the existence of which can never be dis- proved ; but this time I shall point out the great influence of those Forgeries, in the formation and preservation of the State, from absorption by the surrounding colonies, and necessarily its destruc- tion, by a result directly the reverse of all that Arnold and Harris ever intended. I have introduced a half-tone fac-simile of the original Deed as it now exists in the archives of the city.
This Deed, or "Towne Evidence," as it was called, was first written upon the Town Records in 1662. ( Prov. Early Rec. 5. p. 296.) It had for upwards of twenty-four years been lying around in the possession of individuals, the last of whom was William Arnold, who had the brazen audacity to admit that his wife had used it as paper in which to pack garden seeds, in the course of which use rain had defaced or torn it. It is written upon the record by Thomas Olney, Jr., the Town Clerk. "after it was defaced". At the time Olney wrote these words he was working with and for Harris, and owned a share as a "Pawtuxet partner". Olney was condemned for his trickery by both Harris and Williams. For the first see (Coll. R. I. Hist. Soc., v. 10, p. 53, date 1657). For the last see ( R. I. Hist Tract 14, pp. 25-7).
83
THE ORIGINAL DEED.
I reproduce the text of the original Deed of 1638:
Att Nanhiggansick; the 24th of the first Month Com- only called March the 2nd yeare of our plantation, or planting at Moshosick, or providence,
Memorandum, that wee Caunounicus, & Miantenomu ye 2 cheife Sachims of Nanhiggansick having 2 yeares since Sold unto Roger Williams ye landes & Meaddowes upon the 2 fresh | Rivers | called Moshosick & wanas- quatuckett doe Now by these presentes Establish, & con- firme ye boundes of those landes from ye River & fieldes of pautu|c|kquitt, ye great hill of Neotaconckonett on ye Norwest, & ye Towne of Mashappauge on ye West
in wittnesse where of wee have here unto Sett our handes in ye presence of
ye Mke of Caunounicus
ye mke C) of Soatash
ye· mke of Miantenomu
ye mke of Asotemewitt
Mª 3 Mont : 9 die this was all againe confirmed by Miantenomu he acknowledged this his act and hand up the Streame of pautuckett and Pautuxett without lim- metts we might have for our use of Cattle Wittnesse here of
Roger Williams : Benedict
Arnold
THE GENUINE DEED.
It is a strange fact that the original Deed was never printed, in any book in Rhode Island, until 1886, when Charles W. Hopkins printed it in fac simile in his "Home Lots in Providence". From this fac simile the writer first discovered the Forgeries. In 1894 it was first printed in letter press ( Prov. Early Records 5, 296). This Record by Olney, Jr., was either false or it is evidence of Forgery. By referring to the fac simile, the word "river" in a handwriting different from that of the Deed appears on the line which begins-
-
84
PROOF OF BENEDICT ARNOLD'S FORGED NAME.
"In witness where of". In that blank space the word is written. Oley has not reproduced it. If there, he was bound to copy it; not being then there, it was a Forgery. But it is there now, and needs consideration.
By referring to the Arnold Deed, which will presently follow, in this chapter, the word "river" will be seen to be the last word in the clause printed in italics, which Arnold interpolated. It was written there to convey the impression that the entire Arnold inter- polation was, or had been, in the original Deed, and had been washed out by rain, and Arnold's garden seeds. But the Olney, Jr., record made in 1662, four years after Arnold had exhibited his forgery. disproves that theory. The word "river" was not then upon the original Deed. Arnold did not leave for record, but merely ex- hibited at à town meeting his forgery in 1659. He kept it in his own possession, by which means few could know or consider its construction. It was not entered upon the Providence Records until October, 1705 (Prov. Early Rec. 4, p. 70). It is a good illus- tration of the chronological construction of these Records. The original Deed, recorded forty-three years before this Forgery, was printed in a volume following the volume in which the Forged Deed was printed.
I have shown that the word "river" was a forgery, and it was done with a most malicious purpose. Upon the Arnold Deed appears preceding the memorandum at the bottom these words and figures- "1639 memorandum 3 month 9 day". By reference to the fac simile there is no date, and the words are "Md 3 mon. 9 die". The date is a forgery, and done with a most carefully planned and most malicious purpose. This purpose I will set forth presently.
Two names are attached to this memorandum, Benedict Arnold and Roger Williams. Benedict Arnold denies that he wrote his name "in the paper where ye Evidence of Providence is" ( Coll. R. I. Hist. Soc. (the Harris Papers ), v. 10. p. 56). Roger Williams also denies the geniuneness of his name, "One amongst us, not I. recorded a testimony. or memorandum." etc. Thus both names signed to the memorandum were Forgeries.
But the great Forgery by Arnold in this Deed consisted in the words printed in italics. These words will not be found in the
85
FIRST RECORD OF THE FORGED DEED.
original Deed. But, notwithstanding this fact, Olney begins his · record with the words, "A true copy". Let the reader refer to the Olney record of 1662 and see for himself whether Arnold's language can be found in the record. Either the Olney record of 1662 is false or the recorder, Olney, of 1705 lies. His copy is not a true copy of the Town Evidence.
In the Providence Early Records, v. 4, p. 70, is recorded the Arnold Deed. It is preceded by a record dated 1704 and followed by a record dated 1705. It begins, "The seventh of the Twelfe month 1658 (7th February, 1659) at our Towne Court William Arnold of Pautuxet came into this presant Court and did acknowl- edge that those two coppies (to witt) of William Harrises, and Thomas Olneys which hath these words in them as followeth, are the true words of that writeing called the Towne Evidence of Providence ; and that which wanting in the now writeing called the Towne Evidence which agreeth not with those two coppies was torne by accident in his House at Pautuxet."
There is no means of showing that any "Towne Court" was held on the 7th of the 12th month, 1659, and that, on trat day, this Deed was shown. The Providence Early Records, v. 3, pp. 110-112. show no such exhibition. It must be observed that the statement by Arnold, that his transcript of the Deed was made from copies of the original Deed held by William Harris and Thomas Olney, and that these three men were engaged at that moment in a huge conspiracy to gain individual private ownership of nearly one-half of Rhode Island, as it now exists.
Immediately following the time ( 1658) of this supposed exhibi- tion, but not the recording of the Arnold Forgery, three (3) Deeds were obtained by William Harris from the "most potent princes" then living and in possession of these lands. Harris's purpose was to have these Sachems "confirm the Arnold forgery by making their mark beneath a writing, by Harris, which they could not read nor understand. These deeds were alike in one respect as to tenor. The Sachems confirmed the sale by Canonicus and Mian- tinomi, but the Sachems did not know that Harris had fixed in these Deeds "boundless bounds". "As far as the men of Providence
86
THE FORGED DEED.
Here follows the Forged Deed as it was recorded in 1705: :
Att Nanhiggansick, The 24th of the first Month Com- only called March in the second yeare of our plantation, or planting at Moshausick, or Providence.
Memorandum, That wee Caunanicusse and Meiauan- tunnomu the two chiefe Sachims of Nanheggansuck, have- ing Two yeares since sold unto Roger Williams the lands & meaddowes upon the two fresh Rivers called mowshau- suck & wanasquatuckett, doe now by these presents Es- tablish & Confirme the bounds of those lands from the Rivers & ffields of Pautuckett, The great hill of Neota- conkonitt on the norwest and the towne of Mashapauge on the west. As also in Consideration of the many Kind neses & services he hath continually done for us both with our friends of Massachusett, as also at Quinitikticutt, And Apaum or Plimouth, wee doe freely Give unto him all that land from those Rivers Reaching to Pautuxett River, as also the Grasse & meaddowes upon Pautuxett River, Jn witnes where of wee have hereunto set our hands in the pres- ence of
The marke of Caunanicusse
The marke of
Meiantenomu
The mark of Soatash
The marke of Assotemewett
1639, Memorandum. 3. month. 9. day This was all againe confirmed by Miantenomu he acknowledged this his act and hand up the streame of Pautuckett & Pau- tuxett without limmets wee might have for our use of Cattell.
wittnes here of
Roger williams Benedict Arnold./
THE FORGED DEED.
-
87
KACHANAQUOND'S CONFIRMATION.
and the men of Pautuxet shall judge convenient" was the bound in the third deed (R. I. Hist. Tract, Sec. Ser. 4, p. 75). I repro- duce the deed signed by Caujonaquond :
Providence the 3 month, 29 day j659: This be knowe: to all that it May concerne in all ages to Come
That I Caujaniquanet Sachim of the Nanhiggansick; Rattefie and confirme to the Men of providence and the men of pautuxett theine landes and deede that My Brother Meantenomeah, Made over and Signed: | to them | Namly all the landes betweene pau- tuckett River and pautuxett River up the Streames Without limittes for their use of Cattle, as I also doe for Sumer and Winter feeding of theire Cattle; and plowing and all other Nessesarey Jmprove- ment, as for farmes, and all Manner of plantation whatso Ever ; This Land I Say abovesaid I confirme to the aforsaid Men at this presant, Twenty full Miles, begining to Measure from a hill Called ffoxes hill, upon A Straight line running up into the Contrey betweene pautuckett and pautuxctt River; This Land and the ap- purtenances I here by Confirme to them theire heirs And Assignes for Ever: And that my heirs And Assignes, Shall not Molest them nor theire Assignes for Ever, in any of the Landes Above Said; And that I am alway ready to defend theire Title from the Claime of any Indians whatso Ever; in wittnesse whereof I hereto Sett my hand."
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.