Affairs of the Indians—birth of Mr. Williams’ fourth child—disputes at Providence about boundaries—Committee of Arbitration—account of Samuel Gorton.

Little is known of transactions, during two or three subsequent years, which can shed light on the conduct or character of Mr. Williams. Winthrop^[221] mentions one circumstance, that shows the confidence which the Indians reposed in the founder of Rhode-Island, and the invincible opposition to him that was maintained in Massachusetts. Rumors were circulated, that the Indians were again forming plots against the colonists; that Miantinomo, the Narraganset sachem, had sent a large present of wampum to the Mohawks, inviting them to an alliance against the English, and that the Mohawks had complied with the invitation. The government of Massachusetts took the precaution to strengthen the military defences of the towns, and to send an officer, with three men and an interpreter, to Miantinomo, to ascertain his real dispositions. He denied all hostile intentions against the colonists, and, says Winthrop, “promised to come to Boston (as he was desired) if Mr. Williams might come with him, (but that we had denied.”)

It is pleasing to observe the readiness of this savage chief to visit those who evidently distrusted him, provided that Mr. Williams might accompany him, in whose knowledge of his language, and firm friendship, he felt a confidence proportioned to the suspicions which savages feel towards all whom they have not thoroughly tried. And it is remarkable, that the rulers of Massachusetts would not relax the sentence of banishment, even for the advantage of a personal interview with the powerful sachem.

Mr. Williams was doubtless employed at Providence, in labors for the welfare of the colony, and for the subsistence of his family. He possessed no property, and was obliged to support his wife and children by his personal labor. We have already seen, that, at his first coming, he planted his field, Whatcheer, with his own hands. He engaged, also, in traffic with the natives, and must have spent much time in travelling among them. The knowledge of their language, which he displayed in his Key, published a few years afterwards, could have been acquired only by a familiar and frequent intercourse with them, in their own habitations. He assures us, in his preface, that, “of later times, (out of desire to attain their language,) I have run through varieties of intercourses with them, day and night, summer and winter, by land and sea. Many solemn discourses I have had with all sorts of nations of them, from one end of the country to another.”^[222]

His fourth child, Marcy, was born on the 15th of July, 1640.

The tranquillity of the town of Providence was early disturbed, by disputes respecting the boundaries of lands. The town was divided into two settlements, the original one at Moshassuck, and that on the Pawtuxet river. These two communities were much agitated, at various times, by dissensions concerning their respective limits. The loose phraseology of the memorandum attached to the deed of the sachems, “up the streams of Pawtucket and Pawtuxet, without limits, we might have for our use of cattle,” was construed, by some, as a cession of the land up to the sources of the streams; while Roger Williams, more reasonably, insisted, that the Indians merely meant to allow the cattle to feed occasionally on the banks of the rivers. Of this dispute we shall see more hereafter. It seems to have commenced very early, and to have seriously disturbed the peace of the town. It became evident that a more energetic government was necessary. A committee was appointed by the town, consisting of Robert Coles, Chad Brown, William Harris, and John Warner, who were authorized to decide, by arbitration, the existing disputes. Their report is dated “Providence, the 27th of the 5th month, in the year (so called) 1640.”^[223] It settles the boundaries between the Pawtuxet purchasers and the other inhabitants of Providence. It proposes that five men be chosen, to meet once a month, to dispose of lands, with a right of appeal to the town. It further recommends, that disputes be settled, in future, by arbitration, according to certain rules which it prescribes. It provides for the choice of a town clerk, and for a general town meeting for business, to be called by the clerk, every three months.

This report is highly characteristic of the times, and of the community. One of its prominent articles is in these words: “We agree, as formerly hath been the liberties of the town, so still, to hold forth liberty of conscience.” This fundamental principle was recognised, and announced, on all occasions.

The democratic spirit appears in the provision, that the “five disposers” should present their accounts every quarter, and a new choice be made.

No form of government could be more simple than this. Mr. Callender says, (p. 43) in allusion to this period, that the inhabitants of Providence “did, to the number of near forty persons, combine in a form of civil government, according to a model drawn up by some of themselves, as most suitable to promote peace and order in their present circumstances, which, however, left them in a very feeble condition.”

The government on Rhode-Island was more regularly organized the same year, as we have already stated. An act, which was passed on the 16th of March, 1641, says: “It was ordered, and unanimously agreed upon, that the government which this body politic doth attend unto in this island and the jurisdiction thereof, in favor of our Prince, is a Democracy, or popular government, that is to say, it is in the power of the freemen, orderly assembled, or major part of them, to make or constitute just laws, by which they will be regulated, and to depute from among themselves such ministers as shall see them faithfully executed between man and man.”

The genuine Rhode-Island doctrine is recognised in the following act: “It was further ordered, by the authority of this present Court, that none be accounted a delinquent for doctrine, provided it be not directly repugnant to the government or laws established.” And on the 17th of September following, 1641, they passed this act: “It is ordered, that that law of the last Court, made concerning liberty of conscience in point of doctrine, be perpetuated.”^[224]

It thus appears, that the settlements at Providence, and on Rhode-Island, though, at that time, having no political connection, were founded on the same principles. Mr. Williams continued his friendly offices with the Indians, on behalf of the colony on Rhode-Island. On the 19th of September, 1642, he was requested “to consult and agree with Miantinomo, for the destruction of the wolves that are now upon the island.”

The history of Samuel Gorton is a prominent event among the occurrences of this period. We cannot enter into a minute detail of his conduct, his opinions, and his sufferings; but a brief account of him is required, by his connection with Mr. Williams.

Mr. Gorton was born in London, and came to Boston in 1636. Here, his religious opinions and conduct occasioned, as we are told, much disturbance, and he removed to Plymouth, in 1637. He there engaged in a controversy with Mr. Smith, the pastor, who appealed to the civil power. Gorton was summoned before a court in Plymouth, at which he maintained his opinions with firmness, and, as the court thought, with insolence. He was amerced in a large fine, and banished, after having suffered, according to some writers,^[225] corporal punishment. He removed to Newport, on Rhode-Island, in June, 1638. There he remained for a year or two; but he gave offence to the government, and, as some authors assert,^[226] he was imprisoned, whipped, and banished from the island, probably in the course of the year 1641. These transactions are not vouched by very satisfactory evidence; and we know not, admitting that they occurred, to whom the blame belongs, or in what proportion it must be shared by Mr. Gorton and his judges.

From Newport, he proceeded to Providence, where, says Hutchinson, “Roger Williams, with his usual humanity, although he disliked his principles and behavior, gave him shelter.” Mr. Williams, many years afterwards, publicly averred,^[227] that he did not approve of Mr. Gorton’s principles; but this disapprobation did not induce him to refuse the rights of hospitality to the fugitive. He had himself tasted of the same cup, and, like Dido, had been taught by suffering to succor the miserable.

Mr. Gorton, in January, 1641–2, purchased land at Pawtuxet, in the south part of the territory then included under the name of Providence, and within the limits of the present town of Cranston. He was soon joined by a number of persons, who were disfranchised at Newport, on account, perhaps, of their attachment to him.

A disturbance soon arose between Mr. Gorton’s friends and the former inhabitants. The parties became so much exasperated, that they proceeded to acts of violence and bloodshed. Winthrop states, that “they came armed into the field, each against the other, but Mr. Williams pacified them for the present.” Mr. Williams could not but deplore such a feud, in his infant colony, and, with the pacific disposition which ever characterized him, he endeavored to allay the tumult, and produce a reconciliation; but his efforts were unsuccessful. The passions of the parties were too strongly excited, to admit of any arbitration but force. The government at Providence was then, as we have seen, a simple compact; and the citizens being divided in opinion and feeling, there was no superior power to control the disturbers of the public peace. In this exigency, in November, 1641, some of the weaker party had recourse to the strange, and, as it proved, most disastrous expedient, of applying to the government of Massachusetts for aid or counsel.^[228] The country was beyond the limits of Massachusetts, which could not interfere. “We answered them,” says Winthrop,^[229] “that we could not levy any war, without a General Court. For counsel, we told them, that except they did submit themselves to some jurisdiction, either Plymouth or ours, we had no calling or warrant to interpose in their contentions, but if they were once subject to any, then they had a calling to protect them.”^[230]

The proposition to submit, either to Massachusetts or to Plymouth, did not meet with a very prompt reception by the aggrieved party at Pawtuxet. But, in September, 1642, four of them (William Arnold, Robert Cole, William Carpenter, and Benedict Arnold,) appeared before the General Court, at Boston, and yielded themselves and their lands, to be governed and protected by Massachusetts. They were accepted, and Winthrop acknowledges that Massachusetts was desirous to spread her sway over the whole of the rising colonies around the Narraganset Bay. The right of these individuals to submit to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts must be denied; for the territory had been purchased by Mr. Williams, and sold to his companions and others, with the evident design, and the implied, if not express condition, that a new colony be established, as a refuge from the laws of Massachusetts, as well as from oppression elsewhere. To invite the extension of these laws over any portion of the colony, was to defeat the purpose of its settlement, and was, virtually, a violation of the covenant which the settlers had subscribed.

But if these individuals had possessed the right to yield allegiance to Massachusetts, their surrender could not bind their fellow-citizens, and give to Massachusetts any claim to obedience from Mr. Gorton, or any other inhabitant of Providence. Yet Massachusetts immediately assumed a jurisdiction over all the inhabitants of Providence. In October, the Governor and three of the assistants signed a warrant, requiring them to submit to Massachusetts^[231] and commanding Mr. Gorton and his friends to come to Boston, to answer to the complaints of Mr. Arnold and his associates. To this summons a reply was returned, dated November 20, and signed by Mr. Gorton and eleven other persons, in which they denied the authority of Massachusetts, and refused to obey.^[232] This answer is said to have been long, mystical, and contemptuous; but the principle, which it maintained, was, indisputably, sound.

Mr. Gorton, and his eleven friends, thought it prudent to remove from Providence. They accordingly crossed the Pawtuxet river, the southern boundary of the territory purchased by Mr. Williams. They obtained from Miantinomo the cession of a tract of country, called Shawomet, afterwards named Warwick, for which they paid one hundred and forty-four fathoms of wampum.^[233] Here they fixed their residence; but, if the object of their removal was to escape the grasp of Massachusetts, they fared like many others, who have fled from apparent into real danger. Two Indian sachems, Pomham and Sochonocho, who lived at Shawomet and Pawtuxet, claimed the territory as their own, and went to Boston, in June, 1643, where they complained of Mr. Gorton and his friends, as having taken their lands from them. These sachems then made a surrender of themselves, and of the lands which they claimed, to Massachusetts, and promised fidelity, for themselves and their descendants.

It appears, however, that Miantinomo, as the greatest and most powerful sachem, claimed the right to dispose of the land.^[234] Pomham himself had signed the deed; and he and Sochonocho, as subordinate sachems, seem to have had no authority to dispute the validity of the sale, or to cede the territory to Massachusetts. Roger Williams, the best authority on a question touching the usages of the Indians, says, in a letter written several years afterwards, to the General Court of Massachusetts, concerning this transaction: “What was done was according to the law and tenor of the natives, I take it, in all New-England and America, viz. that the inferior sachems and subjects shall plant and remove at the pleasure of the highest and supreme sachems; and I humbly conceive, that it pleaseth the Most High and Only Wise to make use of such a bond of authority over them, without which they could not long subsist in human societies, in this wild condition wherein they are.”

These facts must be deemed a sufficient proof, that Mr. Gorton and his friends had a fair title to the lands, or, at least, that they must be acquitted of the charge of defrauding the inferior sachems. But Massachusetts was not destitute of the inclination, which all states have usually possessed, to extend her authority. The submission of these sachems gave her a plausible pretext; and her rulers again summoned Gorton and his friends to appear at Boston, informing them that they were within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. They again refused; and an armed force of forty men was sent to Shawomet, who seized Mr. Gorton and ten of his friends, and carried them to Boston, where they were imprisoned. Their cattle were carried away with them, their property otherwise injured or seized, and their families left to the mercy of the Indians.

At Boston, they were tried for their lives, not for any specific civil crime, but on the general charge of being enemies to true religion, and to civil authority. They were saved from death, by a majority, it is said, of two votes only. They were, nevertheless, sentenced to a severe punishment. Mr. Gorton was ordered to be confined at Charlestown, and the others in different towns. Each was compelled to wear an iron chain, fast bolted round the leg, and in this manner to labor. If they spoke to any person, except an officer of church or state, they were to suffer death. They were kept at labor during the winter, and were then banished, from Massachusetts, and from the lands at Shawomet, on pain of death.

Mr. Gorton, and two of his friends, afterwards went to England, where they obtained an order from the Earl of Warwick and the other commissioners of the plantations, dated August 19, 1644, requiring Massachusetts not to molest the settlers at Shawomet. Massachusetts reluctantly complied, and Mr. Gorton and his followers occupied their lands in quiet. Mr. Gorton lived to a great age.^[235]

We have stated these proceedings at considerable length, because they are connected with the history of Mr. Williams. They exhibit strongly the temper of those times. The conduct of Massachusetts none will now defend. It was a manifest usurpation, and a cruel abuse of power. It is a profitable example of the manifold evils of erecting the civil government into a court of inquisition. It was the alleged heresies and blasphemies of Mr. Gorton and his friends, against which the edge of this persecution was directed; and these unhappy men narrowly escaped the fate which, a few years later, befel the Quakers. The rulers and clergy of Massachusetts, undoubtedly, thought that they were impelled by an honest zeal for the purity of religion and the glory of God. Their conduct proves, that a being so fallible as man, is unfit to be intrusted with power over the conscience.

It is difficult to ascertain the true character and real opinions of Mr. Gorton. If the statements of his opponents could be safely received, we should view him as a wild and turbulent fanatic. But we have seen much reason to distrust the representations, which writers of that age have furnished of Mr. Gorton, and others. He was, unquestionably, a bold, zealous, eloquent man, of considerable talents and learning, and easily exasperated, by opposition, to stubborn and contumacious resistance. He possessed the art of securing the firm attachment of his friends; a proof that he possessed some virtues, besides consistency of character. A competent authority, quoted in a preceding page, has testified to the general purity of his morals, and to the high estimation in which he was held by his fellow-citizens, as indicated by the fact, that, “from the first establishment of government, he was almost constantly in office.” As to his religious opinions, it is affirmed, by the same authority, that “he spiritualized every thing, and one would almost have thought that he had taken the tour of Swedenborg.”^[236]

It is certain that Roger Williams disapproved Mr. Gorton’s religious opinions, but did not consider them as dangerous, or as impairing his civil rights.^[237]