to the government of Massachusetts asking for assistance and advice. The answer was that, if the settlers wished for any such interference, they must submit to the jurisdiction of one of the older colonies. It was but natural and reasonable that Massachusetts should decline the invidious, and indeed hopeless, task of exercising an undefined protectorate over an anarchical settlement. Proposed annexation chusetts. In the autumn of 1642 four of the settlers took the step suggested by this answer, and offered to submit themselves and their lands to the jurisdiction. of Patuxet of Massachusetts. The form in which this by Massaproposal has been handed down to us leaves it doubtful whether the act was merely intended to hold good for the four who made the transfer, or whether it was intended by them and received by Massachusetts as an acknowledgement of submission on the part of the whole colony.2 For Massachusetts to accept the offer was in the one case unwise, in the other manifestly unjust. Either the government was establishing a small alien jurisdiction within the limits of another colony, or it was using the pretext under which powerful and aggressive states have in all ages encroached on the territorial rights of their weaker neighbours, and accepting the decision of a party as the will of the whole community. Yet it cannot be denied that the temptations were great. The anarchy of the English settlements in Narragansett Bay might at any time invite an Indian war and make united resistance impossible. These motives prevailed, and the government of Massachusetts accepted the offer. It authorized William Arnold and the other three applicants to preserve the peace within their territory, and promised to support them in their legal rights 1 This application and the circumstances which led to it are told by Winthrop (vol. ii. pp. 58, 59). 2 We only know of the offer by the record of its acceptance. 1642 GORTON AND MASSACHUSETTS. 319 against Gorton. At the same time notice of this decision was sent to Gorton and the other inhabitants of the township, with a summons requiring them to appear at Boston in person or by deputy, to make good their claim to the land which they occupied. Resistance In answer to this demand a letter was sent to the Massachusetts government signed by Gorton and eleven others. It is noteworthy that Gorton's name. by Gorton. does not head the list, nor is there anything to show that he held a position of authority among the settlers at Patuxet.3 Those who are familiar with the literature of the Gorton controversy will feel sure that the letter did all which could be done to discredit the cause which it advocated. In their sobriety of thought and in their manly simplicity and force of language, the works of Bradford and Winthrop stand out as noble exceptions to the literature of Puritan New England. Vagueness, prolixity, and violence were its conspicuous failings, failings from which even such men as Williams and Cotton were not free. But the letter in question, like the writings of Gorton which have survived, sound to a modern reader as though they were a deliberate, though cumbrous, travesty of Puritan controversy. The plain legal aspect of the case might have been stated in two pages. That is left untouched, and ten times that space is employed in rambling and unintelligible vituperation. The nearest approach to an argument is in calling Arnold' a felonious hog-killer,' and in denouncing, without specifying, the vicious lusts' and 'diabolical practices' of him and his associates. Fortunately in this instance Gorton and his associates 1 The acceptance of the application made by Arnold and his associates and the commission to them is entered in the Mass. Records (vol. ii. pp. 26, 27); cf. Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 84. 2 Hypocrisy Unmasked, p. 3. 3 This letter is in Simplicities Defence (p. 24). It fills twenty octavo pages. Settlement of Gorton at Shawomet. confined their violence to words, and prudently withdrew from the territory which Massachusetts claimed under the recent submission. They retreated southward beyond the Patuxet to Shawomet, on the shore of what is now Greenwich Bay. Here they obtained a tract of land by purchase from Miantonomo.1 The Indians appeal to Massachusetts. The transfer was made in January 1643. The bargain brought evil alike to purchaser and seller. The whole question was complicated by the unsettled condition of land tenure and jurisdiction among the Indians. The transfer made by Miantonomo was ratified by two lesser chiefs, Saconoco and Pomham, who had certain rights over the soil. But in the following summer these chiefs disavowed the sale, on the ground that they had been constrained by Miantonomo, and sought redress from the Court of Massachusetts. The Court thereupon summoned Miantonomo and the two complainants before them. After hearing the testimony of each side, the Court decided to defend the claims of the two chiefs, provided they would place themselves under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. Two Commissioners were sent to the Narragansett country to negotiate with the chiefs, and to explain to them the general principles of religion and morality. Their answers were considered satisfactory, they were received by the Governor at Boston, and their submission formally received and executed by a written deed.2 It would be rash at this distance of time, and without an exact knowledge of the whole details of the case, to pronounce judgment upon the conduct of 1 The deed of sale, dated January 12, 1642-3, is preserved in the Rhode Island Records (vol. i. p. 130). 2 The whole of this proceeding is described by Winthrop (vol. ii. pp. 120123); Mass. Records, vol. ii. pp. 38, 40. 1643 GORTON'S DISPUTE WITH MASSACHUSETTS. 321 Massachusetts in this matter. It would not have been safe to treat the act of Gorton and his companions as one in which Massachusetts had no part, and were in no way responsible. All experience showed that hostility with the Indians for the most part began in some petty wrong done by an isolated settler. Moreover, to a civilized nation girt in by warlike and watchful enemies the mere appearance of disunion was full of danger. At a later stage of the dispute we are told the natives were persuaded that the intruders were divided into two rival tribes, the Gortonoges and the Wattaconoges. On the other hand, it may well be that Pomham and Saconoco were malcontents who sought to use the power of the English against a superior whom they feared. The whole affair illustrated the difficulties which beset all dealings between civilized men and savages. It pointed too to the necessity of some common jurisdiction more comprehensive and more efficient than that of the Confederacy." Proceed ings against Gorton. The next incident in the affair favours the supposition that the submission of the two chiefs was part of a preconcerted scheme for the extirpation of Gorton and his followers. Although they had withdrawn from the neighbourhood of Patuxet, they still caused annoyance to Arnold and his associates.3 The latter made common cause with the aggrieved chiefs, and lodged a complaint with the government of Massachusetts. The Court thereupon summoned Gorton and his company to appear at Boston 1 Simplicities Defence, p. 88. Wattaconoges according to Williams meant coat-wearers. Key to Indian language, Mass. Hist. Coll. (1st series, vol. iii. p. 214). 2 The whole of the proceedings against Gorton are related from the Massachusetts side by Winthrop, and from the opposite point of view in Simplicities Defence. The Massachusetts Records (vol. ii. pp. 41, 46, 50–52) confirm but do not enlarge the knowledge which we derive from Winthrop. 3 Winthrop (vol. ii. p. 137) speaks of the continual injuries offered them by Gorton and his company.' and answer the charges brought against them. The summons only met with a contemptuous answer, containing what the Massachusetts chronicler calls, with characteristic arrogance, 'blasphemy against the churches and magistracy.'1 The Court then decided to send three commissioners to Patuxet to hear what the accused could say for themselves. A letter was sent to Gorton announcing their intention, and setting forth the wish of the Massachusetts rulers that their justice and moderation might appear to all men.'2 It was a somewhat singular comment on this declaration that the commissioners were accompanied by forty armed men, and that one of the three was that energetic champion of orthodoxy, Edward Johnson, the author of the 'Wonder-working Providence.' 3 The conduct of the Massachusetts government was formally approved by the Federal Commissioners. They passed a resolution to the effect that if Gorton and his followers should stubbornly refuse to give satisfaction, the Magistrates of Massachusetts might proceed against them, and that the Commissioners of the other colonies should be jointly responsible for anything done, as though they had been present when it was decided. At the same time a clause was inserted to the effect that this was not in any way to prejudice the territorial rights of Plymouth.* Meanwhile every hope which Gorton might have derived from the help of Miantonomo had been overthrown. The Narragansett chief had fallen, in all likelihood, a victim to his union with the heretics. We have seen that ever since the overthrow of the Pequods, Uncas had schemed for the Defeat and death of Mianto nomo.5 1 Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 137. 3 lb. 2 Ib.; Mass. Records, vol. ii. p. 44. 5 The main authority for the defeat and death of Miantonomo is Winthrop (vol. ii. pp. 131-134). Acts of Commissioners, vol. i. pp. 10–12. |