1643 DEFEAT OF MIANTONOMO. 323 destruction of Miantonomo, as a needful condition for his own supremacy. In all likelihood the recent proceedings at Boston encouraged the Mohican chief to strike a decisive blow. He began by an attack, not on Miantonomo himself, but on Sequasson, a chief in the neighbourhood of Connecticut, of kin to the Narragansett leader. Miantonomo resented this and attacked Uncas. The Narragansetts numbered a thousand, their enemies only four hundred. The smaller body, however, prevailed, and Miantonomo fled. Aping the customs of the settlers, he had encumbered himself with a corslet, and was easily overtaken.1 His captors were two of his own followers, who thought to make their peace with the conqueror. Their fate was no better than that of the traitors who brought David the head of Ishbosheth. The chivalry of Uncas however expended itself in this cheap display of generosity. Gorton now, with characteristic arrogance and indiscretion, wrote a letter to Uncas, threatening him with the dis pleasure of the English if he detained their ally.2 The interference was in all likelihood fatal to Miantonomo. Uncas naturally enough turned to the English settlers at Connecticut, and took his captive to Hartford. Thence he was sent to Boston, where the Federal Commissioners were assembled. They considered the case, but could come to no satisfactory decision. To set Miantonomo free was dangerous, yet there seemed no sufficient ground for putting him to death. In this strait the Commissioners called in five of the most judicious' Elders.3 The rulers of the church swept away any remnant of merciful feeling which lingered among their lay brethren. The English would not indeed themselves shed the blood of the prisoner. He was returned to Uncas, who was authorized, if not commanded, to put 1 This is stated by Winslow. Hypocrisy Unmasked, p. 72. 3 Ib. p. 132. him to death.1 The colonists were to send two representatives to witness the execution, and Uncas was to be allowed an English troop to guard him against any possible reprisals. If Uncas should refuse to undertake the execution, the prisoner was to be sent back to Boston and the case reconsidered. The Mohican accepted the task, and Miantonomo was put to death with what an Indian would have considered the doubtful advantage of immunity from torture. Human feeling is outraged by the spectacle of the captive chief thus surrendered helpless to the deliberate vengeance of his enemy. But the conduct of Massachusetts must be condemned on grounds in which mere sentiment has no place. To have suffered the law of Indian warfare to take its course would hardly have been deemed blameworthy, unless we judge by a standard seldom applied to the conduct of nations. The banished heretic, Roger Williams, holding that God had appointed every man to be his brother's keeper, would have shrunk with horror even from such tacit complicity, but in that age he would have found few of any creed to imitate him. Each of the rival chiefs staked his life, and Uncas was but exacting the forfeit due from the loser. But if the English were to meddle in the matter at all, it was their clear duty to enforce as far as might be the principles recognized by civilized men. When they accepted the appeal made by Uncas they shifted the responsibility from the Mohican chief to themselves. Nor can it be urged that the English were employing Uncas to carry out their own decree. If Miantonomo's crimes against the English deserved punishment, that should have 1 Winthrop's words are,' Upon the return of the (Connecticut) Commissioners to Hartford they should send for Onkas and tell him our determination that Miantonomo should be delivered to him again, and he should put him to death as soon as he came within his own jurisdiction' (vol. ii. p. 132). His statement is borne out by the formal record of the proceedings of the Commissioners. 1643 DEATH OF MIANTONOMO. 325 been openly avowed, and the English should have stood accountable for his execution. He should have died as a criminal by the hand of an English executioner, not as the victim to the Indian law of warfare. But, in truth, the very pleas set forth by Winthrop show how impossible it was to justify Miantonomo's execution as an act of criminal justice. He had been proved, Winthrop says, to have stirred up a conspiracy among the Indians, and he had twice evaded justice, in killing a Pequod who could have given evidence as to his designs against Uncas, and in some petty wrong to one of Pomham's followers. But the real gist of the accusation lies in the count that he was of a turbulent and proud spirit, and would never be at rest.' The plea is exactly of a piece with that which was urged for the banishment of the Antinomians. The rulers of Massachusetts regarded their criminal jurisdiction, not as a means for enforcing certain fixed and defined obligations, but as a weapon with which to strike at any one whose presence might in their judgment cause danger or inconvenience to the community. upon Their The same temper showed itself even more strongly in the dealings of Massachusetts with Gorton and his Attack followers. The force sent against them found Shawomet. the heretics prepared for resistance. women and children had been sent away to the woods, and the men had fortified themselves in a log-house. Before the two parties could come to blows certain of the inhabitants of Providence stepped in and endeavoured to mediate.2 A parley was held, and the Gortonists offered to submit the question to arbitration. Thereupon a truce was made till the pleasure of the Court 1 Our authorities for this affair are, as before, Winthrop (vol. ii. pp. 137140) and Gorton (Simplicities Defence, pp. 57-60). 2 The letter written by these good men to the Massachusetts government is preserved in Simplicities Defence. (p. 53). The sobriety and charity which run through it form a pleasing contrast to the attitude of Massachusetts. could be learnt. When the news of Miantonomo's death was received a committee was appointed to consider the matter, and was still sitting. As usual some of the Elders were called into counsel, and as usual their voice was for sacrifice and not mercy. The blasphemous and reviling writings' of the Gortonists' were not matters fit to be compounded by arbitrament, but to be purged away only by repentance and public satisfaction, or else by public punishment.'2 Nor was it consistent with the honour of Massachusetts to negotiate 'with a few fugitives living without law or government.' 3 Such were the doctrines of forbearance, humanity, and meekness which the spiritual guides of Massachusetts impressed on their followers. The soldiers were in no way backward in carrying out their orders. They gave notice that the time had expired, and warned the men of Providence to cease all dealings with the heretics. They then beset the log-house for some days. The occupants refused to surrender, and the besiegers thereupon proceeded to deal with them as Mason had dealt with the Pequods, and to set fire to their fort. The besieged were off their guard, since it was Sunday, and they thought therefore that no attack would be made. But the Sabbatarianism of Massachusetts could be relaxed in favour of such a specially good work as burning heretics alive. Happily for the credit of the assailants the attempt failed. After a few days the unhappy Gortonists saw that it was impossible to hold out. A few of them escaped; the rest, to the number of nine, surrendered, and were 1 Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 139. There is nothing to show for what object the committee was appointed. 2 Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 140. 3 Ib. p. 139. Winthrop's own words are, 'not honourable for us to join with them in such a course.' 4 Winthrop mentions without comment and apparently with approval that the besiegers made two or three attempts to fire the house (vol. ii. p. 140). 1643 CAPTURE OF THE GORTONISTS. 327 marched into Boston, treated, according to their own. account, with great brutality, a statement probable enough in itself. Part of their cattle were driven off, part handed over to Arnold and his associates at Patuxet. The reception of the returning force was a ludicrous illustration of the rancour with which the rulers of Massachusetts regarded these unhappy fanatics. If the soldiers had defeated an invading army and saved the colony from universal massacre they could hardly have been received with more enthusiasm. It is humiliating to read how Winthrop went along the ranks, blessing God for the success of the expedition, thanking each man for his services, and enrolling his name on a list, that the Court might remember their good deeds at some future day, or how the soldiers fired volleys in honour of the Governor, and were feasted at a public entertainment.1 Trial of his fol The treatment of the prisoners assorted fitly with this reception of the captors. It is not altogether easy to follow the exact details of the proceedings against them. Gorton's own account of his lowers.? trial is somewhat confused, though, to do him justice, it is more coherent and temperate than most of his writings. On the other hand, Winthrop, who is our only authority on the Massachusetts side, does not set forth the successive phases of the inquiry with his wonted clearness. In truth, the proceedings themselves. were of a confused nature, wholly without judicial discrimination or method. The aim of the Massachusetts Court was twofold: to convince the Gortonists of their heresies and extort from them a recantation, and to condemn them as civil offenders. On the first point the prisoners might fairly plead, as the Antinomians. might have pleaded, that they had broken no fixed law. Winthrop himself describes this scene (vol. ii. p. 142). 2 Winthrop (vol. ii. pp. 142-7); Simplicities Defence, pp. 62-67. |