|
|
It is probably not going too far to agree with Reverend Dr George
E. Ellis1 that the problems of the
Massachusetts colonies, especially of Massachusetts Bay, have not
even yet been fully and clearly worked out by modern historians.
There remains in the mind of him who has searched the numerous
histories, lectures, and essays relating to the early days of New
England rather a confused idea of conflicting views, lights of
various tints, and opinions of various hues than a clear,
comprehensive idea of the views, motives; and purposes of the hardy
pioneers who sought a refuge on the rugged shores of Massachusetts
bay. There is generally close agreement as to details, even to
minute particulars, for the data, except on a few lines, are more
than usually full; hence he who would solve the problems to his own
satisfaction must study the records for himself and draw his own
conclusion. Unfortunately for the present investigation, the subject
under consideration is one of the few lines forming the exceptions
alluded to, at least so far as appears from the published data.
The theory upon which the policy and acts of the Plymouth colony and
several other settlements were based is sufficiently clear, but that
of Massachusetts Bay is not so well defined and is not given
precisely the same in all the histories in which allusion to it is
made. Moreover, the records are somewhat deficient in the data
bearing on the question. Further reference, however, will be made to
the subject a little later."
A side light may be thrown on the method of acquiring title from
the Indians usually followed in Massachusetts, and, in fact, in most
of New England, by reference to the following passage from Doyle:2
Of the various rights of
the New England township the most important perhaps were
the territorial.. In Virginia the Governor and his
Council, as the representatives of the Crown, made over
a tract of land to an individual as a tenant for life,
paying a quitrent. In Maryland or Carolina the same
process took place, except that the grant was made, not
by the Crown, but y the Proprietors. But in New England
the soil was granted y the government of the colony not
to an individual, but to a corporation. It was from the
corporation that each occupant derived his rights. Nor
was this corporate claim to the land a legal
technicality, like the doctrine that the soil of England
belongs to the Crown, and that all estates in land are
derived thence. The New England township was a
landholder, using its position for the corporate good,
and watching jealously over the origin and extension of
individual rights. At the same time the colonial
government did not wholly abandon its rights over the
territory. For example, we find the General Court of
Plymouth in part revoking a grant of lands at
Mattacheese, or, as it was afterwards called, Yarmouth,
on the ground that the territory in question had not
been fully occupied. It was accordingly enacted that
those settlers who had actually taken up lands should
continue to enjoy them, but that the township should not
be allowed to make any further distribution.
As we have already seen, the territorial system of the
New England town took almost spontaneously a form
closely resembling the manor. Part of the land was
granted in lots, part was left in joint pasture, part
was to be tilled in common. Though this was cultivated
on a uniform system, yet apparently it was cut up into
strips which were allotted, not in annual rotation, but
in permanence, to the different holders. |
It would follow, as a natural consequence of this custom; that
purchases of lands from Indians were usually by and on behalf of the
towns.
Plymouth colony commenced its settlement under favorable
circumstances, so far as the right of entry was concerned.
Notwithstanding what is stated hereafter in regard to purchases, it
appears that the land they fixed upon as the site of their town was
without inhabitants or claimants. The following, from the "Preface
to the Plymouth Laws," as given in Holmes' Annals, shows that this
was the understanding of the first settlers:
| The new Plymouth
associates; by the favor of the Almighty, began the
colony in New England, at a place called y the natives,
Apaum, alias Patuxet; all the lands being void of
inhabitants, we the said John Carver, William Bradford,
Edward Winslow, William Brewster, Isaac Allerton, and
the rest of our associates, entering into a league of
peace with Massasoit, since called Woosamequin, Prince
or Sachem of those parts: he, the said Massasoit, freely
gave them all the lands adjacent to them, and their
heirs forever.3 |
In the "Journal of a Plantation," first printed in 1622, and
abbreviated in Purchase' Pilgrimes,4
occurs the following passage, which accounts for the absence of
natives at this time and place:
He. [Samoset] told us the place where we now lire is called Patuxet,
and that about four years ago all the inhabitants died of an
extraordinary plague, and there is neither man, woman, or child
remaining as indeed we have found none; so as there is none to
hinder our possession, or lay claim to it.
It would seem from the evidence furnished by the old records that as
this colony began to increase, it adopted the just policy of
purchasing from the natives the lands they desired to obtain. "It is
a consoling fact," says Dr Holmes, "that our ancestors purchased of
the natives their land for an equivalent consideration, as appears
by a letter from the pious governor Winslow, dated at Marshfield,
May 1st, 1676, as follows: 'I think I can clearly say, that before
these present troubles broke out, the English did not possess one
foot of land in this colony but what was fairly obtained by honest
purchase of the Indian proprietors. We first made a law that none
should purchase or receive of gift any land of the Indians, without
the knowledge of our court. And lest they should be straitened, we
ordered that Mount Hope, Pocasset, and several other necks of the
best land in the colony, because most suitable and convenient for
them, should never be bought out of their hands.'"5
This letter brings out two important facts: First, that the people
of Plymouth recognized the Indian occupants as the proprietors;
second, that they adopted at an early day the rule that no purchases
of land should be made with out the consent of the court. It is to
be noticed that Peter Oliver,6 in his
severe charge against the Puritans of over looking the Indians'
rights, does not include Plymouth. However, it may not be amiss to
add Bancroft's comment on the last clause of Winslow's letter:
"Repeated sales had narrowed their [the Indians'] domains, and the
English had artfully crowded them into the tongues of land as 'most
suitable and convenient for them., There they could be more easily
watched, for the frontiers of the narrow peninsulas were
inconsiderable." This, after all, is but a sample on a small scale
of what has been done on a much grander plan during the march of
civilization over the territory of the United States.
As indicated above, the theory held by the colonists of
Massachusetts in regard to the Indian title to the land was not the
same as that held by the people of other colonies. This theory as
given by one, though a New Englander, who writes as a strong
opponent of Puritanism, is as follows:7
"They deemed themselves
commissioned, like Joshua of old, to a work of blood;'
and they sought an excuse for their uniform harshness to
the Indians in those dreadful tragedies which were
enacted, far back in primeval ages, on the shores of the
Red Sea and the fertile plains of Palestine, and in
which Almighty Wisdom saw fit to make the descendants of
Israel the instruments of his wrath. So early as 1632,
the Indians "began to quarrel with the English about the
bounds of their land;" for the Puritan Pilgrims,
maintaining that "the whole earth is the Lord's garden,"
and, therefore, the peculiar property of his saints,
admitted the natural right of the aborigines to so much
soil only as they could occupy and improve. In 1633,
this principle was made to assume the shape of law; and,
"for settling the Indians title to lands in the
jurisdiction," the general court ordered, that "what
lands any of the Indians have possessed and improved,
by subduing the same, they have just right unto,
according to that in Genesis, ch. i, 28, and ch. ix, 1."
Thus the argument used was vacuum domicilium cedit
occupanti: and, y an application of the customs of
civilization to the wilderness, it was held, that all
land not occupied y the Indians as agriculturists, "lay
open to any that could or would improve it."
It has been the fashion, of late, to assert for the
Puritans that they regarded European right, resting on
discovery, to be a Popish doctrine, derived from
Alexander VI., and that they recognized the justice of
the Indian claims. But this position cannot be
maintained. The rude garden, which surrounded the savage
wigwam, was alone considered as savage property. The
boundless landscape, with its forests, fields, and
waters, he was despoiled of, on the harsh plea of
Christian right. In this way, Charlestown, Boston,
Dorchester, Salem, Hingham, and other places, were
intruded into y the Puritan Pilgrims, without
condescending to any inquiry concerning the Indian
title. They were seized and settled, because they were
not waving with fields of yellow corn duly fenced in
with square-cut hawthorne. |
Although this is harshly expressed by one evidently prejudiced,
and is not fully warranted, it sets forth the Puritan theory of the
Indian title correctly. The act of 1633, alluded to as given by
Thomas and Homans,8 is as follows:
| It is declared and
ordered by this Court and authority thereof, That what
lands any of the Indians in this jurisdiction have
possessed and improved, y subduing the same, they have
just right unto, according to that in Gen. 1. 28, and
Chap. 9. 1, and Psal. 113,16.
And for the further
encouragement of the hopeful work amongst them, for the
civilizing and helping them forward to Christianity, if
any of the Indians shall be brought to civility, and
shall come among the English to inhabit, in any of their
plantations, and shall there live civilly and orderly,
that such Indians shall have allotments amongst the
English, according to the custom of the English in like
case.
Further it is ordered, That if, upon good experience,
there shall be a competent number of the .Indians
brought on to civility, so as to be capable of a
township upon their request to the General Court, they
shall have grant of lands undisposed of, for a
plantation, as the English have.
And further it is ordered by this Court and the
authority thereof, and be it hereby enacted, That all
the tract of land within this jurisdiction, whether
already granted to any English plantations or persons,
or to be granted y this Court (not being under the
qualifications of right to the Indians) is, and shall be
accounted the just right of such English as already
have, or hereafter shall have grant of lands from this
Court, and the authority thereof, from that of Gen. 1.
28, and the invitation of the Indians.
SEC. 2. And ii is ordered, That no person whatsoever
shall henceforth buy land of any Indian, without license
first had and obtained of the General Court; and if any
offend herein, such land so bought shall be forfeited to
the country. |
Subsequently (1665) the court, in explanation of the last clause
of this act, declared as follows:
| This Court cloth declare
the prohibition there express, referring to the purchase
of Indian land without license from this Court is to be
understood, as well grants for term of years, as
forever, and that under the same penalty as in the said
law is express. |
The first clause of this act certainly accords with the theory of
restricted rights as above set forth. However, the words "and the
invitation of the Indians," in the fourth clause, are significant,
especially in view of the fact that the settlement at Charlestown
was made by "consent" of the chief, Sagamore John.
In a paper bearing the title, " General considerations for the
plantation in New England, with an answer to several objections,"
written by Winthrop, according to the copy in the Massachusetts
State Papers, answers the objection, "But what warrant have we to
take that land which is and hath been of long time possessed of
other sons of Adam?9 Thus:
| That which is common to
all is proper to none. This savage people ruleth over
many lands without title or property; for they enclose
no ground, neither have they chattel to maintain it, but
remove their dwellings as they have occasion, or as they
can prevail against their neighbors. And why may not
Christians have liberty to go and dwell amongst then in
their waste lands and woods (leaving them such places as
they have matured for their corne) as lawfully as
Abraham did among the Sodomites? For God hath given to
the sons of men a two-fould right to the earth; there is
a natural right and a civil right. The first right was
natural when men held the earth in common, every man
sowing and feeding where he pleased; Then, as men and
cattle increased, they appropriated some parcels of
ground by enclosing and peculiar manurance, and this in
time got them a civil right. Such was the right which
Ephron the Hittite had to the field of Machpelah,
wherein Abraham could not bury a dead corpse without
leave, though for the out parts of the country which lay
common, he dwelt upon them and took the fruit of them at
his pleasure. This appears also in Jacob and his sons,
who fed their flocks as boldly in the Canaanites land,
for he is said to be lord of the country; and at Dotham
and all other places men accounted nothing their owne,
but that which they had appropriated by their own
industry, as appears plainly by Abimelech's servants,
who in their own country did often contend with Isaac's
servants about wells which they had digged; but never
about the lands which they occupied. So likewise between
Jacob and Laban; he would not take a kid of Laban's
without special contract; but he makes no bargain with
him for the land where he fed. And it is probable that
if the country had not been as free for Jacob as for
Laban, that covetous wretch would have made his
advantage of him, and have upbraided Jacob with it as he
did with the rest. 2dly, There is more than enough for
them and us. 3dly, God hath consumed the natives with a
miraculous plague, where by the greater part of the
country is left void of inhabitants. 4thly, We shall
come in with the good leave of the natives.10 |
We are informed that the colony in the first year of its
existence made an order that no person should trade with the Indians
or hire one as a servant without license. But it is doubtful whether
this would have been construed as referring to land purchases, as
colonial laws prohibiting "trade" or "traffic" were not generally
understood as relating to lands, though doubtless a trade in land
would have been considered a violation of the law. But the point
made here is that the colonists, in making this law, did not have
land purchases in view, and that no inference can be drawn from it
that purchases of land had taken place.
The following are some of the transactions with the Indians in
reference to lands, mentioned by the old records which have been
published. However, the towns referred to by Mr Oliver as having
disregarded the Indian title are not all thereby cleared from this
charge. How far this charge holds good as to "other places" can only
be inferred from what is hereafter presented. The records of
Dorchester, one of the towns mentioned, contains the following
entry:
Whereas there was a
plantation given y the town of Dorchester unto the
Indians at Ponkipog it was voted at a general town
meeting the seventh of December, 1657, that the Indians
shall not alienate or sell their plantation, or any part
thereof, unto any English upon the loss or forfeiture of
the plantation.
The same day it was voted that the honored Major
Atherton, Lieutenant Clap, Ensign Foster, and William
Summer, are desired and empowered to lay out the Indian
plantation at Ponkipog, not exceeding six thousand acres
of land. |
It is stated by Reverend T. M. Harris, in his account of
Dorchester,11 that the first settlers
were kindly received by the aborigines, who granted them liberty to
settle; "but at the same time they were careful to purchase the
territory of the Indians;" also that "for a valuable consideration
they bought a tract of land from what is now called Roxbury brook on
the west to Neponset river on the south, and on the other sides
bounded by the sea." A deed was also obtained from Kitchmakin,
"sachem of Massachusetts," for an addition as far as the "Great Blue
Hill.' In 1637 the general court made a second grant to the town
"extending to the Plymouth line," called "the New Grant," but the
purchase from the Indians was not completed until 1666, and deed
obtained in 1671. The amount paid for this last purchase was $140
(£28). If this writer, who adds, "These are pleasing evidences of
the precaution used by the early settlers to make regular purchases
of the natives," be correct, then Mr Oliver is mistaken so far as
his charge against this town is concerned.
In regard to Salem, however, Mr Oliver's charge is not so clearly
refuted. William Bentley, in his " Description of Salem,"' makes a
weak apology for the town, as follows:
| An inquiry into the
settlement of Salem will not necessarily lead to examine
the authority of the royal patent, granted to the
Plymouth company, or to the dispute respecting its
extent. The right of possession, in regard to particular
natives of America, may be as unnecessary an inquiry, in
regard to the matter of fact. The Indian deed, or, as it
might be called, quitclaim, granted, at so late a year
as 1656, to John Higginson, from the Indians of
Chelmsford and Natick, and for a small consideration,
could be nothing but an attempt to prevent future
trouble, and must satisfy us that no proper settlement
had been made by the consent of the Indians. For Salem
there is an apology which is sufficient: The natives had
forsaken this spot, before the English had reached it.
On the soil, they found no natives, of whom we have any
record. No natives ever claimed it, and the possession
was uninterrupted. Reverend John Higginson reports from
tradition, that there had been an Indian town in
Northfields, but no particular settlement, about the
time of the infancy of the colony, appears. On several
points of land, convenient for fishing, several graves
have been found, which indicate the visits of the
fishing Indians. But these are too few to agree with any
settlements. Air. Williams, who came to Salem, and
settled within two years after Winthrop arrived, and who
has given us the most early and best history of the
Indians, does not mention them near Salem, and Gookin
does not find them upon this spot. Williams speaks, as
if the Indians, known to him, buried their dead, laying
in their graves; but all the graves, which have been
opened, she-,v that the dead were buried sitting at
Neumkeage. No where have Indian names obtained, but
English names were immediately adopted. These facts are
sufficient to satisfy that no Indian claims were
regarded, in the first settlement of Salem. |
This apology, based on the idea that there were no :Indian
claimants, does not accord exactly with the fact that John Higginson
obtained a deed "to prevent trouble," nevertheless it is possible
that both settlements may be correct.
Barnstable. No account of the first
settlement of this town, called by the Indians Mattacheeset, appears
to be on record. The Reverend Mr Mellen, in his "Topographical
Description," says "there is reason to think that no part of the
town was settled without purchase or consent of the natives; for
though no record remains of any considerable tract on the north side
being purchased of the Indians, yet it appears by several votes and
agreements of the town, extracted from the first town book and
preserved in the second, that all the south side of the town was
amicably purchased of Wianne and several other sachems about the
year 1650."
Nantucket. The whole of the island
was purchased piecemeal, beginning at the western end.
The land about Sandwich and Marshpee was purchased about, 1660 from
Quachatisset and others, but, strange to say, for the use and
benefit of other Indians.
The land about Sandwich and Marshpee was purchased about 1660 from
Quachatisset and others, but, strange to say, for the use and
benefit of other Indians.
In 1697 purchases of land from the Indians were made by the town of
Truro, as appears from an old book of records kept by the town.12
The principal part of the town of Hopkinton was purchased from the
natives by Mr Leverett, then president of Harvard College, for the
purpose, it is said, of perpetuating the legacy of Edward Hopkins to
the college.
In 1644 the following lands were purchased: "A tract of land called
Pochet, with two islands, lying before Potanumaquut, with a beach
and small island upon it; also all the land called Namskeket,
extending northward to the bounds of the territory belonging to
George, the sachem excepting a small island (Pochet). They bought at
the same time all the lands belonging to Aspinet." The inhabitants
of Eastham also, in 1646, purchased "the neck of land lying at the
mouth of the harbor, the island Pochet, and the tract" extending
from the northern limits of Nauset to a little brook named by the
Indians Sapokonisk and by the English Bound brook.
The Indian deed for the lands purchased of them for the town of
Haverhill is as follows:
KNOW ALL LIEN BY THESE
PRESENTS; that wee Passaquo and Saggahew, with the
consent of Passaconnaway have sold unto the inhabitants
of Pentuckett all the land we have in Pentuckett; that
is eight miles in length from the little river in
Pentuckett westward, six miles in length from the
aforesaid river northward, and six miles in length from
the aforesaid river eastward, with the islands and the
river that the islands stand in as far in length as the
land lyes, as formerly expressed, that is fourteens
miles in length; and we the said Passaquo and Saggahew
with the consent of Passaconnaway have sold unto the
said inhabitants all the right that wee or any of us
have in the said ground, and islands and river; and do
warrant it against all or any other Indians whatsoever
unto the said inhabitants of Pentuckett and to their
heirs and assigns forever. Dated the fifteenth day of
November: Anno Dom: 1642:
Witness our hands and seals to this bargain of sale the
day and year above written (in the presents of us). Wee
the said Passaquo and Saggahew have received in hand,
for and in consideration of the same, three pounds and
ten shillings.13 |
Zaccheus Macy, in his account of Nantucket,14
throws a little light on the subject of Indian deeds, where he says:
"I have observed also, that some of our old deeds from the Indian
sachems were examined by Peter Folger, and he would write something
at the bottom of the deed and sign it, in addition to the signature
of the justice; for he understood and could speak the Indian
tongue." In what capacity Folger signed these deeds does not appear.
He was one of the commissioners appointed to lay out lots in
Nantucket, but this had no relation to purchases from the Indians.
However, it appears that the magistrate's signature was necessary.
This would indicate, as stated above, that the authority governing
these purchases remained practically in the towns, and that
reference to the general court was made only in unusual or
extraordinary cases, or in disputed cases which could not otherwise
be settled.
Reverend Peres Forbes, in his description of the town of Raynham
(1793), says that lands (3 by 4½ miles) originally known by the name
Cohanat, "in the colony of New Plymouth," were purchased of
Massasoit by Elizabeth Pool and her associates.
According to Drake,15 the following
purchases were made of King Philip: 11 In 1665, he sold the country
about Acushena know New Bedford,) and Coaxet, (now in Compton.)
Philip's father having. previously sold some of the same, £10 was
now given him to prevent any claim from him, and to pay for his
marking out the same." in 1662 Wrentham was purchased of him by the
English of Dedham. In 1669 an additional purchase was made by
Dedham. In 1667 he sold to Constant Southworth and others all the
meadow lands "from Dartmouth to Matapoisett;" also to Thomas Willet
and others 11 all that tract of land lying between the Ritter
Wanascottaquett and Cawatoquissett, being two miles long and one
broad."
He sold and quitclaimed several other tracts, viz, "eight miles
square," including the town of Rehoboth; an island near Nokatay; "a
considerable tract of land in Middleborough;" land lying "near
Acashewah in Dartmouth;" a tract "twelve miles square" south of
Taunton, and a few days later "four miles square more."
These examples are sufficient to show that to some extent at least
the lands as occupied by the colonists were purchased from the
Indians; yet the lack of evidence, absence of records, and even want
of tradition in regard to some of the towns lead to the inference
that possession of the lands was otherwise gained, as at Boston,
Salem, and other places.
In 1643 an act was passed by the Plymouth colony prohibiting all
traffic in land with the Indians; and in 1657 and 1662 the general
court took measures to protect the natives' fields and grounds from
the stray cattle and swine of the English.
Among the articles of the confederation or alliance of 1643 between
the four colonies. Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and few
Haven was the following:
| It is also by these
confederates agreed, that the charge of all just wars,
whether offensive or defensive, (upon what part or
member of this confederation soever, they shall fall,)
shall both in men and provisions, and all other
disbursements, be borne by all the parts of this
confederation, in different proportions, according to
their different abilities, in manner following, viz.
That the commissioners for each jurisdiction, from time
to time, as there shall be occasion, bring account and
number of all the males in each plantation, or any was
belonging to or under their several jurisdictions, of
what duality or condition soever they be, from sixteen
years old to sixty, being inhabitants there; and that
according to the different numbers, which from time to
time shall be found in each jurisdiction, upon a true
and just account, the service of men, and all charges of
the war be borne by the poll. Each jurisdiction or
plantation being left to their own just course or custom
of rating themselves and people, according to their
different estates, with clue respect to their qualities
and exemptions among themselves; though the confederates
take no notice of any such privilege, and that according
to the different charge of each jurisdiction and
plantation, the whole advantage of the war, (if it
pleased God so to bless their endeavors,) whether it be
in land, goods, or persons, shall be proportionably
divided amongst the said confederates.16 |
As "offensive" as well as "defensive" wars are alluded to, and
the "advantages gained in lands, goods, or persons" were to be
divided proportionately, Mr Oliver declares this " must have had
reference to an absorption of the whole territory of New England."
Though the provisions are curious and seem to embrace somewhat
covertly the right under, certain conditions to wage an offensive
war and appropriate the territory thereby gained, Mr Oliver's
inference is not fully justified. Moreover, it Seems to be forbidden
by the ninth article of the agreement.
The only reference in this agreement to the treatment of the Indians
is the following brief paragraph in article 8: That the
commissioners appointed are to see "how all the jurisdictions may
carry it toward the Indians, that they neither grow insolent nor be
injured without due satisfaction, lest war break in upon the
confederates through miscarriages."17
These references are given as furnishing some indication of the
theory of the colonists of Massachusetts in regard to the rights and
title of the natives, for it must be understood that this agreement
was in truth the expression of Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island being
refused admittance and Connecticut being virtually a silent factor.
Another episode in which the question of primary title was brought
forward was that caused by the abrogation of the charter and the
course of Governor Andros. The history is too well known to need
repetition here. It is necessary only to say the theory accepted by
the Crown was that, in consequence of the abrogation of the charter,
no claim based on a grant from the Massachusetts Company or on a
purchase from the Indians was valid; and that no New England settler
had ever acquired a legal title to his lands. The real object of
this bold move appears to have been to force contributions from the
people by compelling them to pay for new grants and new
confirmations of their purchases. Indian deeds were declared to be
"worth no more than the scratch of a bear's paw."
These items are sufficient to give a general idea of the policy and
methods of dealing with the Indians in regard to their lands,
adopted and practiced by the colonists of Massachusetts in the early
days of their history while under Puritan control. In closing this
brief examination of the period of Massachusetts history alluded to,
the decision given by Doyle, who appears to be a fair and unbiased
authority, may be adopted if the words "New Englanders" are limited
to Massachusetts: "Whatever may have been the failings of the
Puritan settlers, they cannot be charged with wanton and purposeless
cruelty. Greed in despoiling the natives of their land, unreasonable
and unjust suspicion in anticipating attacks, harshness in punishing
them, of none of these can we acquit the New Englanders."
As the province of Maine was abandoned by Gorges in 1651, and by
consent of the people taken under control of Massachusetts in 1652
and made a part of that colony by the new charter of 1691,a brief
reference to some dealings with the Indians in regard to the lands
of that province is made here.
The following items are from the Collections and Proceedings of the
Maine Historical Society.
In a letter by Governor Shuts to the Lords Commissioners for
Trade and Plantations, March 13, 1721. it is stated that:
| Those lands which the
French Government calls the Indians' land, are lands
which the English have long since purchased of the
Indians, and have good deeds to produce for the same,
and have also erected some Forts thereupon. And that the
said lands have been at several gent meetings of the
Indians and English confirmed to them, and once since my
being Governour of these Provinces; as will appear y the
enclosed treaty of the 19 August 1717. |
In another letter to Marques de Vaudreil (1722) he says:
"Arowsick is a small island at the mouth of one of our chief rivers,
purchased by good deeds from the natives near seventy years agorae,
and settled with a good English village about fifty years since."
The following important item relating to one point in the method of
treating with the Indians in this eastern province is also contained
in the same letter: "Now it is notorious that, at all times when
this government accepted the submission of, or treated with these
eastern Indians, their delegates or some of their chiefs were
present and produced their powers or credentials from the tribe."
In a letter from Governor Dummer to the same party it is stated that
"the Penobscot Indians, Norridgewalk Indians, and many other tribes
had in the year 1693 at a treaty of Sir William Phipps governor of
this Province, not only submitted themselves as subjects to the
crown of England, but also renounced the French interest and quitted
claim to the lands bought and possessed by the English."
In volume IV, second series, page 303, of the collections cited
occurs this remark: "Levett's probity was as marked as his sagacity,
and instead of seizing upon the land by virtue of his English
patent, he procured from Cogawesco, the Sagamore of Casco, and his
wife, permission to occupy it, recognizing them as inhabitants of
the country, and as having 'a natural right of inheritance therein.'
This is in marked contrast to most other patentees of lands in New
England."
These items, to which others of similar import might be added,
indicate a just policy in regard to that part of the territory which
came under the authority of Massachusetts. They are sufficient to
show that the people of this district recognized the Indian title of
occupancy and respected it.
It seems that after the close of Puritan control and the grant of
the new charter, the authorities gradually drifted into the theory
and policy held by most of the other colonies and adopted
subsequently by the United States. Brief reference to some items
indicating this fact is all that is necessary here.
In the plan of a proposed union of the several colonies; drawn up in
1754, in which Massachusetts took part, is the following section:
| That the
President-General, with the Grand Council, summoned and
assembled for that purpose, or a quorum of them as
aforesaid, shall hold and direct all Indian treaties, in
which the general interest or welfare of those colonies
may be concerned; and make peace or declare war with
Indian nations; that they make such rules and orders,
with pains and punishments annexed thereto, as they
judge necessary, for regulating all Indian trade; that
they direct and order the ways and means, necessary and
beneficial to support and maintain the safety and
interests of these colonies, against all their common
enemies; that they make all purchases from Indians, for
the Crown, of lands not now within the bounds of
particular colonies, or that shall not be within their
bounds, when the extension of some of them are rendered
more certain.18 |
Here is a clear recognition of the Indian title and the necessity
for extinguishing it by purchase.
In 1758 the following act was passed by the governor, council, and
house of representatives:
| That there be three
proper persons appointed for the future y this Court,
near to every Indian plantation in this province,
guardians to the said Indians in their respective
plantations, who are hereby empowered from and after the
twenty-third day of June, A. D. 1758, to take into their
hands the said Indians' lands, and allot to the several
Indians of the several plantations, such parts of the
said lands and meadows as shall be sufficient for their
particular improvement from time to time, during the
continuance of this act; and the remainder, if any there
be, shall be let out y the guardians of the said
respective plantations, to suitable persons, for a term
not exceeding the continuance of this act; and such part
of the income thereof as is necessary, shall be applied
for the support of such of the proprietors in their
respective plantations as may be sick or unable to
support themselves; and the surplusage thereof, if any
there be, distributed amongst them according to their
respective rights or interest, for providing necessaries
for themselves and families, and for the payment of
their just debts, at the discretion of their said
guardians; and that the respective guardians aforesaid
be hereby empowered and enabled, in their own names, and
in their capacities as guardians, to bring forward and
maintain any action or actions for any trespass or
trespasses that may be committed on the said Indian
land; and that any liberty or pretended liberty obtained
from any Indian or Indians for cutting off any timber
wood, or hay, milking pine trees, carrying off any ore
or grain, or planting or improving said lands, shall not
be any bar to said guardians in their said action or
actions: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be
understood to bar any person or persons from letting
creatures run upon the said Indians' unimproved lands
that lie common and contiguous to other towns or
proprietors. And
be it further enacted, That from and after the
twenty-third day of June afore-said, no Indian or
Indians shall sell or lease out to any other Indian or
Indians any of his or her lands without the consent of
the guardians, or a major part of the guardians of the
Indians of the plantation wherein such lands do lie; and
all sales or leases of land for any term or terms of
years that shall at any time hereafter during the
continuance of this act, be made by any Indian or
Indians to any other Indian or Indians, shall be utterly
void and of none effect, unless the same be made y and
with license of the respective guardians as aforesaid.19
|
In 1780 an act was passed appointing commissioners to examine all
sales of lands previously made by any of the Indians of the
Moheakunnuk tribe residing in Stockbridge which had not been legally
confirmed, and to confirm those for which payment had justly been
made.
Another act was passed confirming the agreement with the Penobscot
Indians, by which said Indians released their claims to all lands on
the west side of Penobscot river, "from the head of the tide up to
the river Pasquatequis being about forty-three miles; and all their
claims and interest on the east side of the river from the head of
the tide aforesaid up to the river Hantawomkeek took being about
eighty-five miles, reserving only to themselves the island on which
the old town stands and those islands on which they now have actual
improvement."
As the records show purchases of but a comparatively small portion
of the territory of the state, and no assertions are found in any of
the numerous histories that the lands, except in the bounds of
Plymouth colony, were generally purchased, the reasonable inference
is that they were not, or at least that a, large portion of them was
otherwise obtained. This conclusion appears to be confirmed by
statements which have been quoted above. That Massachusetts made an
earnest effort to Christianize the Indians is certainly true, but it
must be admitted that the treatment of these natives by the Puritans
of Massachusetts Bay in regard to their lands will not compare in
the sense of justice, equity, and humanity with the policy of
Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Pennsylvania.
1 Aims and Purposes of the Massachusetts Colony.
2 Puritan Colonies, vol. n, pp. 12-13.
3 Thacher, History of Plymouth, p. 38, note. a
4 Book 10, chapter
5 Thacher, History of Plymouth, p. 145.
6 Puritan Commonwealth.
7 Peter Oliver, Puritan Commonwealth, pp. 101-103.
8 Laws of Colonial and state Governments (18:12),
pp. 9-10.
9 Pages 30-31
10 There is considerable difference between the
various copies of this paper. The second paragraph, as given in the
"Old south Leaflets," (12th series, number 3) is as follows: "We
shall come in w11 the good leave of the Natives, who find benefit
already by our neighborhood & learns of us to improve pt to more
use, then before they could doe the whole, & by this meanes wee come
in by valuable purchase: for they have of us that which will yeild
them more benefit then all the land which we have from them." In the
copy given above, this is found in the fourth paragraph, abbreviated
thus: "We shall come in with the good leave of the natives."
11 Collections Massachusetts Historical Society,
vol, ix, first series, pp. 159,160.
12 Collections Massachusetts Historical
Society, vol. III.
13 Op. Cit., vol. Iv (1816), pp. 169-170.
14 Collections Massachusetts Historical society,
vol III, first series, p. 159.
15 Indians of North America, (1833), bk. 3, chap.
2,1).14.
16 Collections Massachusetts Historical society,
vol. v, 2d ser., p. 969.
17 Hubbard, General History, chap. 52.
18 Massachusetts Historical Society Collections,
vol. Vii (1801), p. 205.
19 Laws of Colonial and State Governments Relating
to Indian Affairs (1832), p. 16
This site includes some historical
materials that may imply negative stereotypes reflecting the culture
or language of a particular period or place. These items are
presented as part of the historical record and should not be
interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the
stereotypes implied
First annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
1879-80
Indian
Land Cessions in the United States
 |
