Indian Nullification Of The Unconstitutional Laws Of Massachusetts Part 8

This memorial comes directly from the Indians. It was drawn up among them without the aid of a single white man. They applied to me to prepare it for them. They happened to select me, as their counsel, simply because I was born and brought up within a few miles from their plantation, and had known their people from my infancy. I told them to present their grievances in their own way, and they have done so. Not a line of the memorial was written for them.

On the other side, opposite to their memorial for self-government, is the remonstrance of _Nathan Pocknet_ and forty-nine others, the same Nathan Pocknet, who in 1818 pet.i.tioned for the removal of the Overseership. This remonstrance was not prepared by the Indians. It came wholly from the Rev. Mr. Fish, and the Overseers. It speaks of the "unprecedented impudence" of the Indians, and mentions a "_Traverse Jury_." No one who signed it, had any voice in preparing it. It shows ignorance of the memorial of the tribe, by supposing they ask for liberty to sell their lands; and ignorance of the law, by saying that the Overseers have not power to remove nuisances from the plantation.

This remonstrance is signed by fifty persons, sixteen males and thirty-four females; seventeen can write. Of the signers, _ten_ belong to Nathan Pocknet's family. Ten of the males are Proprietors, of whom two are minors, and one a person non compos. Of the non-proprietors, one is a convict, recently released from State prison, who has no right on the Plantation. Two of the Proprietors, who signed this remonstrance, (John Speen and Isaac Wickham,) have since certified that they understood it to be the pet.i.tion for Mr.

Fish, to retain his salary, but that they are entirely opposed to having Overseers and to the present laws.

Thus it is shown that out of the whole Plantation of 229 Proprietors, but _five_ men could be induced, by all the influence of the Minister and the Overseer, to sign in favor of having the present laws continued, and but _eleven_ men out of the whole population of 312. The signers to the memorial for a change of the laws are a majority of all the men, women and children belonging to the Plantation, at home and abroad.

Another doc.u.ment against the Indians who ask for their liberty, is the memorial of the Rev. Phineas Fish, the missionary. Of the una.s.suming piety, the excellent character, and the sound learning of that reverend gentleman, I cannot speak in too warm terms. I respect him as a man, and honor him as a devoted minister of the gospel. But he is not adapted to the cultivation of the field in which his labors have been cast. Until I read this memorial, I should not have believed that a severe expression could have escaped him. I regret the spirit of that memorial, and in its comparison with that of the Indians, I must say it loses in style, in dignity and in Christian temper.

In this memorial, Mr. Fish urges upon the Legislature the continuance of the laws of guardianship as they now are, and especially the continuance of the benefits he derives from the property of the plantation. What are the reasons he gives for this. Do they not look exclusively to his own benefit, without regard to the wishes of the Indians?

He states, as the result of his ministry, twenty members of the tribe added to his church in _twenty-two_ years. This single fact proves that his ministry has failed of producing any effect at all proportioned to the cost it has been to the Indians. Not from want of zeal or ability, perhaps, but from want of adaptation. If not, why have other preachers been so much more successful than the missionary. There never has been a time that this church was not controlled by the whites.

Mr. Fish now has but five colored members of his church, and sixteen whites. Of the five colored persons, but one is a male, and he has recently signed a paper saying he has been deceived by Mr. Fish's pet.i.tion, which he signed, and that he does not now wish his stay any longer among them.

On the other hand, "blind Jo," as he is called, a native Indian, blind from his birth, now 28 years of age, has educated himself by his ear and his memory, has been regularly ordained as a Baptist minister, in full fellowship with that denomination, and has had a little church organized since 1830. The Baptist denomination has existed on the plantation, for forty years, but has received no encouragement. Blind Jo has never been taken by the hand by the missionary or the Overseers. The Indians were even refused the use of _their_ Meeting-house, for the ordination of their blind minister, and he was ordained in a private dwelling. Though not possessing the eloquence of the blind preacher, so touchingly described in the glowing and chaste letters of Wirt's British Spy, yet there is much to admire in the simple piety and sound doctrines of "Blind Jo;" and he will find a way to the hearts of his hearers, which the learned divine cannot explore.

There is another denomination on the plantation, organized as "The Free and United Church," of which William Apes is the pastor. This denomination Mr. Fish charges with an attempt to _usurp_ the parsonage, wood-land and the Meeting-house; he denounces, as a "_flagrant act_," the attempt of the Indians to obtain the use of _their own Meeting-house_, and appeals to the sympathies of the whole civilized community to maintain _by law_ the Congregational worship, which, he says, "is the most ancient form of religious worship there!" "Why should Congregational worship be excluded to make room for others?"

asks the Rev. Mr. Fish. "Where will be the end of vicissitude on the adoption of such a principle, and how is it possible, amid the action of rival _factions_, for pure religion to be promoted." [Pages 7, 8, 9, of Mr. Fish's memorial. Senate, No.

17.] Is this language for a Christian minister to address to the Legislature of Ma.s.sachusetts? To pet.i.tion for an established Church in Marshpee? Can he ever have read the third Article of the Bill of Rights, as amended?

What has been the result of those "rival factions," in Marshpee? Blind Jo and William Apes, have _forty-seven_ Indian members of their churches, (fourteen males,) in good standing, collected together in three years. The missionary has baptized but twenty in twenty-two years. The Indian preachers have also established a total abstinence Temperance Society, without any aid from the missionary, and there are already sixty members of it, who, from all the evidence in the case, there is no reason to doubt, live up to their profession.

I do not say this to detract from the good the missionary has done; I doubt not he has done much good, and earnestly desired to do more; but when he denounces to the Legislature other religious denominations, as _usurpers_ and "_rival factions_,"

it is but reasonable that a comparison should be drawn between the fruit of his labors and that of those he so severely condemns.

I confess, I am struck with surprise, at the following remarks, in the memorial of the Rev. Mr. Fish. Speaking of the complaint of the Indians respecting their Meeting-house, that it is not fit for respectable people to meet in, being worn out; he says, "As it was built by a _white_ Missionary Society, and repaired at the expense of the _white_ Legislature of the State, perhaps the _whites_ may think themselves ent.i.tled to some wear of it, and being no way fit for '_respectable_ people,' the church and congregation hope they may the more readily be left unmolested in their accustomed use of it." [Page 4.] Again he says of the complaints of the Indians, that they were forbidden to have preaching in their School-houses. "The School-houses, built by the munificence of the State, began to be occupied for _Meeting-houses_, soon after their erection, and have been more or less occupied _in this fashion_! ever since; and your memorialist desires to affirm that _in this perversion_ of your _liberal purpose_, he had no share whatever!"

Is this possible? Can it be a _perversion_ of buildings erected for the mental and moral improvement of the Indians, that religious meetings should be held there, by ministers whom the Indians prefer to the Missionary?

The inequality in the appropriations for religious instruction, is remarked upon by the Commissioner, Hon.

Mr. Fiske, who says in his report that if the present appropriations are to be restricted to a Congregationalist minister, some further provision, in accordance with religious freedom, ought to be made for the Baptist part of the colored people. [Page 29. No. 14.]

I regret too, the unkind allusion in the Rev. Mr. Fish's memorial to Deacon Coombs, the oldest of the Marshpee delegation, formerly his deacon, and the last proprietor to leave him. He says the deacon "once walked worthy of his holy calling." Does he mean to insinuate he does not walk worthily now? I wish you, gentlemen, to examine Deacon Coombs, who is present, to inquire into his manner of life, and see if you can find a Christian with a white skin, whose heart is purer, and whose walk is more upright, than this same Deacon Coombs.

In point of character and intelligence, he would compare advantageously with a majority of the Selectmen in the Commonwealth.

With the religious concerns of Marshpee, I have no wish to interfere. I only seek to repel intimations that may operate against their prayer for the liberties secured by the Const.i.tution. Neither do I stand here to defend Mr. Apes, who is charged with being the leader of the "sedition." I only ask you to look at the historical evidence of the existence of discontent with the laws, ever since 1693, and ask if Mr.

Apes has been the author of this discontent. Let me remind you also, of the fable of the Huntsman and the Lion, when the former boasted of the superiority of man, and to prove it pointed to a statue of one of the old heroes, standing upon a prostrate lion. The reply of the n.o.ble beast was, "there are no _carvers_ among the lions; if there were, for one man standing upon a lion, you would have twenty men torn to pieces by lions." Gentlemen, by depressing the Indians, our laws have taken care that they should have no _carvers_. The whites have done all the _carving_ for them, and have always placed them _undermost_. Can we blame them, then, that when they found an educated Indian, with Indian sympathies and feelings, they employed him, to present their complaints, and to enable them to seek redress? Look at this circ.u.mstance, fairly, and I think you will find in it the origin of all the prejudice against William Apes, which may be traced to those of the whites who are opposed to any change in the present government of Marshpee. If aught can be shown against him, I hope it will be produced here in proof, that the Indians may not be deceived. If no other proof is produced, except his zeal in securing freedom for the Indians, are you not to conclude that it cannot be done. But his individual character has nothing to do with the merits of the question, though I here p.r.o.nounce it unimpeached.

I will allude to but one other suggestion in the memorial of the Rev. Mr. Fish, [page 10.] To show the necessity of continuing the present laws, he says, "already do we witness the force of example in the visible increase of crime. But a few weeks since, a peaceable family was fired in upon, during their midnight repose; while I have been writing, another has been committed to prison for a high misdemeanor."

Now what are the facts, upon which this grave allegation against the whole tribe is founded. True, a ball was fired into a house on the plantation, but without any possible connection with the a.s.sertion of their rights by the Indians, and to this day it is not known whether it was a white man or an Indian who did it. The "high misdemeanor," was a quarrel between Jerry Squib, an Indian, and John Jones, a white man. Squib accused Jones of cheating him in a bargain, when intoxicated, and beat him for it. The law took up the Indian for the a.s.sault, and let the white man go for the fraud.

Respecting then, as we all do, the personal character of the missionary, can you answer his prayer, to continue the present government, in order to protect him in the reception of his present income from the lands of the Indians? Are the interests of a whole people to be sacrificed to one man?

What says the Bill of rights? "Government is inst.i.tuted for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the _people_, and not for the _profit_, honor or _private interest_ of any _one_ man, family, or cla.s.s of men."

I have now only to consider the report of the Commissioner, Mr. Fiske, who visited Marshpee in July last. The impartiality, candor and good sense of that report, are highly honorable to that gentleman. Deriving his first impressions from the Overseers and the whites, and instructed as he was with strong prepossessions against the Indians, as rebels to the State, the manner in which he discharged that duty, deserves a high encomium. He has my thanks for it, as a friend of the Indians. As far as the knowledge of the facts enabled the Commissioner to go, in the time allowed him, the conclusions of that report, substantiate all the positions taken in defence of the rights of the Indians. The Commissioner was instructed by the then Governor Lincoln, to inform the Indians that the government had no other object than their best good; "let them be convinced that their grievances will be inquired into, and a _generous_ and _paternal_ regard be had to their condition." They were so convinced, and they come here now, for a redemption of this pledge.

But his Excellency seems to have been strangely impressed with the idea of suppressing some rebellion, or another Shay's insurrection. Mr. Hawley, one of the Overseers, had visited the Governor, at Worcester, and because a few Indians had quietly unloaded a wood-cart, the calling out of the militia seems to have been seriously contemplated by the following order, issued to the Commissioner, by the Governor, dated July 5. "Should there be reason to fear the insufficiency of the _posse comitatus_, I WILL BE PRESENT PERSONALLY, TO DIRECT ANY MILITARY REQUISITIONS."

Think of that, gentlemen of the Committee! Figure to yourselves his Excellency, at the head of the Boston and Worcester Brigades, ten thousand strong, marching to Marshpee, to suppress an insurrection, when scarce twenty old muskets could have been mustered on the whole plantation?

With the utmost respect for his Excellency, I could not refrain on reading this "order of the day," from exclaiming, as Lord Thurlow did, when a breathless messenger informed him that a rebellion had broken out in the Isle of Man--"pshaw--a tempest in a tea pot."

Let us not, however, because the Indians are weak and in-offensive, be less regardful of their rights.

You will gather from the Report of Mr. Fiske, conclusive evidence of the long continued and deep rooted dissatisfaction of the Indians with the laws of guardianship, that they never abandoned the ground that all men were born free and equal, and they ought to have the right to rule and govern themselves; that by a proper exercise of self-government, and the management of their own pecuniary affairs, they had it in their power to elevate themselves much above their present state of degradation, and that by a presentation of new motives for moral and mental improvement, they might be enabled, in a little time, to a.s.sume a much higher rank on the scale of human existence. And that the Legislature would consider their case, was the humble and earnest request of the natives.

Is not the conclusion then, from all the facts in the case, that the system of laws persisted in since 1763, have failed as acts of paternal care? That the true policy now is to try acts of kindness and encouragement, and that the question of rightful control over the property or persons of the Indians beyond the general operation of the laws, being clearly against the whites; but one consideration remains on which the Legislature can hesitate: the danger, that they will squander their property. Of the improbability of such a result, Mr.

Fiske informs you in his report, [page 26.] He found nearly all the families comfortably and decently clad, nearly all occupying framed houses, and a few dwelling in huts or wigwams. More than thirty of them were in possession of a cow or swine, and many of them tilled a few acres of land, around their dwellings. Several pairs of oxen, and some horses are owned on the plantation, and the Commons are covered with an excellent growth of wood, of ready access to market. Confine the cutting of this wood to the natives, as they desire, and they never can waste this valuable inheritance.

Mr. Fiske also says in his report, [page 30,] "that it is hardly possible to find a place more favorable for gaining a subsistence without labor, than Marshpee." The advantages of its location, the resources from the woods and streams, on one side, and the bays and the sea on the other, are accurately described, as being abundant, with the exception of the _lobsters_, which Mr. Fiske says are found there. The Commissioner is incorrect in that particular, unless he adopts the learned theory of Sir Joseph Banks, that _fleas_ are a species of lobster!

Is there, then, any danger in giving the Indians an opportunity to try a liberal experiment for self-government?

They ask you for a grant of the liberties of the const.i.tution; to be incorporated and to have a government useful to them as a people.

They ask for the appointment of magistrates among them, and they ask too for an _Attorney_ to advise with; but my advice to them is, to have as little as possible to do with Attornies. A revision of their laws affecting property by the Governor and Council, would be a much better security for them than an Attorney, and this they all agree to. Is there any thing unreasonable in their requests? Can you censure other States for severity to the Indians within their limits, if you do not exercise an enlightened liberality toward the Indians of Ma.s.sachusetts? Give them then substantially, the advantages which they ask in the basis of an act which I now submit to the Committee with their approval of its provisions. Can you, gentlemen, can the Legislature, resist the simple appeal of their memorial? "Give us a chance for our lives, in acting for ourselves. O! white man! white man! the blood of our fathers, spilt in the revolutionary war, cries from the ground of our native soil, to break the chains of oppression and let our children go free."

The correctness of Mr. Hallett's opinions are demonstrated in the following article.

Other editors speak ill enough of Gen. Jackson's treatment of the Southern Indians. Why do they not also speak ill of all the head men and great chiefs who have evil entreated the people of Marshpee. I think Governor Lincoln manifested as bitter and tyrannical a spirit as Old Hickory ever could, for the life of him. Often and often have our tribe been promised the liberty their fathers fought, and bled, and died for; and even now we have but a small share of it. It is some comfort, however, that the people of Ma.s.sachusetts are becoming gradually more Christianized.

[From the Daily Advocate.] THE MARSHPEE INDIANS.

The Daily Advertiser remarks that the Indian tribes have been sacrificed by the policy of Gen. Jackson. This is very true, and we join with the Advertiser in reprehending the course pursued by the President toward the Cherokees. If Georgia, under her _union_ nullifier, Governor Lumpkin, is permitted to set the process of the Supreme Court at defiance, it will be a foul dishonor upon the country.

But while we condemn the conduct of General Jackson toward the Southern Indians, what shall we say of the treatment of our own poor defenceless Indians, the Marshpee tribe, in our own State? The Legislature of last year, with a becoming sense of justice, restored to the Marshpee Indians a _portion_ of their rights, which had been wrested from them, most wrongfully, for a period of _seventy-four_ years. The State of Ma.s.sachusetts, in the exercise of a most unjust and arbitrary power, had, until that time, deprived the Indians of all civil rights, and placed their property at the mercy of designing men, who had used it for their own benefit, and despoiled the native owners of the soil to which they hold a better t.i.tle than the whites hold to any land in the Commonwealth. These Indians fought and bled side by side, with our fathers, in the struggle for liberty; but the whites were no sooner free themselves, than they enslaved the poor Indians.

One single fact will show the devotion of the Marshpee Indians to the cause of liberty, in return for which they and their descendants were placed under a despotic guardianship, and their property wrested from them to enrich the whites. In the Secretary's Office, of this State, will be found a muster roll, containing a "Return of men enlisted in the first Regiment of Continental troops, in the County of Barnstable, for three years and during the war, in Col. Bradford's Regiment," commencing in 1777. Among these volunteers for that terrible service, are the following names of Marshpee Indians, proprietors of Marshpee, viz.

Francis Webquish, Samuel Moses, Demps Squibs, Mark Negro, Tom Caesar, Joseph Ashur, James Keeter, Joseph Keeter, Jacob Keeter, Daniel Pocknit, Job Rimmon, George Shawn, Castel Barnet, Joshua Pognit, James Rimmon, David Hatch, James Nocake, Abel Hoswitt, Elisha Keeter, John Pearce, John Mapix, Amos Babc.o.c.k, Hosea Pognit, Daniel Pocknit, Church Ashur, Gideon Tumpum.

In all twenty-six men. The whole regiment, drawn from the whole County of Barnstable, mustered but 149 men, nearly _one-fifth_ of whom were volunteers from the little Indian Plantation of Marshpee, which then did not contain over one hundred male heads of families! No white town in the County furnished any thing like this proportion of the 149 volunteers. The Indian soldiers fought through the war; and as far as we have been able to ascertain the fact, from doc.u.ments or tradition, all but one, fell martyrs to liberty, in the struggle for Independence. There is but one Indian now living, who receives the reward of his services as a revolutionary soldier, old Isaac Wickham, and he was not in Bradford's regiment. Parson Holly, in a memorial to the Legislature in 1783, states that most of the women in Marshpee, had lost their husbands in the war. At that time there were _seventy_ widows on the Plantation.

But from that day, until the year 1834, the Marshpee Indians were enslaved by the laws of Ma.s.sachusetts, and deprived of every civil right which belongs to man. White Overseers had power to tear their children from them and bind them out where they pleased. They could also sell the services of any adult Indian on the Plantation they chose to call idle, for three years at a time, and send him where they pleased, renewing the lease every three years, and thus, make him a slave for life.

It was with the greatest effort this monstrous injustice was in some degree remedied last winter, by getting the facts before the Legislature, in spite of a most determined opposition from those who had fattened for years on the spoils of poor Marshpee. In all but one thing, a reasonable law was made for the Indians. That one thing was giving the Governor power to appoint a Commissioner over the Indians for three years. This was protested against by the friends of the Indians, but in vain; and they were a.s.sured that this appointment would be safe in the hands of the Governor. They hoped so, and a.s.sented; but no sooner was the law pa.s.sed, than the enemies of the Indians induced the Governor to appoint as the Commissioner, the person whom of all others they least wished to have, a former Overseer, against whom there were strong prejudices. The Indians remonstrated, and besought, but in vain. The Commissioner was appointed, and to all appeals to make a different appointment, a deaf ear has been turned. It seems as if a deliberate design had been formed somewhere, to defeat all the Legislature has done for the benefit of this oppressed people.

The consequences have been precisely what the Indians and their friends feared. Party divisions have grown up among them, arising out of the want of confidence in their Commissioner. He is found always on the side of their greatest trouble; the minister who unjustly holds almost 500 acres of the best land in the plantation, wrongfully given to him by an unlawful and arbitrary act of the State, which, in violation of the Const.i.tution, appropriates the property of the Indians to pay a man they dislike, for preaching a doctrine they will not listen to, to a _white_ congregation, while the native preachers, whom the Indians prefer, are left without a cent, and deprived of the Meeting-house, built by English liberality for the use of the Indians. The dissatisfaction has gone on increasing. The accounts with the former Overseers remain unadjusted to the satisfaction of the Selectmen. The Indians have no adviser near them in whom they can confide; those who hold the power, appear regardless of their wishes or their welfare; no pains is taken by the authorities to punish the wretches who continue to sell rum to those who will buy it; and though the Indians are still struggling to advance in improvement, every obstacle is thrown in their way that men can devise, whose intent it is to get them back to a state of va.s.salage, that they may get hold of their property. All this, we are satisfied, from personal inspection, is owing to the injudicious appointment made by Gov. Davis, of a commissioner, and yet the Governor unfortunately seems indisposed to listen to any application for a remedy to the existing evils.

The presses around us, who are so eloquent in denouncing the President for his conduct towards the Southern Indians, say not a word in behalf of our own Indians, whose fathers poured out their blood for out independence. Is this right, and ought the Indians to be sacrificed to the advantage a single man derives from holding an office of very trifling profit? Let us look at home, before we complain of the treatment of the Indians at the South.

The following; extract refers to the act pa.s.sed to incorporate the Marshpee District, after so much trouble and expense to the Indians.

I should suppose the people of Ma.s.sachusetts would have been glad to have done us this justice, without making so much difficulty, if they had been aware of the true state of facts.

THE MARSHPEE ACT