Indian Nullification of the Unconstitutional Laws of Massachusetts Relative to the Marshpee Tribe / Or, the Pretended Riot Explained

by William Apess

I will now briefly consider the "documents, relating to the Marshpee Indians," which have been presented and printed, this session, by the two Houses.

The first is a Memorial, signed by seventy-nine males and ninety-two females, of the Plantation. Of the seventy-nine males, sixty-two are Proprietors, and forty-four write their own names. They are all united in wishing to have a change of the laws, and a removal of the Overseership, but desire that their land may not be sold without the mutual consent of the Indians and the General Court.

This memorial represents, 1. That no particular pains has been taken to instruct them. 2. That they are insignificant because they have had no opportunities. 3. That no enlightened or respectable Indian, wants Overseers. 4. That their rulers and the minister have been put over them, without their consent. 5. That the minister, (Mr. Fish,) has not a male member in his church of the Proprietors, and they believe twenty years would have been long enough for him to have secured their confidence. 6. That the laws which govern them and take away their property, are unconstitutional. 7. That the whites have had three times more benefit of the Meeting-house and the minister, than they have had. 8. That the business meetings for the tribe, have been held off the plantation, at an expense to them. 9. That their Fishery has been neglected and the whites derived the most benefit from it. [The Overseers admit that the Herring Fishery has not been regulated for fifty years, although in 1763, it appears it was deemed a highly important interest, and in 1818, the Commissioners reported that it ought to be regulated for the benefit of the Indians to the exclusion of the whites.] 10. That the laws discourage their people, who leave the plantation on that account. 11. That men out of the tribe are paid for doing what those in it are capable of doing for the plantation. 12. That the whites derive more benefit than themselves, from their hay, wood and timber. 13. That the influence of the whites has been against them, in their petitions for the past years. 14. That they believe they have been wronged out of their property. 15. That they want the Overseers discharged, that they may have a chance to take care of themselves. 16. That very many of their people are sober and industrious, and able and willing to do, if they had the privilege. All these statements will be found abundantly proved.

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 petitioned 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 petition 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 document against the Indians who ask for their liberty, is the memorial of the Rev. Phineas Fish, the missionary. Of the unassuming 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 petition, which he signed, and that he does not now wish his stay any longer among them.