 |
Were the Seventeenth-Century Remingtons
Followers of Samuel Gorton?
It seems probable that John Remington (1623/4 - 1709) was a
"Gortonite", a follower of the religous leader Samuel Gorton.
This speculation is supported by two simple facts. First of all,
John Remington, sometime before his death in 1709, moved to Warwick,
Rhode Island, a religious colony which had been founded by Samuel
Gorton in 1642, and led by him until his death in 1677. His followers would continue to live in Warwick, and to refer to themselves as "Gortonites", for many decades afterwards.
A move to this colony would not have been made
lightly, as both its founder and his followers were subject to much
hostility from religious and civil officials, several neighboring towns,
and from Indians (specifically the Mohegans). Gorton and a
number of his followers at one point were tried and convicted of
heresy and sedition by the General Court of Massachusetts and
sentenced to death (subsequently altered to banishment). For Remington to move to Warwick with
his family in the face of such dangers would have a required, at
the least, a good deal of conviction and determination.
The second fact which suggests that John Remington was a follower of
Gorton, and that their families were on intimate terms, is that one of John Remington's grandsons, Thomas William,
married a
granddaughter of Samuel Gorton, Maplet Gorton, in 1710. (Maplet's mother
was Sarah Carder, 1687-1723, who was probably a daughter or grand-daughter
of Richard Carder, one of the small circle of intimate friends of Samuel Gorton who,
like Gorton, faced persecution from Massachusetts officials for his beliefs).
A second grandson of John Gorton, Daniel, married (1722) a Gorton girl as well: Ann Gorton,
in 1722, though I have not as yet traced her relation to Samuel
Gorton.
What is unknown at this point is whether John Remington & his family moved to Warwick
before Gorton died in 1677, or whether, after Gorton's death, the town
of Warwick began to be populated by families who were not followers
of Gorton's religious teachings. It seems unlikely that Warwick
would have been a comfortable place for non-believers, as believers referred
to themselves as "Gortonites" for many decades after his death.
The fact
that the two families intermarried and that the Remingtons remained in
Warwick for about a century, in spite of the fact that the Gortonites
continued to be persecuted and that the town was several times threatened
by Indians (to the point of being burned by the Narragansetts during
King Phillip's War),
suggests that the Remingtons' ties to the colony ran strong and deep.
Further research in the early history of Warwick, and records of the Remington
and Gorton families may clear up some of these questions.
To examine the early intermarriages of the Remingtons and Gortons, visit
the
Descendents of Samuel Gorton page.
Biographical Notes on Samuel Gorton
c.1592-1677, Anglo-American religious leader, founder of Warwick, R.I.,
born near Manchester, England. Seeking religious freedom, he
immigrated to America (1637) but, because of his unorthodox
religious teachings, was banished successively from Boston and
Plymouth. At Portsmouth, R.I., he joined Anne Hutchinson in ousting
William Coddington (1639) but on Coddington's return to power was
himself turned out. In 1642, Gorton bought land from the
Narragansetts south of Providence and founded Shawomet. Massachusetts
authorities, with designs on that territory, jailed him (1643) for
holding erroneous religious opinions. The Earl of Warwick finally
obtained for Gorton freedom from molestation on his land, which he
renamed (1648) Warwick and on which he preached to colonists and
Native Americans. His followers called themselves "Gortonites" for
many decades after his death. His tenets included denial of the
Trinity, denial of actual heaven and hell, and a belief that every
man should be his own intercessor.
The following lengthy description of Samuel Gorton’s life and
achievement is excerpted from John Fiske’s THE BEGINNINGS OF
NEW ENGLAND: OR THE PURITAN THEOCRACY IN ITS RELATIONS TO CIVIL
AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, Houghton, Mifflin & Company, 1889,
pages 177-187.
Among the companions of Mrs. (Anne) Hutchinson, for a short time after her arrival at Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and crotchety man named Samuel Gorton. In the denunciatory language of that day he was called a “proud and pestilent seducer,” or, as the modern newspaper would say, a “crank”. It is well to make due allowances for the prejudice so conspicuous in the accounts given by his enemies, who felt obliged to justify their harsh treatment of him.
Samuel Gorton's most famous book.
|
But we have also his own writings from which to form an opinion as to his character and views. Lucidity, indeed, was not one of his strong points as a writer, and the drift of his argument is not always easy to decipher; but he seems to have had some points of contact with the Familists, a sect established in the sixteenth century in Holland. The Familists held that the essence of religion consists not in adherence to any creed or ritual, but in cherishing the spirit of divine love. The general adoption of this point of view was to inaugurate a third dispensation, superior to those of Moses and Christ, the dispensation of the Holy Ghost. The value of the Bible lay not so much in the literal truth of its texts as in their spiriual import; and by the union of believers with Christ they came to share in the ineffable perfection of the Godhead. There is much that is modern and enlightened in such views, which Gorton seems to some extent to have shared. He certainly set little store by ritual observances and maintained the equal right of laymen with clergymen to preach the gospel. Himself a London clothier, and thanking God that he had not been brought up “in the schools of human learning, “ he set up as a preacher without ordination, and styled himself “professor of the mysteries of Christ.” Some passages in his writings would lead one to suppose that he cherished that doctrine of private inspiration which the Puritans especially abhorred. Yet he attacked the doctrine of the “inner light,” as it was held by the Quakers. An atmosphere of Unitarianism pervades many of his arguments, and now and then we get a touch of pantheism. Perhaps he had not an entirely distinct comprehension of his own views, for distinctness in expression was surely what they lacked. But they were such as in the seventeenth century could not fail to arouse fierce antagonism, and if it was true that wherever there was a government, Gorton was against it; perhaps that only shows that wherever there was a government it was sure to be against Gorton.
In the case of such men as Gorton, however, ~ and the
type is by no means an uncommon one, ~ their temperament usually has
much more to do with getting them into trouble than their opinions.
Gorton’s temperament was such as to keep him always in an atmosphere
of strife. Other heresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts,
but Gorton was in hot water everywhere. His troubles began in 1638,
in Plymouth, where one of his wife’s servants, a Mrs Aldredge, was
tried for the dreadful crime of smiling in the meeting-house during
service. Gorton had studied law enough to know its principles and
methods. He denied the competency of the Plymouth magistrates to
try persons for breaking laws of their own devising, and quite
properly urged that the act of the defendant, though it might offend
their theocratic notions, was not punishable by the common law of
England. For this audacious protest Gorton was ordered to leave the
colony within a fortnight.
Thereupon he fled to Aquedneck, where his first
achievement was a schism among Mrs. Hutchinson’s followers, which
ended in some staying to found the town of Portsmouth, while others
went away to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him
intolerable and banished him, and after his departure was able to
make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a few
followers to Pawtuxet, within the jurisdiction of Providence, and now
it is the broad-minded and gentle Roger Williams who complains of his
"bewitching and madding poor Providence." The question is here
suggested, What could it have been in Gorton’s teaching that enabled
him thus to "bewitch" these little communities? We may be sure that
it could not have been the element of modern liberalism suggested in
the Familistic doctrines above cited. That was the feature then least
likely to appeal to the minds of common people, and most likely to
appeal to Williams. More probably such success as Gorton had in
winning followers was due to some of the mystical rubbish which
abounds in his pages and finds in a modern mind no doorway through which to enter.
Another point, however, quite unconnected with abstruse questions of theology, was involved. In most of the serious disputes in which Gorton was concerned, he maintained that colonial society in America must rest upon the unshakable foundations of the English common law and not upon flimsy theories of what society ought to be like. He also insisted that the surest guarantee of American liberties was to be furnished by charters explicitly sanctioned by the home government. In these conservative views Gorton showed rare political sagacity. Upon these views both Connecticut and the Narragansett settlements ~ through Roger Williams did not at first feel the need of it ~ came ultimately to act. Of their great importance, in the development of American liberty along constitutional lines, there can be no doubt.
Though Williams more or less disapproved of Gorton, he was true to his own principles of toleration, and would not take part in any attempt to silence him. But in 1641 we find thirteen leading citizens of Providence headed by William Arnold, sending a memorial to Boston, asking for assistance and counsel in regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusetts to treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with the affair unless she could have permanent jurisdiction over Pawtuxet; otherwise she was a mere intruder. How strong a side-light does this little incident throw upon the history of the Roman republic, and of all relatively strong communities when confronted with teak he problem of preserving order in neighbouring states that are too weak to preserve it for themselves? Arnold’s argument, in his appeal to Massachusetts, was precisely the same as that by which the latter colony excused herself for banishing the Antinomians. He simply says that Gorton and his company “are not fit persons to be received, and made members of a body in so weak a state as our town is in at present;” and he adds, “There is no state but in the first place will seek to preserve its own safety and peace.” Whatever might be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, his conduct was held to be politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction over Pawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts. Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton and his men to Boston, to prove their title to the lands they occupied. They of course regarded the summons as a flagrant usurpation of authority, and instead of obeying it they withdrew to Shawomet, on the western shore of Narragansett Bay, where they bought a tract of land from the principal sachem of the Narragansetts, Miantonomo. The immediate rule over this land belonged to two inferior chiefs, who ratified the sale at the time, but six months afterward disavowed the ratification, on the ground that it had been given under duress from their overlord Miantonomo. Here was a state of things which might easily bring on an Indian war. The two chiefs appealed to Massachusetts for protection, and were accordingly summoned, along with Miantonomo, to a hearing at Boston. Here we see how a kind of English protectorate over the native tribes had begun to grow up so soon after the destruction of the Pequots. Such a result was inevitable. After hearing the arguments, the legislature decided to defend the two inferior chiefs, provided they would put themselves under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. This was done, while further complaints against Gorton came from the citizens of Providence. Gorton and his men were now peremptorily summoned to Boston to show cause why they should not surrender their land at Shawomet and to answer the charges against them. On receiving from Gorton a defiant reply, couched in terms which some thought blasphemous, the government of Massachusetts prepared to use force.
Meanwhile the unfortunate Miantonomo had rushed upon his doom. The annihilation of the Pequots had left the Mohegans and Narragansetts contending for the foremost place among the native tribes. Between the rival sachems, Uncas and Miantonomo, the hatred was deep and deadly. As soon as the Mohegan perceived that trouble was brewing between Miantonomo and the government at Boston, he improved the occasion by gathering a few Narragansett scalps. Miantonomo now took the war-path and was totally defeated by Uncas in a battle on the Great Plain in the present trownship of of Norwich. Encumbered with a coat of mail which his friend Gorton had given him, Miantonomo was overtaken and captured. By ordinary Indian usage he would have been put to death with fiendish torments, as soon as due preparations could be made and a fit company assembled to gloat over his agony; but Gorton sent a messenger to Uncas, threatening dire vengeance if harm were done to his ally. This message puzzled the Mohegan chief. The appearance of a schism in the English counsels was more than he could quite fathom. When the affair had somewhat more fully developed itself, some of the Indians spoke of the white men as divided into two rival tribes, the Gortonoges and the Wattaconoges. Roger Williams tells us that the latter term, applied to the men of Boston, meant coat-wearers. Whether it is to be inferred that the Gortonoges went about in what modern parlance would be called their “shirt-sleeves,” the reader must decide.
In his perplexity Uncas took his prisoner to Hartford, and afterward, upon the advice of the governor and council, sent him to Boston, that his fate might be determined by the Federal Commissioners, who were there holding their first regular meeting. It was now the turn of the commissioners to be perplexed. According to English law there was no good reason for putting Miantonomo to death. The question was whether they should interfere with the Indian custom by which his life was already forfeit to his captor. The magistrates already suspected the Narragansetts of cherishing hostile designs. To set their sachem at liberty, especially while the Gorton affair remained unsettled, might be dangerous; and it would be likely to alienate Uncas from the English. In their embarrassment the commissioners sought spiritual guidance. A synod of forty or fifty clergymen, from all parts of New England, was in session at Boston, and the question was referred to a committee of five of their number. The decision was prompt that Miantonomo must die. He was sent back to Hartford to be slain by Uncas, but two messengers accompanied him, to see that no tortures were inflicted; a privilege which the victim would perhaps have regarded with contempt. A select band of Mohegan warriors journeyed through the forest with the prisoner and the two Englishment, until they came to the plain where the battle had been fought. Then at a signal from Uncas, the warrior walking behind Miantonomo silently lifted his tomahawk and sank it into the brain of the victim, who fell dead without a groan. Uncas cut a warm slice from the shoulder and greedily devoured it, declaring that the flesh of his enemy was the sweetest of meat and gave strength to his heart. Miantonomo was buried there on the scene of his defeat, which has ever since been known as the Sachem’s Plain. This was in September, 1643, and for years afterward, in that pleasant harvest time, parties of Narragansetts used to visit the spot and with frantic gestures and hideous yells lament their fallen leader. A heap of stones was raised over the grave, and no Narragansett came near it without adding to the pile. “After many a summer had passed and the red men had disappeared from the land, a Yankee farmer, with whom thrift prevailed over sentiment, cleared away the mound, and used the stones for the foundation of his new barn.
One cannot regard this affair as altogether creditable to the Federal Commissioners and their clerical advisers. One of the clearest-headed and most impartial students of our history observes that “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 Mohegan chief to themselves.” The decision was doubtless based purely upon grounds of policy. Miantonomo was put out of the way because he was believed to be dangerous. In the thirst for revenge that was aroused among the Narrangansetts there was an alternative source of danger, to which I shall hereafter refer. It is difficult now to decide, as a mere question of safe policy, what the English ought to have done. The chance of being dragged into an Indian war, through the feud between Narragansetts and Mohegans was always imminent. The policy which condemned Miantonomo was one of timidity, and fear is merciless.
The Federal Commissioners heartily approved the conduct of Massachusetts toward Gorton, and adopted it in the name of the United Colonies. After a formal warning, which passed unheeded, a company of forty men, under Edward Johnson, of Woburn, and two other officers, was sent to Shawomet. Some worthy citizens of Providence essayed to play the part of mediators, and after some parley the Gortonites offered to submit to arbitration. The proposal was conveyed to Boston, and the clergy were again consulted. They declared it beneath the dignity of Massachusetts to negotiate “with a few fugitives living without law or government,” and they would no more compound with Gorton’s “blasphemous revilings” than they would bargain with the Devil. The community must be “purged” of such wickedness, either by repentance or by punishment. The ministers felt that God would hold the community responsible for Gorton and visit calamities upon them unless he were silenced. The arbitration was refused, Gorton’s blockhouse was besieged and captured, and the agitator was carried with nine of his followers to Boston, where they were speedily convicted of heresy and seditition. Before passing judgment the General Court as usual consulted with the clergy, who recommended a sentence of death. Their advice was adopted by the assistants, but the deputies were more merciful, and the heretics were sentenced to imprisonment at the pleasure of the court. In this difference between the assistants and the deputies, we observe an early symptom of that popular revolt against the ascendancy of the clergy which was by and by to become so much more conspicuous and effective in the affair of the Quakers. Another symptom might be seen in the circumstance that so much sympathy was expressed for the Gortonites, especially by women, that after some months of imprisonment and abuse the heretics were banished under penalty of death.
Gorton now went to England and laid his tale of woe before the parliamentary Board of Commissioners. The Earl of Warwick behaved with moderation. He declined to commit himself to an opinion as to the merits of the quarrel, but Gorton’s title to Shawomet was confirmed. He returned to Boston with an order to the government to allow him to pass unmolested through Massachusetts, and hereafter to protect him in the possession of Shawomet. If this little commonwealth of 15,000 inhabitants had between a nation as powerful as France, she could not have treated the message more haughtily. By a majority of one vote it was decided not to refuse so trifling a favour as a passage through the country for just this once; but as for protecting the new town of Warwick which the Gortonites proceeded to found at
Shawomet, although it was several times threatened by the Indians, and the settlers appealed to the parliamentary order, that order Massachusetts flatly and doggedly refused to obey.
Gorton’s life at Warwick, after all these troubles, seems to have been prosperous. He was several times chosen a member of the council of assistants of Rhode Island, and held other honourable positions. He died in 1677 at a great age. In 1771 Dr. Ezra Stiles visited, in Providence, his last surviving disciple, born in 1691. This old man said that Gorton wrote in heaven, and none can understand his books except those who live in heaven while on earth.
Further reading: Wall, Robert Emmet, Jr., MASSACHUSETTS BAY: THE CRUCIAL DECADE, 1640 - 1650. [New Haven: Yale University Press, ,1972]. Chapter 4: "Massachusetts versus Samuel Gorton", pp 121-156.
|
