This page is referenced by:

• 1 2022-12-10T23:42:26-08:00 William Apess and Indian Nullification 14 JG plain 2022-12-11T11:15:35-08:00
     Reverend William Apess, through his book, Indian Nullification of the Unconstitutional Laws of Massachusetts Relative to the Marshpee Tribe, and legal proceedings in the Massachusetts courts successfully invalidated Reverend Phineas Fish’s, a White pastor to the Mashpee, claim to Mashpee land, and reasserted “citizen sovereignty”[1] of the Mashpees following the Mashpee Woodland Revolt in 1833 to 1834.[2] Apess was born in 1798 in Colrain, Massachusetts to two mixed-race parents. After the separation of his parents and placement with his abusive maternal grandmother, the town of Colchester bound Apess to his neighbors, the Furman's. Mr. Furman sold Apess’s indenture to Judge William Hillhouse, who then sells his indenture to William Williams. At this point in his life, Apess began seriously attending Methodist meetings before converting in 1813. The same year, Apess ran away from W. Williams and joined the New York militia, serving as a drummer boy in a unit during the War of 1812. After Reverend Barnes baptized Apess in 1818, Apess began preaching without a license from the Methodist Church: Apess was granted said license between 1825 and 1827. In 1833, Apess traveled to the Mashpee, where he preached and participated in the Mashpee Revolt. He was consequently jailed for thirty days and fined for disturbing the peace during the Revolt.[3]
  
     Two years after the Mashpee Revolt, Apess published Indian Nullification as a collection of correspondences sent by Apess and other Mashpee and account of their fight to reclaim self- governance on Mashpee land following the 1833 Revolt. The book was meant to be a response to the events that had occurred from Apess’s arrival in Mashpee and 1834. The petitions and correspondence found within Indian Nullification takes place in the period just prior to the Pretended Riot and that directly after. The original edition of Indian Nullification contains an illustration entitled, “Manner of Instructing the Indians.” Within this illustration, two men are portrayed, one is a White man and the other Indigenous. The White man is dressed in period appropriate 1810s-1830s attire[4] and holds a bottle of alcohol as he reaches out and grabs the arm of the Indigenous man. The Indigenous man is dressed in what appears to be accurate Indigenous clothing, and he is watching the White man with a look of caution. Behind the men are three tents in a clearing, likely of Indigenous construction as there are two Indigenous men standing in front of one of the tents, and a second White man, who appears to be looking back at the two men in the foreground, as he drives his horse-drawn cart out of the scene. His cart is filled with logs. In the background behind this entire scene is a forest. With the entirety of this scene in mind, it can be assumed that the White man is distracting the Indigenous man with alcohol, while another White man steals the Indigenous people’s timber. This illustration effectively portrays one of the key issues that motivates the Mashpee to write their Indian Declaration of Independence.
  
  
     To further establish the chronology of the events and documents, it is important to note that Apess arrived around May of 1833, just as the Mashpee’s issues with their White guardianship and Reverend Phineas Fish began to boil over. Apess, after hearing about the issues, supported the Mashpee as they drafted a petition, known as the “Indian Declaration of Independence,” which called for the end of the Mashpee guardianship by the overseers and immediate removal of Reverend Fish. Three of the resolutions created and approved by representatives of the Mashpee were:

  To this instrument there are about a hundred signatures, which were affixed to the other papers above mentioned also. The resolutions which were sent to the two bodies [The Governor and the Council] were these:
      
              Resolved, That we as a tribe, will rule ourselves, and have the right to do so; for   all men are born free and equal, says the Constitution of the country.
     
  Resolved, That we will not permit any white man to come upon our plantation, to cut or carry off wood or hay, or any other article, without our permission, after the 1^st of July next.
    
  Resolved, That we will put said resolutions in force after that dates (July next), with the penalty of binding and throwing them from the plantation, if they will not stay away without.
  
  These resolutions were adopted by the tribe and put in force, as will be seen hereafter. It is hoped that, though the whites had done all they could to extinguish all sense of right among the Indians, they would now see that they had feelings as well as other men.[5]

  
  
     Apess’s inclusion of this petition is significant, as it demonstrates the lengths to which the Mashpee will entertain the American notions of civility. Much as the Cherokee had done with the enactment of a constitution and more rigid leadership hierarchy, the Mashpee, in this petition, apply American custom to Native sovereignty. This is especially evident in Apess’s use of legal language. First, Apess cites and interprets the Constitution to include Indigenous people: The Framers did not consider Indigenous people to be citizens with full rights, rather they were the equivalent of foreign nations. But, as this perspective shifted, as did the United States’ control over Indigenous sovereignty. Essentially, Apess suggests that if the American government wants to shift its perspective on Indigeneity, then it should include Indigenous people in the category of “born free and equal.”  The first resolution also presents a paradox: If the Mashpee have the right to rule themselves outside of the control of the Massachusetts or United States government, then they cannot also be birthright citizens of the state and country. There is a solution to the contradiction of the first resolution: If the Mashpee land is considered to be its own town or state, then they would have the freedom to rule themselves and maintain the privileges of birthright citizenship. It is possible that Apess left this paradox in place purposefully, as it would give leeway for compromise as to whether the Mashpee would gain the influence of a town or state.
  
     The second resolution utilizes the term “plantation” to categorize Mashpee land. This term is of particular significance because of its different definitions at the time of Apess’s publication. Apess likely recognized the fluidity of the definition of plantation and used it to his advantage. One definition of plantation is “the settling of people, usually in a conquered or dominated country.”[6] This definition was used in 1788 by J. Priestly, which is nearly fifty years earlier than Apess’s 1835 publication. But this particular definition was also used in 1870, so it is likely that this definition was still relevant in 1835. Following this definition, Apess would have used the term, plantation, to depict the Mashpee as settlers on colonized land. This characterization shifts the relationship of the colonizer and colonized from a binary to a much more complicated one. It suggests that the Mashpee, by asserting their claims to the land and self- governance, could legitimize their continued inhabitance in the eyes of the American government.
  
     The second relevant definition of plantation from the early 19^th century is “an area planted with trees, especially for commercial purposes.”[7] This definition brings forth the physical geography of the Mashpee land, which was in the heart of timber country. Apess may have used this definition to emphasize the White exploitation of the natural resources of Mashpee land. Reverend Fish, in particular, was a key figure in exploiting the land. As a missionary to the Mashpee, Fish abused his position to claim Mashpee land for the purpose of harvesting and selling its timber. Apess found these actions to be problematic, and in fact, sought to deter Fish through the Massachusetts’ legal system.
  
     In 1834 Massachusetts passed a law, “An Act to Establish the District of Marshpee,” that “incorporate[d] Mashpee as an Indian District, designating it ‘a body politic and corporate…with all of the powers and privileges, and subject to all duties and liabilities herein provided.’”[8] This law essentially disbanded the Board of Overseers, who had served as the Mashpee’s guardian, legitimizing Mashpee self- governance and rights to control their own affairs. But it did not remove Fish from his office, leading to a near decade long legal battle over Fish’s rights to the exportation of Mashpee resources on Mashpee land.

   

  Interlude: Rev. Fish, Land Exploitation, and Massachusetts Court Cases

   

  ---

  [1] Michaela Kleber, “‘The Pretended Riot Explained’: Citizen Sovereignty and the Mashpee Revolt,” College of William and Mary: Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects, 2015.

  [2] Lisa Brooks, “Regenerating the Village Dish: William Apess and the Mashpee Woodland Revolt,” in The Common Pot: The Recovery of Native Space in the Northeast, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008, 163-197.

  [3] William Apess, ed. Barry O’Connell, “A Son of the Forest,” in A Son of the Forest and Other Writings, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press (1997).

  [4] Of particular note is the White man’s long pants, which did not come into fashion for the gentry/aristocratic population until the 1810s at the earliest.

  [5] William Apess, Indian Nullification, Boston: Press of Jonathan Howe (1835), 21.

  [6] Oxford Dictionary Archives. “Plantation.” Accessed 12/08/2022.

  [7] Oxford Dictionary Archives. “Plantation.” Accessed 12/08/2022.
  [8] Breault, “Testing Rights in Contested Spaces,” 1.