Interlude: Reverend Phineas Fish, Land Exploitation, and Massachusetts Court Cases
Following Kyle Whyte’s patterns of “Vicious Sedimentation” and “Insidious Loops,” Fish and the Sampson brothers’ violence upon the Mashpee land takes a new meaning. Whyte’s Vicious Sedimentation is “the pattern of how environmental changes compound over time to reinforce and strengthen settler ignorance against Indigenous peoples,” and “refers to how constant ascriptions of settler ecologies onto Indigenous ecologies fortify settler ignorance against Indigenous peoples over time.”[5] In the case of Fish and the Sampson brothers, their exploitation of the timber on Mashpee land changed the environment. This pattern began with Fish claiming several hundred acres of land and exporting its timber, but spread, within a decade, to more settlers, the Sampson brothers, despite the orders from the Mashpee to leave the land. Left unchecked, this cycle would quickly become vicious, because it “significantly damages settlers’ inclinations for consensual decision- making with Indigenous peoples.”[6] Fish had justification to use the timber on the land, although it was very weak and an extension of his power. The Sampson brothers did not have any justification; thus, the consensual decision- making with the Mashpee has been damaged. Insidious Loops is based in “the pattern of how historic settler industries violated Indigenous people when they began are also implicated many years later in further environmental violence.”[7] With the exploitation of timber compounding over one generation, it is only possible to study the hypothetical later environmental justice. The settler timber industry, via Fish and the Sampson brothers, exploited both Mashpee land and sovereignty. Regarding an exploitation of land, Fish and the Sampson brothers physically removed the Mashpee’s trees, which over time, could make the Mashpee more susceptible to flooding and damage from storms (trees act as a barrier to the storm winds). Regarding sovereignty, the settlers’ nonconsensual removal of a commodity, timber, which could be equated with stealing cattle for example, eradicates Mashpee ecological agency. This, in turn, removes the barrier between the Mashpee and settler ecologies, leading to further exploitation.
Apess and the Mashpee learned from this series of events that non- violent protests against White trespassers were not going to work against their favor. So Apess and a couple of Mashpee leaders turned to the Massachusetts legal system for support. The first case, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. William Apess (1833) determined that “without a legislative act declaring Mashpee no longer under state supervision, they would have no legal redress for actions and infractions against them on the plantation.”[8] The following year, in 1834, Massachusetts enacted “An Act to Establish the District of Marshpee,” opening new possibilities for legal recourse.
In 1835 (unnamed case), 1836 (Phineas Fish v. William Mingo and Moses Pocknet), and 1839 (Attaquin v. Fish) the Mashpee sought against Fish as a means to remove him from his office. The 1835 case was dismissed by Charles Warren, a District Attorney, highlighted the White ignorance of and lack of respect for Indigenous sovereignty. The 1836 cases charged Mingo and Pocknet with impounding Fish’s wandering cattle, and the Justice of the Peace, Josiah Sampson, sided with Fish. Mingo and Pocknet were fined for this act. Finally, in 1839, Mashpee selectmen sought an injunction to stop Fish from cutting wood on the land. This time, Massachusetts Chief Justice authorized the injunction, stopping Fish from exploiting Mashpee land.
Next: John Ridge
William Apess
Conclusion
Main Page
Bibliography
[1] Apess, Indian Nullification, 22.
[2] Apess, Indian Nullification, 20.
[3] Nicole Breault, “Testing Rights in Contested Space: The District of Marshpee versus Reverend Phineas Fish, 1833-1830,” University of Massachusetts- Boston, 7.
[4] Apess, Indian Nullification, 31-32.
[5] Kyle Whyte, “Settler Colonialism, Ecology and Environmental Injustice,” Environment and Society: Advances in Research 9 (2018): 138.
[6] Whyte, “Settler Colonialism,” 139.
[7] Whyte “Settler Colonialism,” 138
[8] Breault, “Testing Rights in Contested Spaces,” 10.