Early Indigenous Literatures

Interlude: Reverend Phineas Fish, Land Exploitation, and Massachusetts Court Cases

   In 1811, the overseers appointed Reverend Phineas Fish to be the minister of the Christian meetinghouse at Mashpee, which came with a yearly salary and access to wood and the meetinghouse. But tensions arose over what property, especially over the possession of five to six hundred acres of Mashpee land without Mashpee consent,[1] belonged to Fish versus the tribal community, further highlighting a discrepancy between access and ownership. As the community’s dislike for Fish rose, as did the exclusivity of Fish’s church. By the time Apess published Indian Nullification twenty- four years after Fish’s appointment, the Mashpee community under Apess’s pen had made accusations against Fish that he “neglected his duty; that he did not care for the welfare of the tribe, temporal or spiritual; that he had not visited some of the brethren at all, and others only once in five or seven years; that but eight or ten attended his preaching; that his congregation was composed of white people…and that all he appeared to care for was to get a living, and make as much as he could out of the Indians…It was, therefore, agreed to discharge him, and three papers were draughted accordingly.”[2] These accusations were brought forth to the overseers and Corporation of Harvard College within the larger “Indian Declaration of Independence,” but no actions were taken to remove Fish. The Mashpee Revolt, or the Pretended Riot, took place shortly after the submission of these accusations. It occurred when Apess “discovered two white men, the Sampson brothers,” who were Fish’s parishioners, taking wood from Mashpee land and asked them to return it. When the Sampson brothers refused, Apess “instructed his companions to unload the wood piled into the carts.”[3] Unfortunately for Apess and his companions, one of the Sampson brothers was a justice of the peace and brought forth charges.[4] But the fact that the Sampson brothers were parishioners of Fish’s congregation is especially revealing: It suggested that the Sampson brothers had colluded with Fish to export wood from Mashpee land.

   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.