By BRETT WARNKE
Julianne Jennings, an anthropology student with Native American heritage, has taken aim at Rhode island’s founder, Roger Williams, and is working to post a plaque that state his involvement in the selling of slaves after Providence was burned in March of 1676. The Narragansett Indians are not involved with the plaque which would be placed on South Main Street in Providence in commemoration of the Native Americans who were sent to the Caribbean plantations to work as slaves after their defeat.
The language for the proposed plaque is as follows:
“Mequanamiinnean (Remember us): In 1636, Narragansett Sachem, Canonicus, and his people gave Missionary Roger Williams a large tract of land which later became the colony of Providence Plantation. In just 40 years, relations between the colony and the Narragansett Indians became strained as a result of frequent intercultural conflicts. After the King Philip’s War (1676-6), Roger Williams claimed the leading post to the justifiability of slavery in Rhode island by transporting Narragansett and other Indians out of the region to be sold as slaves.”
But many historians disagree with Jennings’ interpretation of these events as well as her credibility. Dr. Patrick Conley, the author of 18 books and several volumes about Rhode Island’s history, said that the historical records show that Roger Williams was never a missionary and that Jennings’ statements are imprecise.
“Providence Plantation was not a ‘colony.’ It was a ‘plantation’ or a ‘settlement,’” Conley said. “Of all the colonists in New England, Roger Williams was perhaps the most cordial and fair to the Native Americans. It is most unfortunate to allow one fanatic to rewrite history to serve her own prejudices.”
Roger Williams was convicted of sedition and heresy for criticizing the English king and could have been drawn and quartered if captured by the Massachusetts Colony. But he fled the Puritans, built Providence, and forged relationships with local tribes in a manner strikingly dissimilar to the surrounding colonies.
Al Klyberg, who spent 30 years as head of Rhode Island’s Historical Society disagrees with the thrust of the plaque.
“It is an over-simplification of a complex relationship,” he said. “I think it is bad history. It is unbalanced and intentionally provocative. Williams’ relations with (Narragansett leaders) Canonicus and Miantonomie were really on an incredible level of genuine friendship for the 17th century.”
The proposed plaque has been in the works since 2009. Jennings says she was inspired by the work of Rhode Island College Professor Richard Lobban, an expert on Sudan, who has created similar slave plaques to memorialize the history of New England’s slavery.
“This marker is in no way meant to shame people of their (of our) collective past,” Jennings wrote in an email. “Its purpose is to make possible an opportunity to educate the public from where we have been and where we are going…and to further historical accuracy that honors ‘other’ points of view.”
J. Stanley Lemons, a Rhode island historian and former professor at Rhode Island College, disagrees with Jennings’ on about every sentence and has fenced with her in newspaper columns before. In an editorial in 2009, she accused him of lacking “intellectual integrity” and he responded that she knows “little or nothing about Roger Williams” and “misunderstands or misconstrues” the complex history of Rhode Island during the 178th century. They met before her unexpected editorial comments and Lemons was unimpressed with the depth of her historical knowledge.
“During our meeting, I learned how poorly educated she was,” Lemons said. “She is wrong and clearly does not know how to do research. Among other things, Roger Williams was not an Indian fighter. The idea that he was or was involved in long-term slave trading is just nuts. In an earlier version of the sign, Jennings tried to accuse Williams of destroying Indian culture by trying to Christianize them, but she had not read any of the relevant writings by Williams on the subject. By falsely calling him a ‘missionary’ she is still trying to make this assertion.”
And regarding slave trading?
“The extent of his ‘salve trading’ was his involvement in the disposal of the Indian prisoners after the war,” Lemons said. “Williams never owned a slave in his entire life and was opposed to ‘manstealing’ (capturing slaves) and opposed slavery’s being allowed to take root in Rhode Island. But, like everyone else, he was not opposed to disposing of dangerous war captives by shipping them out.”
The debate concerns King Philip’s War after the older tribal leaders’ (sachem’s) deaths. Younger native leaders (led by Canonchet) came to power and their relationship with the aging Williams was less intimate. Twice, Williams had given himself up to the Wampanoag Indians as a hostage to assure them that the Plymouth Colony would return one of their leaders to safety.
But in 1675, this goodwill had evaporated. King Philip’s War, the continent’s deadliest conflict in proportion to population, had become increasingly grisly and the tribes (seen as traitors and rebels by colonists) were being massacred. Rhode Island was invaded by a Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut militia called the United Colonies and their murderous assault at the Great Swamp in the winter of 1675 left women and children dead and native braves scattered, hungry, and desperate. The native tribes never recovered.
While Williams learned native language and had no part in the Swamp Massacre, he overplayed his hand in personal diplomacy. Seeing the northern colonies razed eventually spurred him to enlist in Rhode Island’s militia. When the Narragansetts and their allies finally approached Providence, he was in his 70s. His negotiations failed, the city was burned, but he was not killed.
“The warriors would not harm him after the talks broke down,” Lemons said. “That tells you something about the trust and credit that Williams had with the Narragansetts and others. He had been their allies for forty years against the efforts of the neighboring colonies who wanted to dismember and destroy Rhode Island.”
Paul Campbell, an archivist, wrote that after the war, Williams posed no opposition to Indian slavery, but this does he does not believe the man pushed a slavery agenda.
“One has to remember the context,” he wrote in an email. “Williams’ dream went up in smoke despite a personal plea to Canonchet to spare the town. I get the sense that he died a bitter man.”
Williams certainly died in poverty. The Providence founder spent his remaining years pleading with the Massachusetts governor to send him paper; he could not afford to pay for it himself.
But Jennings insists Roger Williams was a much darker figure than his legend. In an email she quoted from notes Roger he submitted to Massachusetts Governor John Winthrop which, upon first glance, appear to condone a sneak attack on an Indian tribe. But Professors Glenn Lafantasie and Lemons agree that these notes are Williams detailing an enemy tribe’s suggestions, not an endorsement.
Lafantasie, a researcher at Western Kentucky University who edited a two-volume set of Williams’ letters and places him among his personal heroes, also disagrees with Jennings plaque but says the Providence founder’s actions cannot be excused.
“From a human perspective, I can’t excuse his behavior. He did profit from the sale of those 50 or so prisoners,” Lafantasie said. “I don’t want to provide a string of excuses for old dead white men with bad behavior, but prisoners, often sold into slavery after a battle, were fair game. It was very much a part of the time and very much accepted by the English settlers.”
No comments:
Post a Comment