On the Portrayal of Natives

Let none slander the name Uncas.

 Something that rubs we at Pioneer Valley Dissidence the wrong way is the narrative framing of the plight of the poor Red Man. He is depicted as childlike and innocent, possessed of a naive desire to aid his fellow man, destined only for betrayal. This is not only false, but actively insulting to their memory. The Native American was of a proud warrior race, with all the austerity and fortitude of the greatest Spartan. They knew well the universal law of an eye for an eye, they practiced ultima ratio regum and vae victus. They had a mastery of economics that would make Adam Smith blush, with a consummate understanding of inflation, supply and demand, and traded amongst themselves using a currency that required productivity from human capital to be generated. To portray them as some poor wounded dog to be rehabilitated in memory rather than as equals who ultimately lost their martial contest is a shameful mark upon the honor of any who knowingly perpetuate that myth. Let us [revise] this.

    The idea that the Amerindian tribes knew nothing of warfare is false. It is based upon the presupposition that, as a consequence of the European Military Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, no non-European force could possibly contend with her standing armies and the accompanying logistical and adminstrative advantages. How strange, then, that the Abenaki dealt a resounding defeat to the English Colonists and forced them to sign a treaty of tribute [!] in 1678. How odd indeed, that an uncivilized and peaceful people could maintain a massive frontline and push the Europeans back roughly 250 miles without the logistical and technological advantages of their enemies. [Eurocentrism is very cool, but we must acknowledge that it has the ability to blind us. To not acknowledge the sophistication of Amerindian asymmetrical warfare is an example of Eurocentrism's shortcomings.] This is a Red and White example. What happened in the early colonial era when two Amerindian States clashed?

    In 1643, the Narragansett and Mohegan Tribes went to war. The Narragansett fielded an army of 1,000 men which, to put into proper context, was equal to the entire population of the Connecticut Colony at the time. It is important to highlight this fact, simply to shed some light on the European point of view. These were still very much native lands; the colonies' ultimate ascension as masters of the northeast were by no means preordained. The very survival of the Europeans relied on 'playing ball' with the true movers and shakers of the realm. The clash between these two Red nations threatened to destroy the status quo established at the conclusion of the Pequot War, so the colonists decided to back the Mohegan Sachem Uncas [who we remember as a great friend and stalwart ally of Major John Mason] in the conflict. At this stage of history, a century before the colonies of New England rose to supremacy, it was necessary for their very survival that the colonists play the role of pawn in a war between tribes.

    These two historical events, we believe, paint a very different picture of the Amerindian Man than the one many see today. It is both easy and incorrect to look at the state of the natives now and suppose that the unstoppable White wave flooding their shores drowned the poor diseased First Peoples. This point of view discounts the fact that for the first century of Colonial European existence, there loomed the ever-present threat of a Red landslide from the dark parts of a continent they dared not traverse.

Sources:

Amerindian Power in the Northeast: A Reappraisal

A Brief History of the Pequot War

Major John Mason & the Mystic Massacre

 "He was instrumental in originating the expedition, formed the plan, followed out its details, fought its battles, clinched, as it were, with iron screws, its results, and wrote its history... From this period he became renowned as an Indian fighter, and stood forth a buckler of defence to the exposed colonies, but a trembling and a terror to the wild people of the wilderness... Mason is one of the prominent figures in our early history. He shines forth as a valiant soldier and a wise counselor. He was prudent, and yet enterprising; fertile in resources, prompt and heroic in field of action. The natural ardor of his mind, fostered by early military adventures, and continually called into exercise by great emergencies, made him a fearless leader in war. Sturdy in frame, and hardy in constitution; regardless of danger, fatigue, or exposure; he was invaluable as a pioneer in difficult enterprises, and a founder of new plantations. He was also a religious man and a patriot; of virtuous habits, and moderate ambition. Though he sustained many high and honorable offices in the infant colony, he was best known by the simple title of Captain... Yet viewing the character of Mason at this distance of time, we become aware of some rigid and imperious features. Though faithful to his convictions of duty, he was stern and unrelenting in the execution of justice, and as a magistrate and commander, dictatorial and self-reliant." - Francis Caulkins

"The Commander over Men; he to whose will our wills are to be subordinated, and loyally surrender themselves, and find their welfare in doing so, may be reckoned the most important of Great Men. He is practically the summary for us of all the various figures of Heroism; Priest, Teacher, whatsoever of earthly or of spiritual dignity we can fancy to reside in a man, embodies itself here, to command over us, to furnish us with constant practical teaching, to tell us for the day and hour what we are to do." - Thomas Carlyle

John Mason

 A brief introduction of one of Connecticut's earliest heroes, with [revisionism] and [personal commentary] as always marked in brackets.

    Major John Mason was born in the year 1600, most likely in the English town of Norwich. Prior to his new life in the new world, he was a veteran of the Eighty Years' War. This experience in his youth helped forge the man who would become magistrate, representative, and commander of the military forces of the colonies in which he resided. He had lived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony a scant few months before he was called upon to help defend the fledgling settlements. First in 1632 to ward off the piracy of a certain Dixy Bull, then later in 1634 as surveyor of the Boston peninsula and head commissioner of a fort to be built for her protection. Six years later, now a dutiful husband [inceldom was illegal in Puritan society] and in silent disagreement with the stifling orthodoxy of the Plymouth Colony, Mason volunteered to lead a group of settlers in establishing a colony upon the Connecticut River. This was quite the undertaking, as the settlers were to find themselves just shy of 100 miles away from the rest of English civilization, alone and surrounded by the largest and most militaristic of Indian tribes. His leadership proved to be invaluable, as his experience in the army helped the settlers to protect themselves in case of attack, and as an engineer he led the construction of a palisaded settlement that would come to be known as Windsor. Thomas Hooker, a prominent minister of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, had simultaneously left to form his own settlement just to the north of Windsor, christened Hartford. Thus, alienated by both the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies, these two men would lay the foundations for the Connecticut Colony.

    In John Mason's biography, author Louis B. Mason tells us, "The Captain had but little time to give to cultivating domestic interests, since from the first the Pequot Indians had shown a restlessness that did not insure safety for the inhabitants. They feared the treachery of the red men, so that Mason took every precaution that was possible to fortify the town to prevent a sudden attack. It was held by the colonists in general 'that in the case of hostile Indians, no good can come of attempts to conciliate, unless respect is first imposed by a sufficient castigation.'" By the 1630s, the politics of the southern Connecticut River Valley were at a boiling point. Seeking to monopolize the fur trade with the English, the Pequot Sachem Sassacus began to expand his territory by subjugating first the lands of the Wampanoag tribe to the north, the Narragansett to the east, and the Lenape and Algonquian tribes to the southwest. The long-standing animosity between the Pequot and Mohegan tribes came to a head, and when the Mohegan requested English support in dealing with Sassacus and his Pequot warriors war loomed inexorably on the horizon. Mason's biographer states:

"All of the small tribes feared the powerful Pequots, who continually made war on them. The Pequots, whose name it is said translated into English meant 'destroyer,' claimed as their territory all the land along the coast of Long Island Sound, while their principal forts were located at New London, then Known as Pequot and Mystic. Their chief, Sassacus, had twenty-six sachems under him, and about eight hundred warriors at his command at the forts... Sassacus, the wily chief of the Pequots, like King Philip, Tecumseh, Black Hawk, Pontiac and other chiefs later, was the first to realize that the English, with their guns, would eventually drive the Indians from their land, or annihilate them in war. His jealousy, together with his fear for the future of his people, aroused his enmity which was to lead to war with the planters, and the destruction of his race."

    As with all things in history, there are no true polarities in war. While the majority of cross-cultural relations were peaceful and lucrative for both parties, incidents such as Captain Thomas Hunt's abduction of twenty natives to be sold into Spanish slavery helped fan the fires of discontent. It certainly didn't help that ministers of the Puritan colonies likened Natives to the special emissaries of the Great Adversary. To defeat the Natives in battle was to strike directly at the Devil himself. [We at Pioneer Valley Dissidence are not going to go to great lengths to excuse the English settlers' actions in 1636. It will suffice to say that in this long chain of mutual betrayals and reconciliations and yet further betrayals, the Pequots constituted the last link.] The killing of merchant captain John Oldham by the Pequot vassal tribe, the Narragansett, and the subsequent refusal of the Narragansett/Pequot leadership to give up the perpetrators, combined with the murder of a Captain Stone the year prior, was too much to bear and ultimately formed the casus belli of the New England colonies. The orders of the militia issued by Massachusetts Bay Colony Governor Henry Vane, were as follows, "To put to death the men of Block Island, but to spare the women and children, and to bring them away, and to take possession of the island; and from thence to go to the Pequots, to demand the murderers of Capt. Stone and other English, and one thousand fathoms of wampum for damage, Etc., and some of their children for hostages; if they should refuse they were to obtain by force." Block Island would be taken without contest, though negotiations with the Pequots afterward turned violent and set an uneasy tone throughout the quiet winter, another simmering pot set to boil over with the spring thaw. These negotiations under the command of Governor John Endicott of Massachusetts were seen as a failure, and only worsened the situation. The tensions were cut loose in April the following year, 1637, when the English settlement of Wethersfield, CT was attacked. Six men and three women slain, with two children held in captivity. Simultaneously, the Pequot held the English fort at Saybrook near the mouth of the Connecticut River, commanded by a certain Lion Gardiner, under siege throughout the early months of 1637. But where was the hero of our story, John Mason?

    Captain Mason had become known to the Indians of the southern Connecticut River valley as a just and fair magistrate, and brave warrior. His presence, according to his biographer, had been enough to ensure peace locally between Windsor and the surrounding tribes. In the leadup to the Pequot War, Mason had established an alliance with the Chief Sachem of the Mohegan tribe, a man called Uncas. Sachem Uncas was an apt politician, descended from the royal line of Pequots, and after a dispute with Sassacus had fallen in with the Mohegans and was elected their leader. This will become important later on. Upon hearing of Lion Gardiner's plight to the south, Mason mustered what he could from the able-bodied men of Windsor. He and a mere twenty men sallied forth to relieve the fort, and according to the man himself, "After his coming (to Saybrook), there did not one Pequot appear in view for one Month Space which was the time he there remained." [Truly evidence of Captain Mason's heroic persona on display.] Mason and Connecticut Governor Hooker's petitions to Massachusetts for reinforcements were granted in the arrival of a Captain Underhill and his men, allowing Mason to return to his family in Windsor temporarily. Mason travelled back and forth for a time and was stationed at the Saybrook fort during the attack on Wethersfield.

"The Indians after finishing their bloody task, sailed down the river in great glee, and when they passed the fort, they waved the clothing of the victims they had murdered, to attract the attention of the soldiers. Mason and Gardiner realized that the Indians were on the warpath and returning from some murderous expedition, and taking a chance shot at them 'with the Piece of Ordinance,' Mason said, 'Which beat off the Beak Head of one of the Canoes wherein our two Captives were.'"

    By this point, the Connecticut Court had adopted a more martial outlook towards the Pequots and their vassals. An ally to some tribes and feared by others, Mason understood that the war of Sassacus was one of ultimate survival. The lower Connecticut River valley was simply too small to be shared with Sassacus' ambitions, and if the Pequots were to truly unite militarily with their client tribes the extermination of the English colonies was assured. The Court appointed Mason to be the leader of a force of 90 men, and Mason called upon the loyalty of the leader of the Mohegan tribe, his good friend Uncas, to help strike back at the Pequots. These 160 traveled south again to the Saybrook Fort, whereupon they prepared an excursion deep into Pequot territory. Doubted by Underhill and Gardiner that such a small force would be able to challenge Sassacus any better than Endicott's attempts the year prior, Mason took liberties with the colonial leadership's orders, reasoning that the direct attack proscribed therein was suicide. In a tale reminiscent of Publius Claudius and the sacred chickens of Rome, Mason consulted the local Chaplain, and asked him to pray to the Lord overnight, to determine the course of action. Mason's biographer states that he,

"visited the Chaplain who was staying on one of the shallops, while the Captain lived on shore. We may be sure that when the Captain asked the Chaplain for instructions from the Lord, that he very carefully pointed out the whys and wherefores of his own views. It was therefore not with surprise, but with great satisfaction, when the Chaplain visited him the next morning, to be told that he had followed Mason's wishes, and that his views were the right ones. Then the contingent arranged to sail the following morning.

    In his history of this war, Mason stops at this point to moralize, and to point out how justly the commander of an army can go contrary to directions by the government. 'For,' as he wrote, 'it is not possible for the wisest and ablest Senatore to foresee all Accidents and Occurents that fall out in the Management and Pursuit of a War'; even though 'he might be trained in Military Affairs.'"

     Mason and his retinue sailed for the lands of the Narragansett tribe in order to try and convince their Sachem, Canonicus, to help in the fight against their ancient enemy and overlord, the Pequots (making quite sure that the Pequots saw them leaving south, hoping to give them the impression of retreat). Canonicus agreed to allow them passage through his lands to attack the Pequots, but doubted Mason the same as the two officers of Saybrook Fort earlier. Such a small campaigning force had no chance of succeeding against the well-trained personal guard of Sassacus, claimed Canonicus. Mason's diplomatic overtures and reputation as a brave warrior won the Narragansett over, however, and a contingent of two hundred joined the cause. On the march to the Pequot lands proper, they were joined again by more Narragansett, these under the command of Canonicus' nephew, Miantonimo. The Narragansett "suddenly gather[ed] into a ring, one by one, making solemn protestations how galliantly they would demean themselves, and how many men they would kill." Now, Mason's ragtag assembly numbered roughly 500. However, as they marched ever closer to Sassacus and his army, some Narragansett became unnerved and headed back to their homes rather than provoke the ire of the Pequots. Upon reaching the base of the hill upon which the Pequot fort lie, Mason noticed the lack of Narragansett among his troops. Uncas told him they had fallen behind and were most likely only going to watch and see how it played out. To which Mason replied that Uncas tell, "the rest of their Fellows, That they should by no means Fly, but stand at what distance they pleased, and see whether English Men would now fight or not."

    Mason and Captain Underhill, who despite his reservations at the feasibility of the plan volunteered to accompany the Connecticut troops on their mission, decided they would begin a two-pronged assault on the Pequot position. As it was still some hours before sunrise, and since the Pequots had celebrated late into the night over the supposed English retreat, they had no idea of what was to happen. Some of the Pequots had by chance noticed the English maneuvers, and they hastened to awaken the rest of the fort to no success. Mason and Underhill's troops fired into the fort and were positioned at either entrance in wait. At first, they attempted to sweep the fort house-by-house to clear out the Pequots and preserve the battle's bounty, but Mason quickly realized they would lose their significant advantage in doing so. Thus, he gave the orders to set fire to the whole encampment. The Pequot were corralled in their own fortifications, unable to organize and break the defensive perimeter set up by Mason's Mohawk and Narragansett allies. Two Englishmen were killed and twenty wounded, while seven hundred Pequot perished in the bloody siege on Mystic Fort. Sassacus and some of his personal guard escaped the carnage and fled west in the hopes of taking refuge with the Mohawks of the Hudson River, whereupon they seized him, cut off his head, hands and feet, and had the grisly trophies sent to the Massachusetts Bay as evidence of their goodwill towards them. Thus, the Pequot War was ended in its infancy thanks to the initiative of Captain John Mason. Mason's biographer tells us,

"All of this had taken place within three weeks and three days since the decision of the Court. The little army had tramped through trackless forest, sixty miles in all, in four days, in a heat almost unbearable, so that some of the men had fainted. The victory was a complete one, and one of the most remarkable in the history of warfare in the colonies settled by the English. It must not be forgotten that the settlements along the great river did not number all told eight hundred, and that less than two hundred were able to bear arms to fight the battle, and protect the homes. Also, that Connecticut in its quick decision, led by Mason, to settle the matter at once, and not wait for the assistance from the ever vacillating magistrates of Massachusetts, made peace possible for the further settlement of the country. Another fact that must not be forgotten, that while Connecticut always made quick decisions and carried them out, Massachusetts dilly-dallied, as she did with the murderers of Captain Stone for over three years, and then, the criminals were not executed. Sassacus was no longer the terror of the other Indian tribes. Mason was the man they now feared, as Prince said, 'he soon became the equal dread of the most numerous nations, from Massachusetts to the Hudson River.'"

[And, lest we forget the purpose of this blog, a little Boston character assassination:]

"It is to be added, that with the exception of the twenty men with Underhill, no other soldiers had gone to the seat of the action from Boston. Their tardiness, the authorities explained, was because it was learned 'that some of the officers, as well as some of the private soldiers, were still under a covenant of works; and that the blessing of God could not be implored, or expected to crown the arms of such unhallowed men with success.'" 

    In the aftermath the Connecticut Court convened again, where they promoted Mason to the rank of Major. His new responsibility was to train every able-bodied man in the colony in warfare, effectively mobilizing the entire population. There was also a treaty called between the Mohegan and Narragansett, where each would take half of the Pequot prisoners into their own respective tribes, and that there was to be a permanent peace between the three political entities. The remaining Pequots now adopted into the Mohegan and Narragansett promised to never return to their lands, a promise they promptly abandoned. The official end of the Pequot War came in the autumn of 1637, where Mason assembled a group of 40 men to once again oust the returned natives. At the conclusion of that three-month war, the English colonies had killed or enslaved all of Sassacus' tribe, and the existential threat of the Great Pequot Sachem's ambition had been permanently put to rest. 

Source: The Life and Times of Major John Mason

William Pynchon's Righteousness or Justification Explained, & Cleared from some Common Errors

William Pynchon.

"The Meritorious Price of Redemption, Justification, &c., Clearing from Some common Errors; And proving: 1. That Christ did not suffer for us those unutterable torments of God’s wrath, that commonly are called Hell-torments, to redeem our souls from them. 2. That Christ did not bear our sins by Gods imputation, and therefore he did not bear the curse of the Law for them. 3. That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of Law (not by suffering the said curse for us, but by a satisfactory price of atonement; viz by paying or performing unto his Father that invaluable precious thing of his Mediatorial obedience, whereof his Mediatorial Sacrifice of atonement was the masterpiece. 4. A sinner's righteousness or justification is explained, and cleared from some common errors."

 - The introduction of William Pynchon's banned work.

Herein, we shall dissect the character that was William Pynchon in a bit more detail, as in the interest of brevity I had skimmed over some very interesting happenings in the early colonial record. Afterward in another article, we will expound upon John Mason's exploits to the south in Connecticut, to hopefully illustrate two very different approaches to colonial issues by two very different men. We will extrapolate from this contrast a series of highly biased interpretations to be marked in [brackets].

    We'll pick up our story in February of 1638, in the Connecticut Colony settlement of Hartford. Over the past year, open conflict with the Pequot Tribe that lived on the Connecticut coast had broken out concerning the Pequot consolidation of native power in the region. Pequots had for the last few decades slowly increased their held lands by vassalizing neighboring tribes and had aspirations of controlling the lucrative fur trade that dominated the Connecticut River Valley in its entirety. In May of the previous year, Hartford and its various satellite towns had raised a force of 90 colonists (back then quite the sizable portion of working-aged men) to combat the Pequots and their allies to the south. This would prove quite damaging to their food stocks, and the lack of men led to untended fields and starving cattle as consequence. Now, corn from the neutral Agawam tribe was necessary for survival. If the Agawam caught wind of the precarious conditions the colonists found themselves in, they had free reign to charge whatever they liked. So worried about this were the Connecticut residents that they passed laws restricting trade on an individual basis with the Agawam and Nonotuck under penalty of heavy taxation, placing the power to trade liberally solely in the hands of William Pynchon, granting him a certain amount of leeway with which to bargain. "No man in this River nor Agawam shall go upriver among the Indians or at home their houses to trade for corn or make any contract or bargain among them for corn either privately or publicly upon the pain of 5 shillings for every bushel that he or they shall so trade." (quotations like this I have edited in order to modernize the English therein)

Throughout the warm seasons of 1637, Pynchon had been unable to adequately secure corn at the initial authorized price and refused to raise it, though authorized to do so, for fear of accelerating the rate of inflation on the commodity. This was not received well by Connecticut residents, who had resorted to feeding grain seed meant to be sown in spring of '38 to their cattle to keep them alive. Therefore, they resolved to send their military leader John Mason north to resolve the dispute.

"Whereas it was ordered octo die (Marcii) last that there should be a restraint of trading for corn... with Mr. Pynchon to supply the plantations, upon consideration of Mr. Pynchon's that he is somewhat fearful of supplying the plantations, and whereas there is a clause in case of necessity 3 magistrates may dispense with the order. It is therefore ordered that Mr. Ludlowe and Captain Mason or either of them, taking likewise such with them as shall be met, shall trade to supply their own necessities and the necessities of some others that are in want."

    So Mason travelled north, talked with the Agawam and Nonotuck, then met with Pynchon in the colonial settlement across the river. Mason alleged that the tribes portrayed Pynchon as the Great Sachem of the Connecticut River Valley, and that they feared reprisal from Pynchon were they to break with his will and trade with the southern colonial settlements. A claim Pynchon adamantly denied, as historian Mason Green tells us,

"Mr. Pynchon said at once that he knew no reason why the Nonotuck Indian should fear him. He then proposed that the rest of the conference be carried on apart, as it would not do to let the Indians realize the extent of the English distress for food... 'Sir,' continued Mason, 'I have brought up some cloth and wampum, to trade some corn with the Indians; & I desire you to deal with them for us, & to bind them to a bargain to bring it down [to the Connecticut settlements].' To this Mr. Pynchon replied, that was not the way to bind the Indians to a bargain, as they would break their promise if they were paid in advance, 'whereupon some anger might follow, and then if I had a hand in it, they may bear me a grudge; for I fear their treacherous dealing, we being remote, & but weaker; therefore I will neither make nor meddle to bind them to a bargain...' The Captain flew into a 'great passion,' and exclaimed: 'What hurt can it be to you? I pray, Sir, let me know what hurt can it be to you, for it is a dark riddle to me.'"

     [Of course, we in the anti-Pynchon camp have a very good clue as to the answer of that riddle. Any disruptions to the status quo were potentially quite harmful to the positive cross-cultural relations that Pynchon relied on for his fur-trading endeavors to remain profitable. The pious and martially-minded Mason perhaps hadn't yet considered such a realist perspective from Pynchon, a man so deeply engrained in Bostonian ministerial society.]

    Some few days later, on the 24th of March, Pynchon received a summons to report to the Connecticut General Court to answer to charges laid against him. They were as follows;

"... (1) that he had deliberately raised the price of corn as between him and Connecticut, and was holding the Indians to their bargains, all to his private gain; that (2) he refused to lend a canoe to a Woronoco Indian, who was under contract with Captain Mason to take corn down the river; that (3) he kept the Agawam, Woronoco, and Nonotuck Indians under abject fear of him, that he might be considered the great English sachem of the Connecticut valley; and, finally, that (4) he induced certain Mohawk runners to sell him some beaver skins, which were sent by Mohawk chiefs to the Connecticut authorities as presents and assurances of good-will."

    Pynchon's defense can be summarized as, (1 & 3) Springfield fared no better than her sister settlements to the south in terms of food supply, and that after her residents were given out corn according to her dire needs there was none left to pass south. In regard to point (2) and the general accusation of holding the local tribes under his thumb through fear, the Connecticut court demanded a verbal statement by Pynchon be distributed to the tribes stating the contrary. Pynchon, as Mason Green tells us, "...seeing that such a declaration by him might be interpreted by the Indians as a release from the bargain, which they had failed to keep, objected to do so until the debt [owed by the Indians to Pynchon] had been fully reaffirmed." A compromise was reached on this particular point, and the verbal statement issued to the tribes reaffirmed that the debts must be paid, though Pynchon stressed his goodwill and cordial attitudes towards them continued. A refutation of (4) devolved into a he-said-she-said scenario, where Pynchon alleged that he wasn't home at the time, and that a confusion among other residents of Springfield and their interpreters led to Pynchon holding in his possession furs meant for the other prominent leaders of the Connecticut Colony.  In a turn of events that surely scandalized the frontier courtroom, Governor Thomas Hooker then took the stand himself in order to testify as to the character of Mr. Pynchon. 

"Finally, the commissioners, having heard Mason, the Indians, and the rest, called in Rev. Thomas Hooker and Rev. Samuel Stone as experts upon the ethical question of Mr. Pynchon's conduct. They both said most emphatically that Pynchon had broken his oath. Mr. Pynchon rose and explained his mode of bargaining with the Indians without advancing wampum... Mr. Hooker replied that 'that offer was as good as nothing, for Mr. Pynchon knew that the Indians being afraid of him, would not bring down any corn, but that he should have all the trade to himself, and have all the corn in his own hands, and bring all that water to his own mill, and so rack the country at his pleasure...' To this Mr. Pynchon was silent, being grieved at such a hard answer." [Otherwise known as resignation in the face of resounding defeat.]

    This event [portrayed by Mason Green as nothing more than a character assassination of Pynchon stemming from hunger and frustration] was the point of no return between what would become Springfield and the rest of the Connecticut Colony. It laid the foundation for further grievances, especially surrounding the tax Pynchon's Agawam had to pay as restitution for poor business practices in order to keep using the river to ship his furs from Seabrook to Boston (as the land route at this time was simply a very well-treaded forest trail, using it to transport goods was out of the question). Agawam quietly seceded from Connecticut in summer of 1638, making no formal declaration initially, though Pynchon was in close contact with associates in Boston throughout, and word of it spread quickly. [It seems to Pioneer Valley Dissidence that during this short intermission Pynchon truly was English Sachem of the Connecticut River Valley, north of Enfield Falls at least. If the Connecticut complaints are to be taken at face value, Pynchon controlled trade and used it to command the loyalty of the Agawam, Nonotuck, and Woronoco tribes, a roughly 60 square mile tract of land. No small feat in just two years' time.] Things came to a head in the fall of that year as during discussions regarding cooperation between English settlements in order to oppose Dutch interests, the issue of English Agawam came up. In correspondence over the matter between Connecticut Governor Hooker and Massachusetts Governor Winthrop, Hooker alleged that Pynchon's settlement now considered itself a Massachusetts affiliate when it pleased them, and a part of Connecticut when it was expedient to do so. He claimed,

"'Yea, taking it for granted that it is in each inhabitant's liberty in Agawam to choose his jurisdiction (which is to me beyond question), if I was there as an inhabitant, I should judge myself bound in conscience to submit to the jurisdiction of this river, and do believe I should make a breach of the Eighth Commandment if I should otherwise; because in so doing I should steal from mine estate, in that I should rush myself into needless and endless inconveniences; namely, to cast myself into that condition that for a matter of five shillings (as the case may fall out) I should put myself to unreasonable charges and trouble to seek for justice a hundred miles off in the wilderness. If Mr. Pynchon can devise ways to make his oath bind him when he will, and loosen him when he list; if he can tell how, in faithfulness, to engage himself in a civil covenant and combination (for that he did, by his committees in their act) and yet can cast it away at his pleasure, before he give it sufficient warrant, more than his own word and will, he must find a law in Agawam for it; for it is written in no law or gospel that I ever heard.'" [Once again, another absolute deconstruction of Pynchon's governance. The last line is especially damning, as Pynchon's word was law in English Agawam. He was also the treasurer, financier of the church, magistrate, collector of tax, diplomat, etc. etc.]

    This would settle the status quo between Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay's westernmost settlement, for a few years at least, until a "tariff war" between the two was fought over the construction of a fort at the mouth of the Connecticut River in 1648. Pynchon [expectedly] refused to have his goods taxed over said construction, claiming a multitude of factors. Chief among these were the sordid conditions of said fort located in Saybrook, the fact that Springfield proper was under no threat from malignant actors due to a natural interruption in the river some 15 miles to the south, and that Springfield would be submitted to taxation by both colonial authorities. The first intercolonial meeting between New Haven, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, and Plymouth intended to settle the tariff war ended inconclusively, with only Plymouth and New Haven fully ratifying its proclamations. Springfield and by extension Mr. Pynchon's fur trading enterprise, sharing the utilities of the Connecticut River, stood to benefit from the protection of said river, and therefore Connecticut Colony was just in requiring payment for its continued use. In response, Massachusetts Bay began taxing goods from other colonies leaving ports under its protection, making business harder universally throughout young New England. This, combined with William Pynchon's continued refusal to pay the tax, exacerbated the situation and Connecticut eventually was forced to concede. [The superstitious reader will be interested to know that in the immediate aftermath of this, Springfield was beset by all manner of tragedy including terrible floods, strange sicknesses, plagues of caterpillars, ravenous flocks of pigeons, and a sharp increase in wolf attacks.]

    Two years after the conclusion of the tariff war, Pynchon was called to Boston on a matter of serious import. A man living in Springfield by the name of Hugh Parsons had been accused of witchcraft and had been sent to the capital to be tried in court. His wife was tried simultaneously after confessing that it was actually she who had been under the influence of Satan, and had caused the death of their infant child. However, unbeknownst to Pynchon, a manuscript he had published in England the past year called The Meritorious Price of Redemption had managed to find its way into the hands of the increasingly orthodox leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. So, when he arrived to deliver his testimony on the Parsons' case, Pynchon found himself at odds with the law. The book was ordered to be burned in the town square of Boston, and Pynchon had to issue a public retraction of the heretical doctrines therein. His retraction was found wanting, and in light of his previous upstanding reputation [his powerful business ties in the colony certainly didn't hurt either] was allowed to return home to Springfield until the general court reconvened in the Spring of the following year.

    [Such scandal! A business-oriented layman with a local monopoly on trade, daring to challenge the monopoly of the spiritual by Puritan ministers! And worse, it had travelled from nascent Springfield on the frontier straight to London for publishing, without being checked first by the ministers of Boston. And it was under the authority of this blasphemer that witchcraft had been allowed to promulgate unchecked.] Anti-authoritarianism, or lack of deference to their authority at least, was considered untenable by John Winthrop's successor, John Endicott (Endicott was far stricter on deviance than Winthrop had been and wasn't the kind of man who would take challenges to his authority lightly. His cultural regulations on things as banal as hair length, in addition to his violent persecution of new unorthodox settlers, most likely contributed a great deal to contemporary perceptions of Puritan culture). The New England colonies were too young to be fractured yet again by religious belief a la New Haven, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Antinomian thought (theologically, the idea that redemption in the eyes of the Lord was found exclusively in His grace or forgiveness, rather than through works, works defined here as a set of moral rules one must follow in order to receive the Lord's grace) had already shaken the young colony to its core; this would not be allowed to play out a second time. [Certainly, the accusations against Pynchon in 1638 by his detractors in Connecticut would hold more weight if Pynchon was indeed openly advocating for looser interpretations of God's requirements of man. Something like withholding corn trade from the common good for fear of reduced future profit was definitely not included in the Puritan conception of godly works.]

    Faced with additional court proceedings to be held in some months, Pynchon's Boston business dealings were in jeopardy. With few options available, he had by some foresight already chartered a boat back to the Kingdom before his first trial, and in light of recent developments hastened back to England with his fur-trading fortunes in 1652 (as soon as the English Civil War had concluded) where he would live comfortably in a manor overlooking the Thames until the Stuart Restoration a decade later, as some of his spoils were redistributed to Royalists by Charles II's decree. The rest, including all of his New England possessions, were given to his son after his death in 1662.

[William Pynchon. As a pious man, he held three Indian tribes in his thrall through the power of commerce. As a man of law and letters, he did as he liked to secure his business interests. As a man of honor, he cashed out those business interests as soon as his public reputation had sufficiently soured to make them unprofitable.]

Sources: Contesting Control of Orthodoxy among the Godly: William Pynchon Reexamined,

Springfield 1636-1886: History of Town and City...