608 INDIAN LAND CESSIONS IN THE UNITED f^TATES [eth.axn. 18 



tion or plantation being left to their own j iist coursi- or custom of rating themselves 

 and people, according to their dift'erent estates, with due respect to their fjualities 

 and exemptions among themselves; though the confederates take no notice of any 

 such privilege, and that according to the dift'erent charge of each jurisdiction and 

 plantation, the whole advantage of the war, (if it pleased God so to Idess their 

 endeavors,) whether it he in land, goods, or persons, shall be proportionably divided 

 amongst the said confederates.' 



As ''oft'ensive" as well as "defeusive" wars are alluded to, and the 

 "advantages gained in lands, goods, or persons"' were to be divided 

 proportionately, ^Ir Oliver declares this "must Lave had reference to 

 an absorption of the whole territory of New England." Though the 

 provisions are curious and seem to embrace somewhat covertly the 

 right under certain conditions to wage an offensive war and appropri- 

 ate the territory thereby gained, Mr Oliver's inference is not fully 

 justified. Moreover, it seems to be forbidden by the ninth article of 

 the agreement. 



The only reference in this agreement to the treatment of the Indians 

 is the following brief paragraph in article 8: Tiiat the commissioners 

 appointed ai'e to see "how all the Jurisdictions may carry it toward the 

 Indians, that they neither grow insolent nor be injured without due 

 satisfaction, lest war break in upon the confederates through miscar- 

 riages."- These references are given as furnishing some indication of 

 the theory of the colonists of Massachusetts in regard to the rights 

 and title of the natives, for it must be understood that this agreement 

 was in truth the expression of Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island being 

 refused admittance and Connecticut being virtually a silent factor. 



Another episode in which the question of primary title was brought 

 forward was that caused by the abrogation of the charter and the 

 course of Governor Andros. The history is too well known to need 

 repetition here. It is necessary only to say the theory accepted by 

 the Crown was that, in consequence of the abrogation of the charter, 

 no claim based on a grant from the Massachusetts Company or on a 

 purchase from the Indians was valid, and that no New England settler 

 had ever acquired a legal title to his lands. The real object of this 

 bold move appears to have been to force contributions from the people 

 by compelling them to pay for new grants and new confirmations of 

 their purchases. Indian deeds were declared to be " worth no more 

 than the scratch of a bear's paw." 



These items ai-e sufficient to give a general idea of the policy and 

 methods of dealing with the Indians in regard to their hinds, adopted 

 and practiced by the colonists of Massachusetts in the early days of 

 their history while under Puritan control. In closing this brief exam- 

 ination of the period of Massachusetts history alluded to, the decision 

 given by Doyle, who appears to be a fair and unbiased authority, may 

 be adopted if the words "New Englanders" are limited to Massachu- 



' Collections Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. v. 2«1 ser., p. 469. 

 2 Hubbard, General History, cbap. 52. 



