Lehigh Preserve Institutional Repository Rhode Island: Tradition of independence, 1636- 1776. Gialanella, James Vincent 1975 Find more at https://preserve.lib.lehigh.edu/ This document is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RHODE ISLAND: TRADITION OF INDEPENDENCE, 1636-1776 by James Vincent Gialanella, Jr. A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Committee of Lehigh University in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts in History Lehigh University 1976 ProQuest Number: EP76062 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest EP76062 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 This thesis is accepted and approved in partial fulfill- ment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. —h .date) (Professor in Charge) (Chairman of Department) ii CONTENTS Abstract, * 1 Introduction 3 Chapter I 9 Rhode Island: Challenge To Puritan Theocracy Chapter II kZ Rhode Island: Struggle For Territorial Integrity Chapter III 9k Rhode Island: Roots of Independence To Fruits of Opposition to Britain Conclusion 175 Bibliography 185 Vita 201 iii ABSTRACT As America enters its bicentennial celebration, American historians should be wary of the impulse to return to "nostalgic" or "heroic history" and a celebration of the American Revolution rather than an attempt to explain or understand it. This temptation may be averted if historians better appreciate the "uniqueness" of each colony's movement toward in- dependence and avoid interpreting it simply as a national event. As a case study, Rhode Island's "unique combination of characteristics' produced a response to the re-assertion of British authority which was "peculiar" to that colony. Specifically, Rhode Island's early history displayed a continual struggle by that colony for political and religious independence against its more powerful Puritan neighbors, who viewed the colony's religious deviations and political instability as a direct threat to the spirituality of their settlements, thus a threat to the very matrix of Puritan society. In addition to the Puritan apprehension of the influence of a colony of heretics to their theocracy, they were jealous and suspicious of the close relationship between the Rhode Is- landers and the powerful Narragansett Indians. Rhode Island's attempts to retain its sovereignty were impeded by the vague and conflicting colonial boundaries and charters of New England. The indecisiveness of the king and his royal commissions only served to accentuate the controversies. Another factor in Rhode Island's early history is the rabid internal factionalism which remained a major element in its political life right through to the Revolution. The early feuding between William Arnold, Samuel Gorton and Roger Williams, the aversion of the authoritarian William Coddington toward the liberalism of Providence, the assemblymen -1- who "preferred the paternalism of Connecticut to the individualism of Rhode Island, the schemes of William Harris and others of the "proprie- tary party" of Providence to monopolize the original Providence purchase, and the Quaker sentiment which acquiesced to pro-Connecticut pressure to avoid "strife and retaliation" all increased Rhode Island's vulnerability to the encroachments of its neighbors. Rhode Island's legacy of suspicion of external power continued into the eighteenth century. The colony resisted the admiralty jurisdiction of Boston and refused to be commanded by officers of other colonies during the inter-colonial wars. Because of its relative independence from British authority as a corporate colony, its dependence on the "triangular trade," and its past experience with encroachments by external powers, Rhode Islanders reacted more vigorously to the strict enforcement of the acts of trade and revenue and the reorganization of the admiralty courts in America. The factions within the colony during the 1760s and the 1770s demonstrate this point; all of them staunchly defended their chartered government which safeguarded their political patronage. My study of Rhode Island's early history has prompted some general thoughts concerning the American Revolution. First, I have a stronger feeling of inevitability concerning the movement toward Independence. Second, the miscalculations by the British regarding the unlikelihood of colonial unity is better appreciated. Third, since we live in a time of rapid change, experiencing a kind of "future shock," I sincerely hope historians will not allow their commemoration of the events to suppress their comprehension of the American Revolution's origin and meaning. -2- INTRODUCTION "The political development of each British American colony was molded by a number of local conditions which varied from colony to colony—owing to the dif- ferent types of government; contrasting geographical features which resulted in economic and sectional differences; an assortment of religions*..diverse customs and traditions; and a host of other fact- ors. Rhode Island exhibited a unique combination of characteristics which pro- duced the peculiar struggle described here, and an understanding of the peculiar struggle helps explain why Rhode Island left the Empire in 1776." David S. Lovejoy in his Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution, 1760-1776. The American Revolution, like all cataclysmic events of history, has fostered a variety of interpretations concerning its causes. The bicentennial celebration of the American Revolution will no douht add to the plethora of viewpoints on the subject. Initially, historians defined the Revolution intesnasotiftfcheyyonBg, innocent, proud and growing republic. These "romantic or herioc" histo- rians celebrated the Revolution with every stroke of their pens. Still influenced by the early New England chroniclers of our colonial period, George Bancroft saw "the footsteps of Providential Intelligence every- where" in the conflict between the enlightened, egalitarian and vision- ary Americans and the oppressive, short-sighted British. Noble, humani- tarian ideals moved the Americans. "They were rushing toward revolution... they were possessed by the truth, that man holds inhecent and indefeasible -3- right8...the contest involved the introduction into political life of ideas which had long been hovering in the atmosphere of humanity." Despite the "scientific" approach of later historians of the nineteenth century, and despite their diminution of the role of divine providence in bringing about the American Revolution, their "germ theory of poli- tics," which praised the superior genius of Anglo-Saxon thought as expressed by Revolutionary leaders, still identified the Americans with enlightened ideals and constitutional principles. Imperial historians began to question this view of the farsighted, egalitarian Americans fighting for freedom from the tyrannical British. They asserted that there were many adequate precedents for the Sugar Act of 1764 and for naval participation in the repression of contraband trade. Earlier historians had failed to look at the British Empire as a whole. The imperial historians pointed to the physical, social and political obstacles which naturally caused the colonies to "repel restraint" and made administration of the colonies an "incessant struggle," especially after the French and Indian War. They also probed the problems of states- manship, placemanship and bureaureracy in London. Previous historians had seen Britain's actions as "usurpations" because the actions of the mother country were always "taken out of their historical setting." Lawrence H. Gipson emphasized the natural, unavoidable strain in relations which resulted from the French and Indian War or, as he called it, "the Great War for the Empire." After that conflict, the divergent needs of George Bancroft, "A Milestone of Progress," in Jack P. Greene, ed., The Ambiguity of the American Revolution (N. Y., 1968), pp. 48- 61. Perhaps the extreme romantic historian was Mason Locke Weems, or "Parson Weems," who wrote spurious biographies of George Washington and other Revolutionary leaders. -4- Britain and the colonies which existed prior to the war were magnified, and the preoccupation in defining their economic and political relation- ship became more acute. In the beginning of the twentieth century, the Progressive influ- ence affected many historians and their ideas concerning the roots of American independence. Self-interest, shaped by social and economic forces, replaced the focus on Revolutionary ideals and constitutional principles. In the 1920s and 1930s, this influence even led to the fashionable trend of "debunking," as many historians portrayed Revolu- tionary leaders as mere "puppets of economic and social forces." His- torians also began to stress conflict, not between England and the colo- nies, but within the colonies themselves! "The American Revolution was