My recollection is that Coddington and four or five others were specifically banished, in a separate order from that banishing Ann Hutchinson and her followers. I think you are quite right, though, that many and perhaps most of the first settlers of Portsmouth removed for what we would call "political" or "economic" reasons as opposed to "religious" reasons. It's hard to separate those categories at that time and place, the only modern analogies to the Puritan theocracy of 1630s Boston I can think of would be something along the lines of the ayatollahs in Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan. The whole "Antinomian" business seems to me to be a Puritan pretext for forcing out the "bad apples" and at the same time sending a clear message to those who remained that they had better tow the lineor be willing to face a similar fate. There are certainly great dissimilarites between the circumstances of the settlement of Portsmouth and the settlement of Providence by Roger Williams, the former in large part may more resemble the settlement of Wethersfield, CT in 1636 by settlers from Watertown, MA, a group of "adventurers" moreso than true religious dissidents. In Plymouth Colony (I suspect in Massachusetts Bay as well, although I am not as familiar with their records) "banishment" was actually a fairly common punishment in the later 1600s for a variety of "offenses," including the purely economic offense of being without means of visible support. Typically the order would not take effect until the following spring, when if the banishee had not left he would be summoned to show cause why he should not be forcibly ejected and "carried fromtown to town" by the constable. Unless the poor soul could bring to court references who could vouch for his character and financial means, the order would be carried out and he would be escorted to the town line, and the process would repeat itself in the town he removed to.