Since landing on the shores of Massachusetts Bay in 1620, English colonists have had a unique relationship with the Native Americans in the area, one unlike other colonial interactions. Recognizing how British settlers reacted and adjusted to Native Americans is crucial to understanding interactions between the two groups. Legal and government documents provide an excellent framework for examining these interactions because these records are more representative of the general English population in New England, as opposed to letters and diaries, which only represent the opinions of their authors and allow us to generalize about the rest of the settlers. In examining these documents and interactions, a theoretical framework for interpreting and understanding colonial interactions can be developed.
British migrants’ interactions with Native Americans progressed through three stages: Approachment (1620-1675), Adjustment (1675-1700), and Advancement (1700-1730). The approachment stage was characterized by a period of reluctant interactions and little familiarity between both parties; the adjustment stage follows King Philip’s War, as English colonists adjusted to their new perceived “superiority” in New England while Native peoples attempted to maintain their territorial and political positions; the advancement stage was when English settlers encroached more and more upon Native rights and land ownership.
Historiography
Since Columbus landed on the shores of the “New World,” Europeans have been fascinated by the study of American Indians. Initial colonial reports describing their cultures and religions gave way to rocky initial interactions between the groups. As the United States was growing in the early nineteenth century, Americans believed that Indians must be “civilized,” robbed of their culture, and adhere to an anglo-american standard of living, such as gender-based division of labor. As romanticized by the “wild west,” Indians clung to their culture and the nation’s attention was grabbed by the fantastic tales of Geronimo. Historians in the early twentieth century sought to preserve Indian culture in their studies because they feared it would soon be lost forever. Starting in the 1970s and 1980s, historians shifted their study of Native Americans to colonial American history, but now seeking a Native perspective, rather than a European one.
This study joins others in seeking to overturn the “master narrative,” a phrase coined by Karen Kupperman, an understanding of colonial America that is centered around English colonists and places Native Americans and other Europeans at odds with British settlers. By looking at viewpoints beyond European ones and contesting the idea that the English’s ultimate survival on the American continent was inevitable, we fight this master narrative.
Colin Calloway also looks at government documents, focusing on three treaties of early America, the treaties of Fort Stanwix (1768), New Echota (1835), and Medicine Lodge (1867). He focuses on treaties because they were (and still are) central to diplomatic relations with Indians nations. Pen & Ink Witchcraft highlights the ways in which Native peoples were tricked, deceived, or cheated out of their property and rights. As we move into the advancement stage, earlier treaties will be examined with this in mind.
Approachment (1620-1675)
As Europeans colonized the “New World,” they approached Native Americans with preconceived notions of who they were, what their lives were like, and how they ought to be treated. Europeans sought to uphold their prejudices and biases, supporting their “dominance” and European perspectives. Reluctant interactions grew to gradual tensions as New Englanders pushed boundaries, both territorial and political.
The original charters of New England and Massachusetts reveal an inherent European bias and set the tone for the European-dictated interactions between British colonists and Native peoples. The Charter of New England (1620) establishes and lays out the power of a council who would govern the area. One of these powers is the ability to give out land “as they shall think fitt.” It also mentions one of their goals for colonization as “to advance the in largement of Christian religion” and “to replenish those deserts with Peoples governed by Lawes and Magistrates.” These goals clearly take a European mindset, assuming that Indians were people without a religion and government of their own. Europeans at the time of this charter, had already visited New England and had observed and interacted with Native Americans, but because they had not seen a courthouse and a governor or a church and its minister, decided that they had no government or religion.
A report about the state of New England in 1622, written by the Council of New England, mentioned their pursuit of the goal of Indian conversion. He describes Indian territory as “heathen parts” and call their gods “infernal spirits which have long kept those poor distressed creatures in bondage.” The Council, having been in New England for several years at that point, had clearly made nearly no effort to understand Native culture. They had no grasp of the importance spirituality carried in Native society. They approached Native peoples with closed minds, choosing to blindly believe that their “Christian” god was the only valid belief system and that this Christian belief system dictated the rights and worth of people groups.
The Charter of New England also mentions the providence of God in shrinking the population of Indians in the area the English were colonizing. It states that “within these late Yeares there hath by God’s Visitation reigned a wonderfull Plague, together with Slaugthers, and Murthers…in a manner to the utter Destruction, Devastation, and Depopulation of that whole Territorye.” The English clearly believed that it was their destiny to inhabit the area that would become New England. This belief is reflected in their interactions with Native people and in their continual encroachment of Native rights.
In the Massachusetts Bay Charter, written in 1629, refuses to recognize Native land ownership, again approaching the North American continent with Europeans standards. It states the latitudinal and longitudinal boundaries of Massachusetts and states that all territory therein belonged to that colony, “provided alwayes, that the saide Islandes, or any the Premisses…intended ad meant to be granted were not then actuallie possessed or inhabited, by any other Christian Prince or State.” By “Christian Prince or State,” they actually mean any European prince or state because any indigenous people would not be considered “Christian” and therefore their land ownership was void by European standards according to the charter. Indian land ownership was inherently different than European ownership because Indian ownership was technically not ownership at all. In their eyes, land was communal property and private property didn’t exist as it did in England. This fact just served to perpetuate the English’s idea that all land was up for grabs as long as it did not belong to a European nation.
As time went on, the English took Native lands, but with a facade of legality. Many land deeds exist, all written in English, with the marks of the sachem headmen (Native American leaders). Unfortunately, no minutes from the development of these deeds exist, and we have no record of how they were created. However, there is the strong probability of a language barrier. In Dutch colonies, there are cases of confusion in which Indian leaders say that the colonists said their land deed said one thing when in reality, the deed expanded Dutch land beyond the extent of which Indian leaders were aware. Clearly English leaders could have done the same thing as the Dutch. Even if they did not, the English traded Indian land for far less than it was worth. Having both their charter and land deeds to support them, the English would clearly have the upper hand should a legal battle ensue.
The English colonized New England with a very rudimentary understanding of Native culture. One explorer wrote in his report that “their wives are their slaves and doe all their worke. The men will doe nothing but kill Beasts, Fish, &c.” They believed this because of traditional Native gender roles. Normal Native division of labor necessitated that Native women farm as well as take care of normal household duties similar to European women. Native men hunted and conducted war and diplomacy. Because Europeans did not see Native men doing the farming, they assumed they were lazy and that the women were overworked and dominant.
In general, English relations with the Indians in New England was relatively peaceful during the early years of settlement. The first major skirmish came in 1636-8 with the Pequot War. This war started when a Pequot sachem was killed by the Dutch, and the Pequot in retaliation killed an Englishman who frequently visited and interacted with the Dutch. The English then reprimanded the Pequot, who took great offense because in their culture, the death of the Englishman canceled out the death of their sachem and made the two sides equal. The Pequots then raided a Connecticut town, killing several English and taking two girls captive. The English, with the help of the Mahega and Narragansetts (known enemies of the Pequot), attacked the Pequot fort at Mistick. They set the fort on fire and killed any Pequot who escaped the fire. John Mason, an English commander in the war, recorded the number of casualties: “six or seven Hundred, as some of themselves confessed. There were only seven taken Captive & about seven escaped.” The English lost two men and twenty were wounded.
The irony in this massacre is that the English were greatly offended when the two girls were taken captive by the Pequot, but did not hesitate to murder literally hundreds of innocent Pequot women and children. Mason’s account makes it clear that the Mohegans and Narragansetts did not want to attack the Pequot, and many of them deserted the mission. The English attributed their success to the fact that “God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven…Thus did the LORD judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies!” Mason also says that the “just judgement of God” caused 150 Pequots from another fort to also be at Mistick that night, thus also being slaughtered. The English went on to continue their slaughter of Pequots until they assumed that most of the tribe were dead.
The Pequot War therefore defined the English as a formidable force in New England, however it was not until after King Philip’s War that they began to more clearly adjust to this role. The approachment stage draws to a close with the dawn of King Philip’s War.
Adjustment (1675-1700)
After King Philip’s War, interactions between the English and Indians shifted to adjustment, from 1675 to 1700. This time is characterized by the English colonists adjusting to their newfound, perceived “superiority” and Native Americans adjusted to being on the defensive, protecting their territory and political autonomy.
The war was set off when Puritan courts overstepped their jurisdiction, and Native Americans stood up to this decision and demanded fairer treatment. Although tensions between the Puritans and the Wampanoags had been steadily increasing, these tensions came to a head with the death of John Sassamon. John Sassamon was a Christian Indian who straddled the worlds of the English and of the Natives. Following his death, three Wampanoags were tried, found guilty, and executed in English court. The Wampanoags then began openly preparing for war, of which there were previously only rumors of. Desperately trying to avoid war, the Governor of Massachusetts sought out Philip, sachem of the Wampanoags and asked that he lay down his arms; Philip in return refused to acknowledge that he was preparing for war. The governor spoke to other neighboring tribes’ leaders who too assured him that they were not preparing for war. In the midst of this, a mere two weeks after the execution of those found guilty in the murder of Sassamon, several Plymouth men were found dead outside the city limits, thus setting off war and a struggle for ultimate authority in New England. Although Native peoples had the upper hand in the beginning of the conflict, the sheer number of English eventually vanquished them.
Because the English were now the dominant power in New England following King Philip’s War, they tried to dictate the moves of not only the tribes on the losing side of King Philip’s War, but all Natives in the New England area, generalizing all Natives into one group. But this dominance would prove to be only one perceived by the English. Although they had power immediately following the war, the Native peoples of the region maintained their agency in the struggles for authority.
Immediately after the war, English reports clearly reflected their victory. Authors blamed the Indians for the conflict, ignoring the fact that it was the English who sparked the conflict by overstepping their court jurisdiction. This bias is similar to the one seen in descriptions of the Pequot War. A report sent to England and published in Boston for example states in its first sentence that “the Indians in New England have…disturbed the long and orderly Peace that hath been enjoyed by us.”
The English in New England were still wary of Indians, however. Seeing the violence that continued to the south in Maryland and Virginia, they were very aware that Indians would not be easily overtaken. Natives in the south would have surely heard about the slaughter of King Philip’s War by 1677, when a report arrived in New England that “the Indians in Virginia are as bold and rampant as ever…they have in 14 days killed 35 English” and that “at least 500 of His Majesty’s subjects have been murdered within twelve months.” Even if we give the English the benefit of the doubt and assume that these numbers are accurate, this report completely leaves out and ignores any potential causes for these English deaths, thus upholding the idea that the English are the victims in this conflict in Virginia as well. New York governor Edmund Andros upholds this as well, mentioning the “mischiefs done by strange Indians” and describing them as “rude and insolent.”
Even as time went on, the English maintained the position that they were simultaneously innocent victims of Indian raids and violence and that they were civilizing the Indians and keeping more violence from happening. An account which provides a history of the Iroquois Indians and their interactions with Europeans ends by stating that “in the New England war with the Indians, all those countries might have been destroyed had not New York retained an influence over those Indians as governor and trader.” Several issues arise here. The first is that the English take credit for creating peace in New England and keeping the conflict from being worse than it was. This sentence is how the report closes, as if the author just could not resist closing without giving them credit. This statement also asserts English authority over Indian nations. Describing New York as a trader with the Indians is likely the best way to describe their interactions: the connotation suggests that these groups were equals, operating on equal ground, both working towards a mutually beneficial trade. But describing New York as their governor takes a turn: it asserts authority and dominance over Native tribes, who were autonomous and not under English rule. It was this mistake, an overstepping of power, that started King Philip’s War in the first place.
Again in 1685, ten years after King Philip’s War, the English still continue to play the victims and maintain that the Indians destroyed the peace that was established. In a proposition sent to members of the Five Nations, the English seek to “renew the Covenant Chain you [Indians] had so frequently broken” and reminding them that that had “readily submitted” to the Covenant Chain, causing “Hatchetts to be buried, that all Injuries might be forever forgotten and buried in the pit of oblivion.” This terminology seems to continue to assert English authority over Indian nations. The Covenant Chain refers to the alliance between the English and the Five Nations based on a mutually beneficial trade network. By suggesting that the Indians were solely at fault for breaking this alliance which they had submitted to, the English continue their pattern of playing the victim and upholding their authority. They go on to say that the Five Nations “have again confirmed your Covenant Chain, & planting the Tree of Peace” and that the English “hope they will be more carefull to keep it bright and clear, fresh and green always united, always florishing.” The English again place the blame for conflicts solely on the shoulders of the Indians. The continuation of conflicts led the English in 1696 to prohibit their colonists from trading with the Indians, a rule the settlers disobeyed. Clearly the English continued to assert authority over the Indians. If they couldn’t control the Indians directly, they would try to control their trade networks.
During this adjustment period, the English colonists perceived themselves as an authority in New England following their victory in King Philip’s War. Although Native peoples, of course, did not see them in this light, that did not deter the English from attempting to assert authority. During this period the English also played the innocent victim and blamed the Indians for any form of conflict, ignoring their roles in these skirmishes.
Advancement (1700-1730)
Following the adjustment period, the English advanced their cause with the help of Indian nations, often at the cost of the autonomy and rights of these nations. In the advancement phase, the English struck a paradox of seemingly supporting Native independence, while using their support and alliances to further English goals.
In 1715, New York Governor Hunter wrote to the Council of Trade and Plantations. He states therein that he planned to enlist the help of the Iroquois Five NAtions to retaliate against other Native nations who had attacked English in the Carolinas. He says that he “sent messengers to our Five Indian Nations to perswade them to make warr upon these who have lately attacked Carolina.” The use of “our” shows possession of the Five Nations in the eyes of the English and shows the use of Indians as pawns to help the English, even outside of New England.
Later that same year, the Council expressed the importance that their Indian allies played in the European struggle for power in America. The Council stressed that the Indians “are the most warlike people on that Continent” and that because of this “they are capable…of turning the European interest in those parts to which side soever they incline.” Because Indian involvement was so crucial to English power, the Council suggested sending gifts to the Five Nations to ensure their alliance. The Council also reported that the French try to “debauch the said Indians, and to draw them off from the interest of the Crown of Great Britain.” Clearly the English were not the only Europeans who recognized the importance of Indian allies. The paradox here is that the Europeans respect the Indians and their power and autonomy, but still see them as pawns to control in order to establish control of New England and New Canada.
Governor Hunter wanted to ensure that the Indians knew that they were important to the English Empire, in contrast to the French. He expressed that the English “utterly abhor and detest that suggestion…or reducing the Indians by force and possessing their lands,” saying that they owed “a great measure of our present security” to the “steadfastness of those Indians” in their last war with France. It is noteworthy that the English “detest” the idea that they would want to kill Indians or dispossess them of their land when it benefits them to have the Indians on their side. But when it serves the English, they do not hesitate to slaughter Indians or to take their land, as we have seen earlier in the Pequot War and King Philip’s War, for example.
But although the British relied upon their Indian allies, that doesn’t mean that they trusted them. In 1718 the Commission for Indian Affairs instructed Lawrence Sawseu to report the activities of any meetings of the Five Nations to the Commission. They told him to “doe your utmost indeavors to be present and to take an exact account of their proceedings and consultations and to make all the private inquiry possible into their transaction and resolutions.” The Commission said that he should report this activity from time to time and they would pass along any relevant information. The British only thought of the Native people as autonomous when it benefitted them. If the English needed the Iroquois to attack Indians in the Carolinas, they sent gifts to persuade them. If the English were wary of Iroquois decisions, they sent spies to their meetings to report on their resolutions.
These patterns continued into the 1720s when William Burnet became governor of New England. In 1723 the Council of Trade and Plantations mentions that “nothing can make the British intrest in America more formidable to their neighbors than a perfect union among themselves.” In this case, the British include the Indians in this statement because the English “endeavour to convince the Indians…that they have but one King to obey and one common intrest to pursue.” In this instance, the British recognized Native autonomy and that they did have a choice in who to side with, but the British also decided that they were the best choice for the Indians. A year later, the Council upheld this position by again telling the governor that “you will continue to pursue the proper methods to prevent their being seduced from their dependence on the Crown of Great Britain.” In this case however, the Council asserts that the Indians were dependent upon the English, which was not entirely true. At this point, Native populations had developed a dependency upon European goods, however they could have just as easily traded for these goods with the French. In a later letter from Burnet to the Council, he reminded them that the Indians “assert their independency and will go and trade with those that can supply them cheapest,” reassuring the Council that the cheapest goods “will always be at Albany.” Burnet clearly recognized Indian autonomy and understood that Native people would choose to join whoever benefitted them.
Even though they recognized Native autonomy, however self-serving, the English still refused to acknowledge any role they had in the past in stirring up conflict. In an address to the King, the Lieutenant Governor, Council, and representatives of Massachusetts Bay brought up “many unjust and insufferable abuses, depredations, and insults committed by the Indians.” The colonists assert that the Indians treat their captives as “slaves rather than Christians” and demand “exhorbitant” prices for their return. They also blamed the French, who “instigated and excited” the Indians. The English still continued to ignore any part they might have played in any disagreements between the groups. This also shows the clear rivalry between the French and the English, with the English using the French as scapegoats for the Indians’ actions.
As the eighteenth century developed, so did the English colonists’ ability to advance upon Native rights and autonomy. Although the English recognized the Native peoples’ rights to make decisions, they also manipulated that decision making to advance their own goals.
By tracing the change in interactions between English colonists and Native peoples, three phases of interactions emerge. First, the English approach Natives with European standards, biases, and perspectives, expecting the Indians to adhere to them. Next, the English adjust to their perceived dominance in New England by asserting authority over Natives. Finally, the English colonists advance their agenda by encroaching upon Indian rights and using them as pawns in their power struggle. These shifts and changes dictate and define the rest of the colonial period by influencing English attitudes toward Native peoples.
These stages, approachment, adjustment, and advancement, could also perhaps be used to examine interactions in other North American colonies. Although their initial interactions were not as rocky as their New England counterparts, colonists in Virginia for example, also develop a sense of superiority and use Native peoples to advance their agendas.
In the end, approachment, adjustment, and advancement concisely define interactions between English settlers and Native Americans in New England. These phases trace changes during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and develop a framework for understanding and articulating diplomacy and disagreement and politics and peace in New England.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources:
A brief and true narration of the late wars risen in New-England, 1675. Publication. From Gale Cengage Learning, Sabin Americana (accessed November 19, 2017).
Charter of Massachusetts Bay: 1629. Government Document. From Yale Law School. The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy (accessed December 1, 2017).
Charter of New England: 1620. Government Document. From Yale Law School. The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy (accessed December 1, 2017).
Indian Land Deeds (1639-1787), Legal Documents. From Adam Matthews Digital, American Indian Histories and Cultures (accessed November 19, 2017).
Outline of History of Iroquois Relations with English and French, 1682. Publication. From Gale Primary Source Media. Indigenous Peoples: North America (accessed November 19, 2017).
Propositions made to the Onondagas, Oneidas, Cayugas, and Senecas, 1685, Proposition. From Adam Matthews Digital, American History, 1493-1945 (accessed November 19, 2017).
Andros, Edmund. Gov. Edmund Andros to William Blathwayt, September 16, 1678. Letter. From Gale Primary Source Media. Indigenous Peoples: North America (accessed November 19, 2017).
Burnet, William. Gov Burnet to Council of Trade and Plantations, Aug 9, 1724. Letter. From Gale Primary Source Media. Indigenous Peoples: North America (accessed December 1, 2017).
Commissioners of Indian Affairs. Commissioners of Indian Affairs to Lawrence Sawseu, March 27, 1715. Letter. From Gale Primary Source Media. Indigenous Peoples: North America (accessed December 1, 2017).
Council for New England, A briefe relation of the discovery and plantation of New England, 1622. Publication. From Gale Cengage Learning, Sabin Americana (accessed November 19, 2017).
Council of Trade and Plantations. Council of Trade and Plantations to Gov Burnet, July 9, 1723. Letter. From Gale Primary Source Media. Indigenous Peoples: North America (accessed December 1, 2017);
——————-. Council of Trade and Plantations to Gov Burnet, June 17, 1724. Letter. From Gale Primary Source Media. Indigenous Peoples: North America (accessed December 1, 2017);
——————-. Council of Trade and Plantations to Secretary Stanhope, Nov 18, 1715. Letter. From Gale Primary Source Media. Indigenous Peoples: North America (accessed December 1, 2017).
Court of Mayor and Aldermen. Prohibition of fur trading with Indians, June 16, 1696. Proclamation. From Adam Matthews Digital, American History, 1493-1945 (accessed November 19, 2017).
Hunter, Robert. Gov. Hunter to Council of Trade and Plantations, July 25, 1715. Letter. From Gale Primary Source Media. Indigenous Peoples: North America (accessed December 1, 2017).
——————-. Gov Hunter to Mr Popple, Nov 18, 1715. Letter. From Gale Primary Source Media. Indigenous Peoples: North America (accessed December 1, 2017).
Levett, Christopher. A voyage into New England begun in 1623 and ended in 1624. Publication. From Gale Cengage Learning, Sabin Americana (accessed November 19, 2017), 20.
Mason, John. A brief history of the Pequot War: especially of the memorable taking of their fort at Mistick in Connecticut in 1637. Publication. From University of Michigan, Evan Early American Imprint Collection (accessed December 1, 2017).
Notley, Thomas. Gov Thomas Notley, Jan 22, 1677. Letter. From Gale Primary Source Media. Indigenous Peoples: North America (accessed November 19, 2017).
Secondary Sources:
Calloway, Colin G. Pen and Ink Witchcraft : Treaties and Treaty Making in American Indian History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Kupperman, Karen Ordahl. “American, African, and European Polities Compared,” in Major Problems in American Colonial History, ed. Karen Ordahl Kupperman (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000), 2-24.
Pulsipher, Jenny Hale. Subjects Unto the Same King: Indians, English, and the Contest for Authority in Colonial New England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.
MaryBeth Ames 