First Seal of Massachusetts Bay Colony

“COME OVER AND HELP US” * A Brief Examination of Anglo-American Views of the First Nations

Danielle Mead Skjelver University of Maryland University College

*First Seal of Massachusetts Bay Colony, ca. 1629, in Massachusetts State

Archives , “The History of the Arms and Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” <http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/presea/sealhis.htm> (accessed 14 October, 2008).

From the era of Puritan New England through the periods of Washington,

Jefferson, and Jackson, Anglo-American views of Native Americans changed. Puritan

Massachusetts was an attempt at theocracy, thus Puritans viewed the First Nations they

encountered through the lens of people striving to build the Biblical City on a Hill. By the

time of Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson, Anglo-Americans viewed the First Nations

differently. Throughout these periods, condescension was a constant; the belief that

Anglo-Americans were superior went without saying. Puritans viewed Indians both as

people who needed the saving message of the Gospel and as instruments of the God’s

wrath while late colonial and post-Revolutionary Americans held views of Indians

increasingly similar to Nazi views of Jews, id est as a pestilence, something of which to

be rid.

Condescension to and about Native Americans was par for the course in Anglo-

American views of Indians for most of American history. Puritans used the word ‘savage’

interchangeably with ‘Indian’ or ‘native,’ and they frequently used ‘heathen’ especially in

times of danger, times that required action against Native Americans.1 Words like

‘heathen’ and ‘savage’ dehumanize, and over time while they began be supplanted by the

term ‘Indian,’ the psychological connection of ‘heathen’ and ‘savage’ with ‘Indian’ did

not disappear. This connection aided white Americans by justifying the means by which

they rid themselves of the Indian nuisance. One people can not sweep another away

without some feeling of superiority. Anglo-American condescension began among the

Puritans with the view that the Native Americans needed saving from their religious

views and their lifestyles.

2

While Puritans in no way came to the New World intending to sweep away its

existing inhabitants, Puritan views of Native Americans set the tone for future

generations, and clearly some Puritans were grateful when Indians were not nearby.

Speaking presumably of the spirit of death as a minister, the Puritan Thomas Morton was

grateful for, “the wondrous wisedome and love of God, [which] is shewne by sending to

the place his minister, to sweet away by heapes the Salvages...”2 Puritans felt that they

were ordained by God to improve the land and to create a model theocracy. In some

respects, this was the genesis of Manifest Destiny, for in later generations Indians

unwilling to give up their Indian-ness and their land would have to go.

Puritans having come to the New World for religious reasons were entirely

religion-centered. Religion affected their views of everything including the First Nations

they encountered.3 Viewing these peoples as heathen savages, Puritans’ foremost

assumption was that the First Nations needed evangelization. This was based on the

belief that the First Nations were going to hell without embracing the Christian Gospel

precisely as the Puritans ordained. Embracing this particular Gospel included leaving

behind their Indian-ness entire. This meant adjusting to new diet, new lodging, new

hairstyle, new clothing, and removing themselves from their supposedly heathen family

to live in Praying Indian communities.4

Believing themselves to be God’s people, the Puritans viewed their enemies as

God’s enemies. In the case of the Native American, these enemies were also heathen. In

recounting his experience at the 1637 massacre of between six and seven hundred

women, children, and men at the Pequot Fort, Captain John Mason praised God for

destroying His enemies, “But God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the

3

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.”5 There were many such accounts

indicating the perception that it was God who had won the day for them and not military

prowess, strategy, terrain, superior weaponry, timing, or the willingness of Europeans to

slaughter hundreds rather than a score or a few dozen.

Because God was always the winner, when Indians won, they were viewed as the

instruments of God. This was a problem because it rendered irrelevant Indians’ motives

for warring against their white neighbors.6 The history of Reverend John Williams is

clear on this point. Reverend Williams had called for repentance for whatever sins real or

imagined he perceived to be among his flock in Deerfield, but he believed that they did

not turn away from their misdeeds. The famous and terrible Deerfield Raid of 1704 was

the result of this inadequate response to Williams’ call to repentance, “The history I am

going to write proves, that days of fasting and prayer, without reformation, will not avail

to turn away the anger of God from a professing people...”7 While the Deerfield Raid had

more to do with Anglo-French conflict in Europe than with Anglo-Native relations in

New England, Williams believed that any action against his flock came solely from

God’s disapproval.

The dismissal of Native American motives as superfluous in the face of the

perceived real root on the problem (English misbehavior displeasing to God) was

arrogant in that it meant that the whole world centered on how pleased or displeased God

was with the English. This was terribly counterproductive for peace. Of King Philip’s

War, Daniel Gookin, advocate and administrator for the Christian Indians observed:

To make a rod of the barbarous heathen to chastise and punishment the English for their sins. The Lord had, as our faithful minister often declared, applied more

4

gentle chastisements (gradually) to his New England people; but those proving in great measure ineffectual to produce effectual humiliation and reformation, hence the righteous and holy Lord is necessitated to draw forth this smarting rod of the vile and brutish heathen, who indeed have bee a very scourge unto New England, especially unto the Jurisdiction of Massachusetts.8 Gookin felt that the unsaved Indian was the living example of what mankind was

like without the light of the Gospel, “Here we may see, as in a mirror, or looking glass,

the woful, miserable, and deplorable estate, that sin hat reduced mankind unto

naturally.”9 Native Americans did not take kindly to this, and while King Philip’s War

was fought over myriad questions and grievances -- the sovereignty of First Nations, the

double standard with which Puritans treated New England Indians, the grievances Native

Americans had about wandering cattle and hogs that trampled Indian crops, the

grievances about settlers not maintaining the fences they were supposed to build to

prevent these disturbances, the grievances about hunters encroaching on Indian lands, and

the death of King Philip’s brother while in the company of the English – it was in no

small measure a religious war.

Figure 1. First Seal of Massachusetts Bay Colony10

5

The Native American in the image above is depicted as saying, “Come over and

help us.” How insulting this must have been. While there is no way of knowing how

many Native Americans knew about this seal, the fact remained that the very seal of the

colony bore the image of a Native American crying out for assistance. It is the height of

arrogance to walk into another’s land and assume that relatively happy people living lives

thitherto largely stable need unsought help. It implies that their lifestyle is inferior, but for

Puritans, the inferiority was more than Native American lifestyle, which Puritans

abhorred. This fictional request for help was all about conversion to Christianity.11

Naturally Indians resented Puritan evangelization.12 For conversion to Christianity

among Puritans was not like conversion among the French Catholics who came to live

among the Indians and for the most part left Indian customs unaddressed.13 Puritans

insisted that Indians give up their Indian-ness. As important as this drawing away of

Indians from their own people was, it was also important that Puritans dismissed Indian

aggression as nothing more than God’s correction. Because they viewed Indian action as

God’s correction, Puritans gave too little heed to Indians’ valid complaints. In The Name

of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity, Jill Lepore’s cutting

edge examination of Anglo-Indian relations in King Philip’s War, is a chapter entitled

“Where is Your O God?”. Within this chapter, Lepore addresses the clash of Puritanism

with native faith. In her relation of a Puritan witness recounting the killing of his

countryman, Lepore shows that many among the First Nations responded to Puritan

evangelization with disgust. According to the Puritan witness, before the Indian slew the

victim, he said, “Come Lord Jesus, save this poor Englishman if thou canst, whom I am

now about to Kill.”14 This was not an isolated event, for Indians killed Puritans on the

6

Sabbath and on their way to congregational worship, choosing the time and place

purposefully. In addition, attacking Indians were wont to say, “Where is your O God?”15

In raids, Native Americans scattered pages of Bibles, and Lepore describes a particularly

visual demonstration of contempt for Christianity:

Algonquian attacks on Christianity could be symbolic as well as verbal. When Goodman Wright “had a strange Confidence, or rather Conceit, that whilst he held his Bible in his Hand, he looked upon himself as secure from all kinde of Violence,” the Indians who killed him “deriding his groundless Apprehension, or Folly therein, rippe[d] him open and put his Bible in his Belly.”16

The message was clear but not received, for Puritans saw these blasphemous

instances as further proof that Native Americans were mindless savages whose motives

were of little consequence. They were rods of chastisement as had been heathens of the

Old Testament. This is not to imply that other Englishmen of this era perceived Indians as

Puritans did, for Quakers did not necessarily hold the same view of Indians.17 To be sure,

this paper tells but one small slice of the story of Anglo-American relations. There were

indeed cool heads; there were those who spoke out against this view of Indians as little

more than instruments of God’s wrath, but they were few and far between among

Puritans.

By the 1750s, Anglo-American views of Indians were moving closer to the views

that would be held by Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson. Across the colonial frontier

Indians had now become a hindrance to American expansion.18 At the same time, they

were courted as allies, for their assistance or at least their assistance via neutrality was

critical to American success in military conflict with European powers. In the July 13,

1775 Speech to the Six Nations, representatives of the new breakaway confederacy of

American states laid their case before the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy. Using

7

language with which these nations identified, terms such as ‘one blood,’ ‘one people,’

‘brothers,’ and illustrations comparable to the Indian family system, American

representatives attempted to win the Iroquois nations to neutrality. Portraying the

impending war between Britain and America as a private family issue, the delegates

entreated the Indians to remain aloof from the matter. The delegates also appealed to the

union of these nations, that they not threaten it by choosing one side or the other.19

In this period, Anglo-Americans had moved away from much of the language of

God used by their Puritan forebears. As America was not a theocracy like Massachusetts,

Indians were no longer automatically God’s enemies or instruments of God’s wrath. Now

Anglo-Americans began to view them as beast-like and in the way of expansion. During

the Revolution, American troops treated Indians precisely as they would have treated

animals. Barbara Alice Mann illustrates this in her work, George Washington’s War on

Native America. Speaking of men under Continental Army Major General Sullivan’s

command during the Revolution:

...the natives typically risked their lives to whisk their casualties off the battlefields, and for good reason. It was well known to them that, earlier in the Revolution, the Shawnee Chief, Colesqua –who was actually with the Americans in Fort Randolph as their ally at the time—had been skinned alive by soldiers venting their spleen at having lost an officer, whom Colesqua had warned away from the danger that killed him. The Iroquois did not expect better treatment as declared enemies of the Americans, nor did they receive it.....It was a gruesome custom for the more hardened backwoodsmen to flay Natives, sometimes alive, taking off their skins from the hips to the ankles and tanning the “hides” to make their “leatherstockings” (chaps). This was not something invented by Sullivan’s troops but was already a common practice by the time of the Revolutionary War. Lieutenant William Barton recorded in his journal the day after Newtown that at “the request of Maj. [Daniel] Piatt,” he had “sent out a small party to look for some of the dead Indians,” but that the squad “returned without finding them.” Going out again around noon, they finally came across their prize and “skinned two of them from their hips down for boot legs; one pair for the Major and the other for myself.” Barton’s was not the only skinning party out. Lieutenant

8

Rudolphus Hovenburgh also dispatched a squad, noting that of the nineteen, it found dead on the ground, “Sm. Skn. by our S. Fr. Bts.” that is, “some skinned by our soldiers for boots.” (Luckily, Sergeant Thomas Roberts, with the Fifth New Jersey Regiment under Captain John Burrowes, was a shoemaker by trade.)20 It must be understood that skinning was not a foreign practice to the First Nations

who skinned and dismembered living and dead enemies and were quite inventive in

torturing their victims.21 While Indians did not view their fellow men as less than human

even in their employment of grisly tactics, Europeans were beginning to view Indians as

subhuman, not at all unlike the Nazi view of Untermenschen. The Anglo-American

adoption of skinning solidified the view of Indians as animals. Language and action fed

on one other.

After the Revolution, genocide began to enter the thoughts of those responsible for

keeping Americans safe. David E. Stannard’s book American Holocaust illustrates the

addition of genocidal language into the lexicon of American protectors:

America’s revered founding fathers were themselves activists in the anti-Indian genocide. George Washington, in 1779, instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack the Iroquois and “lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed,” urging the general not to “listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected.” Sullivan did as instructed, he reported back, “destroy[ing] everything that contributes to their support” and turning “the whole of that beautiful region,” wrote one early account, “from the character of a garden to a scene of drear and sickening desolation.” The Indians, this writer said, “were hunted like wild beasts” in a “war of extermination,”

something Washington approved of since, as he was to say in 1783, the Indians, after all, were little different from wolves, “both being beasts of prey, tho’ they differ in shape.” 22

Washington hid this view of Indians as “beasts of prey” when necessary. In his

1789 Message to the Senate, Washington treated the First Nations as sovereign nations in

that he held them to their treaties as he would have held any European nation to its

treaties. Indians however were held to treaties at the moment of signing, while the new

9

United States was not bound to uphold treaties until they had been later ratified.23 In

practice, of course, the United States had a poor track record of honoring treaties with

Native Americans, whether those treaties were ratified or not. Clearly, however polished

and chivalrous Washington was in front of the right audience, he took his role as

protector seriously. He also took his description of Indians as animals seriously. Stannard

illustrates the power of language, for in turning Native Americans into animals, language

gave license to hunt, kill, and exterminate as one would any dangerous non-human

creature:

And since the Indians were mere beasts, it followed that there was no cause for moral outrage when it was learned that, among other atrocities, the victorious troops had amused themselves by skinning the bodies of some Indians “from the legs downward, to make boot tops or leggings.” for their part, the surviving Indians alter referred to Washington by the nickname “Town Destroyer,” for it was under his direct orders that at least 28 out of 30 Seneca towns from lake Erie to the Mohawk River had been totally obliterated in a period of less than five years, as had all the towns and villages of the Mohawk, the Onondaga, and the Cayuge. As one of the Iroquois told Washington to his face in 1792: “to this day, when that name is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of their mothers.”24

Having displayed utter contempt for Indians, the United States made the Treaty of

the Six Nations with the Iroquois in 1794. Far different from the language of men

commanding subordinates in the annihilation of “all” Mohawk, Onondaga, and Cayuga

villages, the language of the treaty addressed the Iroquois with the respect due to

sovereign nations. Yet there was the ubiquitous condescension as the treaty outlined

stated American intention toward and expectation of the nations of the Iroquois

Confederacy. Boundaries were laid out as were American expectations of Indian behavior

and settlers’ behavior. The United States spelled out its own rights and the rights of the

Iroquois as nations and as individual people. The treaty declared American rights to

10

travel through Iroquois waterways and territory and an obligation to dispense an annuity

to the Iroquois. In sum, it treated tribal nations as nations and stated that neither Indian

nations nor the United States should not interfere with one another.25 Yet it was

inevitable that only the misbehavior of Indians would be punished while the

transgressions of settlers in the form of encroachment into Indian territory by hunting or

settlement, would go unpunished.

Growing tired of this duplicity, which was experienced by Native Americans of

most if not all nations, Native Americans attacked white settlements from time to time. In

1807, Thomas Jefferson shared with his Secretary of War “if ever we are constrained to

lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down til that tribe is exterminated, or

driven beyond the Mississippi....in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of

them.”26 In the following, Thomas Jefferson overstated his positive attempts toward the

First Nations, but his words illustrate that he did not see Indians with the same lens as

Washington:

You know, my friend, the benevolent plan we were pursuing here for the happiness of the aboriginal inhabitants in our vicinities. We spared nothing to keep them at peace with one another. To teach them agriculture and the rudiments of the most necessary arts, and to encourage industry by establishing among them separate property. In this way they would have been enabled to subsist and multiply on a moderate scale of landed possession. They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us."27 Washington’s attitude toward Native Americans follows logically from his view of

Indians as wolf-like. Jefferson’s attitude however is more representative of how he might

have viewed equals, or how he might have viewed Europeans. This makes his willingness

to exterminate surprising. Would he have exterminated the French? While Jefferson

admired the “noble Indian,” and above seems to feel almost that they had been indeed

created equal with the white man, their actions resulting from cooperation with the

11

British in the War or 1812 had dashed these hopes, assuming he ever truly had them as

fully as he outlined above.28 For when Indians did what white people did, namely kill

women and children, these Indian actions “will oblige us now to pursue them to

extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach.”29 Jefferson concluded that

the First Nations would be themselves responsible for “the confirmed brutalization, if not

the extermination of this race in America."30 One is left to wonder if Jefferson ever did

view Native Americans as equals, and that if perhaps the French or Spanish had been as

difficult to control, he might have felt it justifiable to exterminate his fellow Europeans.

This does not seem plausible however. It seems rather that the view of Indians as at least

partly bestial was never far from even the most enlightened of minds in this period.

This view had become standard by Andrew Jackson’s day. While perhaps not

standard among all Americans, among the men who protected Americans and who made

expansion viable, Indians were often viewed as animal-like if not indeed animal. Bruce

Johansen’s The Native Peoples of North America addresses the treatment of Native

Americans by white Americans. In a section entitled, The Road to the Trails of Tears,

Bruce Johansen explores more than one painful trail Indians were forced to take, and he

explores the root of the thinking that made these trails possible. “Jackson, who as a

general told his troops to root out Indians from their ‘dens’ and kill Indian women and

their ‘whelps’”31 The language of Jackson, who was among the fiercest of Indian fighters,

or perhaps ‘Indian butchers’ might be a better choice of words, illustrates the migration

of views from Native Americans as people living in darkness to people as animals.

From the Puritan era through the era of Jackson, there was a progression of

attitudes from condescending attempts to lead ‘savages’ out of the darkness, mingled

with a view of Native Americans as mere instruments in the chastising hand of God, to a

12

view of Native Americans as beast-like people to be swept away, and even to dangerous

animals to be exterminated like wolves. This progression toward a view of Indians as

animals led to the attitudes of men in the United States Army who could commit

inconceivable atrocities at Sandcreek32 The language of Washington, Jefferson, and

Jackson describing Native Americans as wolf-like, while not spoken publicly, shaped the

thinking and behavior of the men behind the scenes and ultimately the men who gave and

followed orders. Ultimately, powerful Americans’ views of Native Americans as animals

may not have led directly to the so-called American Holocaust, but such views certainly

enabled genocide.

1Jill Lepore, The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity (New York: Vintage, 1998), 3-68.

2Martin Louis Sears. “The Puritan and His Indian Ward.” American Journal of Sociology, 22, no. 1 (July, 1916), 86. <http://www.jstor.org/pss/2763930> (accessed 15, September, 2008).

3Paul S. Boyer, Clifford E. Clark Jr., Joseph F. Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and Nancy Woloch, The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People: Vol. I: To 1877, 6th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008), 72,73.

4Lepore, The Name of War, 7, 32.

5John Mason, in Alfred A. Cave, The Pequot War (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996), 151.

6Lepore, The Name of War, 119.

7John Williams, The Redeemed Captive Returning to Zion. (1707; repr., Bedford, MA: Applewood Books, 1987), 1.

8Daniel Gookin, An Historical Account of the Doing and Sufferings of the Christian Indians in New England, in the Years 1675, 1676, 1677 (ca. 1677; repr., North Stratford, NH: Ayer Company Publishers, 2002), 439.

13

9Daniel Gookin, in Jill Lepore, The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity (New York: Vintage, 1998), 6.

10First Seal of Massachusetts Bay Colony.

11John Demos, The Unredeemed Captive: A Family Story from Early America (New York: Vintage, 1994), 204. One could choose any section from this book or from most books on this era or most primary sources to back this up. It is probably common knowledge and did not need a note.

12Lepore, The Name of War, 115.

13Demos, The Unredeemed Captive, 129,130, 153.

14Lepore, The Name of War, 98.

15Ibid.

16Ibid., 105.

17Ibid., 102.

18Boyer et al, The Enduring Vision, 192.

19Journals of the Continental Congress. “Speech to the Six Nations; July 13, 1775.” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, under “Document Collections: Native Americans: Documents 1789-1887.” <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_07-13-75.asp> (accessed 22 November, 2008).

20Barbara Alice Mann, George Washington’s War on Native America, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005), 86.

21Lepore, The Name of War, 105.

22David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 119.

23Washington, George. “Message to the Senate of September 17, 1789 Regarding Treaties with Native Americans.” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, under “Document Collections: Native Americans: Documents 1789-1887.” <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/gw006.asp> (accessed 22 November, 2008).

24Stannard, American Holocaust, 120.

14

25Treaty With the Six Nations, 1794. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, under “Document Collections: Native Americans: Documents 1789-1887.” <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/six1784.asp> (accessed 22 November, 2008).

26Stannard, American Holocaust, 120.

27Christian B. Keller, “Philanthropy Betrayed: Thomas Jefferson, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Origins of Federal Indian Removal Policy,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 144, no. 1 (Mar., 2000), 56. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1515604> (accessed 22 November, 2008).

28Ibid.

29Ibid.

30Ibid.

31Bruce Johansen, The Native Peoples of North America: A History (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006), 203. <http://books.google.com/books?id=yiKgBuSUPUIC&pg=RA1-PA203&dq=andrew+jackson+whelp+%22root+out%22> (accessed 22 November, 2008).

32Paul S. Boyer, Clifford E. Clark Jr., Joseph F. Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and Nancy Woloch, The Enduring Voices: Document Sets to Accompany Enduring Vision: A History of the American People: Vol. II: From 1865, 4th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000), 23-29.

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyer, Paul S., Clifford E. Clark Jr., Joseph F. Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and Nancy Woloch. The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People: Vol. I: To 1877, 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008.

Boyer, Paul S., Clifford E. Clark Jr., Joseph F. Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and

Nancy Woloch. The Enduring Voices: Document Sets to Accompany Enduring Vision: A History of the American People: Vol. II: From 1865, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

Cave, Alfred A. The Pequot War. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press,

1996. Demos, John. The Unredeemed Captive: A Family Story from Early America. New York:

Vintage, 1994. First Seal of Massachusetts Bay Colony, ca. 1629. In Massachusetts State Archives. “The

History of the Arms and Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” <http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/presea/sealhis.htm> (accessed 14 October, 2008).

Gookin, Daniel. An Historical Account of the Doing and Sufferings of the Christian

Indians in New England, in the Years 1675, 1676, 1677. ca. 1677. Reprint. North Stratford, NH: Ayer Company Publishers, 2002.

Johansen, Bruce E. The Native Peoples of North America: A History. Piscataway, NJ:

Rutgers University Press, 2006. <http://books.google.com/books?id=yiKgBuSUPUIC&pg=RA1- PA203&dq=andrew+jackson+whelp+%22root+out%22> (accessed 22 November, 2008).

Journals of the Continental Congress. “Speech to the Six Nations; July 13, 1775.” The

Avalon Project at Yale Law School, under “Document Collections: Native Americans: Documents 1789-1887.” <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_07-13-75.asp> (accessed 22 November, 2008).

Keller, Christian B. “Philanthropy Betrayed: Thomas Jefferson, the Louisiana Purchase,

and the Origins of Federal Indian Removal Policy,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 144, no. 1 (Mar., 2000), 39, 66. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1515604> (accessed 22 November, 2008).

Lepore, Jill. The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity.

New York: Vintage, 1998.

16

Mann, Barbara Alice. George Washington’s War on Native America. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005. Sears, Martin Louis. “The Puritan and His Indian Ward.” American Journal of Sociology,

22, no. 1 (July, 1916), 80-93. <http://www.jstor.org/pss/2763930> (accessed 15, September, 2008).

Stannard, David E. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1992. Treaty With the Six Nations, 1794. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, under

“Document Collections: Native Americans: Documents 1789-1887.” <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/six1784.asp> (accessed 22 November, 2008)

Washington, George. “Message to the Senate of September 17, 1789 Regarding Treaties

with Native Americans.” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, under “Document Collections: Native Americans: Documents 1789-1887.” <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/gw006.asp> (accessed 22 November, 2008).

Williams, John. The Redeemed Captive Returning to Zion. 1707. Reprint, Bedford, MA:

Applewood Books, 1987.