Hoy 1

The Pequot War: An Examination of Puritan Military Tactics and Religious Principles

California State University Monterey BayThe school of Social, Behavioral & Global Studies:

Division of Social, Behavioral studies,Social History Concentration

Senior capstoneCapstone Advisor: Dr. Rebecca BalesDivision chair: Dr. Ruben Mendoza

Submitted by:Kristen Hoy

Graduation Spring 2017

Hoy 2

The Pequot War:An Examination of Puritan Military Tactics and

Religious Principles

Kristen HoyCalifornia State University Monterey Bay

Hoy 3

Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………3

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………….5

Theory……………………………………………………………………………………………14

Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………….18

Analysis and Results………………………………………………………………………………..

I. Pre-colonial Cultures………………..…………………………………………...20

II. The Pequot War………………………………………………………………….28

III. Puritan Religious and Colonial Influences………………………………………37

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….46

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..47

Hoy 4

Abstract

Native American cultures are often thought to be restricted to the pages of history. Yet as

evident by new and reoccurring issues such as the fight for Standing Rock, this is simply not

true. However, historical events are not useless when understanding the modern world. In

examining one of the earliest known Native-European conflicts in the territory that would

become America, deeper insight into colonization methods and their continued affects may

reveal hidden assumptions. The Pequot Nation of Connecticut is one of the most established,

autonomous, and successful Nations in America, yet their current social standing is a departure

from the near destruction they overcame following the Pequot War from 1636-1638. Specific to

this research is the application of the multiple social theories from academics including Pierre

Bourdieu, Max Weber, Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto. The usage of social theories in analyzing

primary and secondary sources promotes a detailed study of three areas of concentration; Pequot

culture prior to conflict, the war itself, and religious attitudes of the Puritan colonists. Though the

war was sudden and devastating, historical analysis supports the hypothesis that the brutality

exhibited by the Puritans was not in contradiction with their ideologies. Unfortunately, the

ignorance of cultural practices, by all parties, escalated the violence to unspeakable levels. This

research does not condone the brutality of colonialism, rather seeks to understand the processes

of a single dominant group in history to broaden the available understanding on a period.

Hoy 5

Introduction

Following the colonization of Northeastern America by the English, Native cultures were

faced with unique forms of oppression. These Native peoples had superior knowledge of the

land, and traditions binding them to it, yet with military force and unintended forms of

destruction, such as disease, the Europeans gained control quickly. The vastness and severity of

that control continues to this day and is often overshadowed by the patriotic images associated

with early America. Changing social values have only recently begun to place the Native

perspective into the historical narrative of colonial America. Yet, centuries of damage caused by

Eurocentric contemporaries and scholars, have left many gaps in knowledge which require

intense historical re-evaluation.

This capstone will explore the hierarchical methods colonizers used against Native

societies, with primary focus on the Pequot people of Southern New England. This will be

achieved by use of academic research and an original interview with a spokesperson representing

the Mashantucket Pequot Museum &Research Center. Ultimately, applying historical

methodologies to compare varied representations of singular events. The interview dealt strictly

with how the research conducted through the Mashantucket Pequot Museum examined the

subject of foreign religion and the primary sources they utilized. Often historical research on

colonization focuses on the aftermath in terms of statistics or how colonization was achieved.

The goal of this capstone research is to represent the Native communities, and do justice their

experiences, through qualitative analysis.

It has been nearly 400 years since the Pequot first encountered Europeans yet there

remain unanswered questions regarding how they were overthrown. How did Europeans use

their religion to further their control? In what ways did their religious principles support or

Hoy 6

contradict their actions? How did the Native peoples react, and survive the possible hypocrisy in

European society between their religious teachings and common actions?

The original academic research examines three aspects of Native-European relations,

centering around the Pequot War 1636 to 1638; the pre-contact culture of the Pequot, the factual

events of the war, and the relations after with attention to the religions role in supporting

hierarchies. Multiple social theories are applicable to understanding this period in American

history, thusly, three are discussed at length here. Notwithstanding that the Pequot peoples are

one of the wealthiest Nations today, with full recognition, their acknowledgment beyond

Southeastern New England is rare. A fact which may be linked to the attempted destruction of

their culture hundreds of years ago.

Having always lived in regions with strong Native histories, the decision to explore this

topic was an extension of ongoing curiosity. My primary school education, in Connecticut,

taught about colonial relations between Natives and the English, yet it was highly censored with

little mention of the near destruction of the Pequot people. Similarly, during childhood I was

never exposed to the expansiveness of Native cultures in California. It was not until Spring of

2016 that I became aware of the ongoing presence of Native Nations in the Monterey region. The

goal of this capstone research is to bring public awareness, even if it is only to my fellow SBS

students, of the rich cultures of Native Americans.

Literature Review

The focus of this capstone are the experiences of the Pequot people of Connecticut prior

to and during the first years of English colonial settlement. To achieve this the research is

separated into these three main themes; Pequot history prior to mass English settlement, the

Hoy 7

Pequot War, and the exploration of Puritan religious relations. The histories of the Pequot people

of southern Connecticut have been the most forthcoming with information. Colonial New

England is well documented, through diaries, battle records, immigration records and

archeological evidence. Due to this saturation of evidence there are many topics to research with

the general theme of the Pequot people. For this reason, there remains the emphasis on the

Pequot War of 1636-1638 as a main event leading to their oppression. Many reliable and useful

sources simply state the events of the war, with its players and its immediate outcomes. One such

example would be Lawrence M. Hauptman’s “The Pequot War and Its Legacies”, found in his

book The Pequots in Southern New England.1 Hauptman, being a historian, wrote his piece on

the Pequot War in a historical narrative. Though it is incredibly useful as a research reference,

there is little in the way of descriptive analysis. Hauptman does note the Pequot people have

successfully progressed into the twenty first century regardless of difficulties, however historic

post-war specifics are not mentioned. Other scholars focus solely on the post-war period, while

others on how the war was perpetrated.

Works by Andrea Robertson Cremer and Michael L. Fickes each examine unique issues

that arose after the war. Cremer’s work titled “Possession: Indian Bodies, Cultural Control, and

Colonialism in the Pequot War” thoroughly describes the effects the war had on Native women,

remaining Pequot men, and the English allied Nations.2 Cremer’s work is both long and detail

heavy. Her scholarship is extraordinary and the historical narrative she creates using primary

sources is absolute. Like Hauptman’s essay, and all sources to follow, she describes the events of

1 Laurence M. Hauptman, “The Pequot War and Its Legacies.” In Laurence Hauptman and James Wherry, eds. The Pequots in southern New England: The Fall and Rise of an American Indian Nation. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990), 69-80.

2 Andrea Robertson Cremer, “Possession: Indian Bodies, Cultural Control, and Colonialism in the Pequot War.” Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 6: 2 (2008).

Hoy 8

the war, though it is only a portion of the work and solely to provide context. Michael L. Fickes’

“They Could Not Endure That Yoke’: The Captivity of Peaquot Women and Children After the

War of 1637,” narrows down the subject of examination even further.3 Focusing on how the war

aided the process of colonization by way of slave labor, and the English justification for such,

Fickes is able to connect the war with the larger institution of slavery. Fickes and Cremer’s work

detail the lives of those surviving Pequots, notably the female and child populations. This is

important for many reasons, the foremost being that the female perspective is so often ignored in

historical examinations. Though most primary accounts by Pequot women from this time are

recorded through European men, the faintest hint of their perspectives is better than the

alternative of none.

“The Collision of Military Cultures in Seventeenth-Century New England,” by Adam J.

Hirsch and “They…shall no more be called Peaquots but Narragansetts and Mohegans’:

Refugees, Rivalry and the Consequences of the Pequot War,” by Matthew S. Muehlbauer both

examine the relationships between the several Native Nations involved in the war along with the

English. Specifically, Hirsch examines the different methods of warfare exhibited by each party,

and why the brutality of the war may be attributed to the lack of knowledge concerning warring

methods.4 Hirsch in no way claims that ignorance is an excuse for the bloodshed during the war;

rather, his purpose is to provide another possible reason for the war which other scholars have

yet to consider. “They …shall no more be called Peaquots…” by Muehlbauer considers the

relationships amongst the Native victors, and how those relationships connect to King Phillip’s

War forty years later.5 Muehlbauer’s sources include both Native and English accounts, making 3 Michael Fickes, "They Could Not Endure That Yoke’: The Captivity of Pequot Women and

Children After the War of 1637.” The New England Quarterly 73: 1 (2000).4 Adam J. Hirsch, "The Collision of Military Cultures in Seventeenth-Century New England."

The Journal of American History 74: 4 (1988).

5 Matthew S. Muehlbauer, ”'They . . . Shall No More Be Called Peaquots but Narragansetts and

Hoy 9

it one of the most well representative resources in this research. Both Muehlbauer and Hirsch

make associations between the Pequot War and King Phillip’s War, though Muehlbauer’s essay

attempts to relate its origins to the unfair treatment of Natives after 1638. While Hirsch notes that

by King Phillip’s War there was no ignorance of the consequences by either party. Each source

above incorporates primary accounts and sources to weave an historical account of the Pequot

War.

The pre-war examination on the Pequot will rely mainly on archeological evidence. The

most indispensable sources for this research are the books Connecticut's Indigenous Peoples:

What Archaeology, History, and Oral Traditions Teach Us about Their Communities and

Cultures by Lucianne Lavin and History and Culture by the Mashantucket Pequot Museum, in

association with the Smithsonian Institute. Both provide extensive archeological evidence to the

sophistication of Pequot society including weaponry, housing, food materials and presumed

social structure. These themes and the evidence which supports them are most important when

reconstructing an image of what pre-colonial Connecticut and the surrounding areas were like.

Though there is no direct author for the History and Culture, its scholarship is without question,

as it is produced through the official Mashantucket Pequot Museum in connection with the

Pequot Nation6. Unlike other sources which are referenced and utilized, it is intended for the

wider public and as such is written at an easily comprehensible level, to maximize general

understanding on the subject. Lucianne Lavin, of the Institute for American Indian Studies,

published her work through the Yale University Press and the world-renowned Yale Peabody

Museum7. Lavin’s work is significantly more detailed than History and Culture, both in

Mohegans': Refugees, Rivalry, and the Consequences of the Pequot War.” War & Society 30: 3 (2011).

6 Mashantucket Pequot Museum. History & Culture. Accessed September 2016-May 2017. 7 Lucianne Lavin, Connecticut's Indigenous Peoples: What Archaeology, History, and Oral

Traditions Teach Us about Their Communities and Cultures (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013).

Hoy 10

archeological evidence and language. Both works attest to the grand scale of pre-colonial

societies in Connecticut and the surrounding region with little discrepancies. The structural

differences between Connecticut’s Indigenous People and History and Culture, are the only

apparent inconsistencies. Neither clearly states an argument, other than re-affirming cultural

sophistication, however Lavin’s book is certainly written for archeologists. Her focus remains on

methods of extractions of data, while the Mashantucket’s book is written in a narrative format for

public accessibility.

The first contact the Pequot’s had with Europeans was with the Dutch, however it is the

relationship between the English and the Pequot that is most well-known, and has greatly

affected current Native circumstances. My pre-war research ends just prior to major European

contact, period often hastily described by many scholars. Two essays in Laurence M. Hauptman

and James Wherry’s book The Pequot’s in southern New England: The Fall and Rise of an

American Indian Nation, directly relate to the topic of pre-colonial society and early European

contact in greater detail. “A Capsule Prehistory of Southern New England” by Dena F. Dincauze

provides similar information to the previous archeological works, however it is written with

more historical structure.8 As such, there is even less archeological sources specifically

referenced, but greater description of what these remains meant in the everyday lives of pre-

contact persons. Dincauze’s essay spans thousands of years, whilst focusing on the development

of Native cultures closer the seventeenth century.

Another essay from Hauptman and Wherry’s collection is “The Pequots in the Early

Seventeenth Century” by William Starna. Starna’s work, along with Alfred A. Cave’s “The

Pequot of Southern New England: A Reassessment of the Evidence”, provides information that 8 Dena F. Dincauze, “A Capsule Prehistory of Southern New England” In Laurence Hauptman

and James Wherry, eds. The Pequots in southern New England: the Fall and Rise of an American Indian Nation. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990), 19-32.

Hoy 11

bridges the gap between the pre-colonial and colonial periods. Much like the several previous

resources, Starna’s work focuses on the social makeup of the Pequot Nation however, Starna’s

work attests exclusively to the Pequot Nation. As far as this research has uncovered, there is no

clear date as to the formation of the Pequot culture. Thus, much of the archeological works

previously mentioned describe all pre-contact persons living within Southern New England.

Additionally, unique to Starna’s essay are the direct connections made between early European

arrival and the destruction of Native social structures9. His reference to the mass diseases and

inter-tribal conflicts prior to 1636, underscored the details which led the Pequot War and its

outcomes. Cave’s work also connects the two periods, yet he focuses exclusively on a specific

topic; the myth that the Pequot were foreign invaders from the Hudson Valley, and therefore a

part of the Mahican Nation.10 It was thought that this myth gave early Puritans justification for

hostility against the Pequots. Citing reliable primary resources Cave regards this theory as

unfounded. A conclusion other which modern scholars, include Dr. Kevin McBride of the

University of Connecticut, agree with.11 Cave’s reference to early works written about the Pequot

and the scholars which used these unreliable sources, proves that there is more to learn

concerning this early period in American history.

The examination of Puritan religious beliefs and colonial practices can

additionally be divided into two sections; Puritan religious history with ideology, and how this

was translated into their methods of colonization. From this a conclusion of whether the actions

taken during war was in contradiction with Puritanical Christian values can be reached.

9 William Starna, “The Pequots in the Early Seventeenth Century” In Laurence Hauptman and James Wherry, eds. The Pequots in southern New England: the fall and rise of an American Indian nation. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990).

10 Alfred Cave. “The Pequot Invasion of Southern New England: A Reassessment of the Evidence” The New England Quarterly. 62:1 (March 1989).

11 Dr. Kevin McBride. "University Senior Thesis Interview." E-mail interview by author. April 20, 2017.

Hoy 12

Belonging to the first group are the works by Timothy Wood and Francis J. Bremer.

Bremer’s work is the more recent of the two, focusing on how Puritanism came into being, how

it expanded and the basic characteristics of the sect.12 Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction is

both brief and concise to appeal to the wide audience. It’s inclusive coverage, spanning several

hundred years, explains the essential elements of Puritan belief without a central focus on a

singular character or event. The best use of comparison between Bremer’s work and Wood’s is

in the respective work’s ages rather than subject, for both examine Puritanism.

Wood’s dissertation titled But Very Unsettled in Judgment: Salvation and the American

Indian in the Puritan Thought of John Winthrop and Roger Williams, is over a decade older than

Bremer’s book.13 The information and analysis presented by Wood is far more narrowed. He

specifically examined the relationship and differences between the two titled men, but the

academic interest lies in the conclusions draw between the two sources. Archeological,

anthropological, and linguistic research has brought challenged some previously held

assumptions, once more the most obvious being that the Pequots were a faction of the Hudson

Valley Mahicans which Woods clearly states.14

Bremer mentions the Pequot War directly for a brief section, while the third chapter of

Wood’s dissertation is devoted to the subject. The value in the sources are found in their

respective ages and areas of focus. Wood’s work, being older, is significant in displaying the

evolution of academic inquiry on the subject, especially considering that dissertations often rely

on the most current research. Bremer’s Puritanism, is more current and easily accessible, which

is a compliment when considering the often-convoluted nature of religious ideologies.

12 Francis J. Bremer, Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).13 Timothy Wood, But Very Unsettled in Judgment: Salvation and the American Indian in the Puritan

Thought of John Winthrop and Roger Williams. M.A. diss., University of Louisville, 1997. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses [ProQuest].

14 Wood, 73.

Hoy 13

The second section of examination, how Puritanism was utilized during colonization, is

best exemplified by the works of Linford D. Fischer, Julius H. Rubin and Daniel R. Mandell. To

remain loyal the historical methodology to which this research is founded, the most appropriate

why to organize these works is by the chronological order they examine. The first chapter of

Rubin’s book, “Praying Towns and Praying-to God Indian,” concentrating on 1643, with the first

known Indian convert, a Pequot named Wequash.15 His investigation continues through the 17th

century, with great attention on the religious movements between the Pequot War’s end in 1638

and the beginning of King Philp’s War in 1675.16 Specifically, the inquiry centers on the

formation of Christian Indian praying towns, and their position in the colonial hierarchy. Though

the issues of investigation differ, his work is similar in construction to that of Andrea Cremer’s

“Possession,” with the wars bookending the period as context for the less studied topic of New

England Native conversion efforts.

These efforts were not confined to the 17th century through, and the inconsistency of

these movements in the centuries following the Pequot War is clarified by Linford Fischer in “It

Provd But Temporary, & Short Lived”: Pequot Affiliation in the First Great Awakening.”17 The

First Great Awakening was a Christian revival movement in the 18th century, which spread

throughout Northeastern America. Fischer’s research is based on primary church records and

contemporary evidence, from which it is possible to track Native involvement in Christian

religious movements. Unique to Fischer’s work is the amount of concentration on the Pequot

people during this period; the Western Mashantucket, and Eastern Lantern Hill Pequots.18

15 Julius H. Rubin, "Praying Towns and Praying-to God Indians." In Tears of Repentance Christian Indian Identity and Community in Colonial Southern New England, 19-38. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2013).

16 Rubin, 19-38. 17 Linford D. Fischer, ""It Provd But Temporary, & Short Lived": Pequot Affiliation in the First Great

Awakening." Ethnohistory 59, 3 (Summer 2012), 465-88. 18 Fisher, 465-88.

Hoy 14

Limited scholarly works detail the lives and happenings of the Pequot people between the end of

the 17th century and the late 20th century when their successful casino, Foxwoods, opened.

Fisher’s work demonstrates the lack of cultural continuity between the Euro-Americans and their

Native counterparts, even in seemingly undisputed areas such as religion.

Unlike all other previous sources Daniel Mandell’s article, ""The Indian's Pedigree"

(1794): Indians, Folklore, and Race in Southern New England,” does not specifically refer to the

Pequot War, yet his work reveals the negativity shown toward Native peoples who did not

conform to Puritanical principles.19 The original pamphlet titled “The Indian’s Pedigree” was

published in 1794, thus being the one of the of the latest primary source referenced in this

research.20 Fascinatingly, the original source combines the personal prejudices of the seemingly

anonymous author, the concerns of the Euro-American public, British folklore and Biblical

reference, all towards the oppression Native communities. Mandell reviews the text to discover

the possible impact it, and similar writings, had on the public perception of Native Americans

during the 18th century. The importance of Mandell’s examination is the suggestion that though

clear Puritan authority had diminished by the mid-18th century, the use of its ideological

principles continued to dictate behavior and oppressive hierarchies.

Theory

Several social theories might aid in understanding how the Puritan settlers were able to gain

control of the region during and after the Pequot War, from 1636-1638. The theories constructed

by Max Weber, Pierre Bourdieu, and Jim Sidanius with Felicia Pratto best relate to the period in

explaining how the Pequot population had diminished from roughly 13,000 in 1632 to below

19 Daniel R. Mandell, ""The Indian's Pedigree" (1794): Indians, Folklore, and Race in Southern New England." William and Mary Quarterly 61, no. 3 (July 01, 2004), 521-38.

20 Mandell.

Hoy 15

1,000 in 1638.21 For while disease and violence may seem to be the obvious reasons for this

depletion, the sociological intentions of the colonizers resulted in their actions against the

Natives. An example of institutionalized oppression from this period is the infamous law which

placed a tax on all Pequot males born, punishing women who give birth to them.22 The works of

Weber, Bourdieu, Sidanius and Pratto each correlate to a different section of historical analysis.

Max Weber was born in Erfurt, Germany in 1864, to a highly religious and upper-middle

class family.23 The strict authority represented through his parent’s Calvinist faith would affect

his later works. Despite suffering from mental illness, he was a leading scholar in Germany,

evident by his multiple teaching positions and the vastness of his academic interests. His work,

the Protestant Ethic, directly relates the examination of Puritan attitudes.24 Weber theorized that

the establishment of a Protestant state in colonial America, which focused on individualism and

accountability, progressed into the mass capitalistic market of modernity.25

The examination of the 1630’s is less related to the immediate subject of Weber’s work,

but rather it’s broader assumptions. Weber theorized that the importance of work ethic to

Protestant culture was significant enough to establish an entire society. Working was good for

the soul and the key to salvation.26 For the Puritans, God’s will and message surpassed all earthly

callings, and as such it was their job to promote this message.27 Considering if that job were

obstructed, such as by the lack of Native conversion in early colonial America, then their vast

and violent response was not so obscure.28 Weber’s ideal types were the “purposive

21 Starna, 46. 22 Cremer, 337. 23 John Scott, "Max Weber." In Fifty Key Sociologists: The Formative Theorists, 203-08. (New York:

Routledge, 2007). 24 Roger A. Salerno, "Max Weber: Reason and Bureaucracy." In Beyond the Enlightenment: Lives and

Thoughts of Social Theorists, 59-65. (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2004).25 Ibid, 62. 26 Ibid, 63. 27 Wood, 5, 67.28 Ibid, 70-84.

Hoy 16

exaggerations of social phenomena”, such as the ideal Puritan. These ideal types could never be

achieved but were used to secure dominant-submissive relationships. The ideal type that the

colonists envisioned was used to create relational distinctions further from the Pequot and other

Natives who did not attempt to convert to their envisioning of the world.

Pierre Bourdieu was a French intellectual who made immense contributions to the field

of sociology in the late 20th century. Born in Denguin, France in 1930, it was not until his

military service in Algeria that his interest in oppressive relationships and methods came into

being.29 Inspired by the colonization of Algeria by the French, Bourdieu examined the subtle

forms of oppression within colonial relationships; particularly institutions such as education, and

actions described under symbolic violence.30 Bourdieu’s Habitus are the internal structures which

frame an individual’s understanding of the world. The Habitus is either consciously constructed,

for example by parents, or acquired through experiences. Both the Puritans and Pequot had long

established Habitus’ within their communities, which were continued through the establishment

of values and teachings.31 Yet, these different world views were not compatible and Pequot

peoples of later generations, like William Apess, struggled with continuing Pequot legacy

formed by their Habitus.

Bourdieu declares that each Habitus is related to a field: economic, social, cultural, and

symbolic.32 In nearly each field the Pequot and Puritan views differed, or were in competition

with one another. By physical violence, accompanied by symbolic violence, the Puritans

oppressed the Pequot and their Native neighbors. An example of Puritan domination through

29 Roger A. Salerno, "Pierre Bourdieu: Habitus." In Beyond the Enlightenment: Lives and Thoughts of Social Theorists, 217-222. (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2004).

30 Franck Poupeau, "Reasons for Domination: Bourdieu versus Habermas." In Reading Bourdieu on Society and Culture, edited by Bridget Fowler, 69-87. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000).

31 Salerno, 219. 32 Ibid, 220.

Hoy 17

symbolic violence would be the shifting of emasculating imagery towards Pequot men.

Depending on Puritan needs, the Pequot men were portrayed as effeminate cowards who could

not protect their own people, or the strongest of the Natives and as such their defeat meant that

the colonists became the most superior group within the cultural hierarchy.33 Symbolic violence

is far subtler to distinguish compared to overt physical violence, which makes its continuation

more difficult to halt. Finally, symbolic violence contributes to the sustaining of dominating

structures by obscuring the truth of the structures, while making domination appear unchanging

and inevitable.34

The creators of the Social Dominance Theory, Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto are both

Professors of Psychology and constructed the theory in the 1990’s35. Social Dominance Theory

was constructed to fill a void which other sociological and psychological theories left in

examining dominating circumstances. It describes the way in which oppressive social hierarchies

are established and maintained, and that “group discrimination tends to be systematic because

social ideologies help to coordinate the actions of institutions and individuals.”36 In

contemporary terms, institutions such as the education and justice system are constructed in the

advantage of the dominating groups37 This theory is unique in its consideration of both the

individual and institution, creating multi-level analysis of singular types of oppressive

hierarchies such as sexism, racism, and ageism.38

The dominant populations must constantly adjust institutions or methods to attain higher

social power, characterized by ability to assert will, and social status, prestige given to 33 Cremer, 303. 34 Poupeau, 7135 Jim Sidanius et al., “Social Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method.” Political Psychology 25, no.6

(2004), 845-880.

36 Ibid, 847.37 Ibid. 38 Mikala Virley, "Social Dominance Theory: The Explanation behind Social Hierarchy and Oppression?."

Sociological Imagination: Western’s Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal 2, no. 1 (2013).

Hoy 18

characteristics held by the dominant group. Behavioral asymmetry is typified by the actions done

by the oppressed groups which, often unknowingly, contributes to their oppression.39

Respectfully, this can be related to the actions committed by Uncas and the Mohegans against

the Pequots. In search for greater social power and social status, as prior to the war the Mohegan

population was roughly 50 persons, Uncas aligned with the English colonists in the Pequot

War.40 Though their association with the English did provide them with authority over the

remaining Pequot peoples, it was at the expense of being under greater English dominance.

These theories can too be applied to Native and Euro-American relations into today. The

use of stereotypes such as alcohol dependence and phrases like “Indian giver”, can be understood

as symbolic violence and creations continued through racist institutions under Social Dominance

Theory. The best example from Weber’s Protestant Ethic is the economy and laws which guide

American life. Individual achievement is the focus on capitalism, giving further oppressive ideals

like meritocracy a place to thrive. Though difficult, Bourdieu, Sidanius and Pratto, do remark

that societal norms are changeable, yet only by the restructuring of hierarchical institutions like

education and the justice system.

Methodology

This research is based heavily on historical analysis and keeping with the historical

methods of writing. As such most of the sources referenced are considered qualitative in basis.

Considering the lack of formal quantitative data applicable to the subject, besides archeological

evidence, primary written source examination is the most suitable. To support the assumptions

which may be drawn from the primary sources; scholarly secondary sources were additionally

39 Ibid, 11. 40 Muehlbauer, 172.

Hoy 19

researched and applied. Unique to the field of history are the older sources which are given

consideration, not necessarily for their content but to show how the scholarly research has

progressed. To add greater depth to the research, an original interview was performed with a

leading academic in the field. Apart from statistics concerning population, economics and other

relevant social factors, there is little quantitative data for the subject matter. Essential primary

sources include journals by such men as John Winthrop, oral histories from Native peoples, and

military or religious reports. None of which would appropriately fit quantitative analysis.

Few of the secondary, scholarly sources applied social theory, providing instead

description of events, reference to primary accounts, or comparisons to outside contexts. The

application of social theories does provide another level of understanding to the research on the

topics of the Pequot War and the colonial American experience. Though not originally intended

to explain this exact topic, they are surely appropriate.

The interview was conducted through email, due to time and logistical restraints.

However, it proved to be the most appropriate considering the sensitivity of the subject matter;

written answers ensured that there would be no misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Dr. Kevin

McBride, the Director of Research for the Mashantucket Pequot Museum, briefly answered the

following questions:

Were the motivations for this purely political [referencing non-annihilation

method of warfare], as in the gaining of members from the losing side into the

community, or was there a deeper religious/spiritual/moral obligation between

Nations that prevented destruction?

Hoy 20

Does your research suggest that the Pequot were originally connected to the

Mahicans of New York, as suggested by Alden Vaughan, and John W. De Forest?

Or any other Nation?

Was there a mass conversion attempt of Native peoples to Christianity following

the Pequot War? And if known, what role did King Phillip’s War play in the

progressing or halting the spread of Christianity within Native cultures?

The purpose of the interview was to receive the academic opinion of someone actively

researching the events of the period, as well as counteract to overwhelmingly Euro-American

viewpoint of the war. Dr. McBride, in addition to being the Director of Research, is an associate

Professor of Archeology at the University of Connecticut. Furthermore, several of the academic

reports he suggested concerning the Pequot War, were already examined in this research,

suggesting that the sources chosen for analysis are recent and pertinent.

Analysis and Results

I. Pre-colonial Cultures

______________________________________________________________________________

The earliest evidence of people inhabiting what is now New England dates between

12,000 to 11,000 years ago. 41 The movement of persons likely followed the natural migrations

of large animals, including caribou, which were hunted for food and clothing. Groups were no

larger than 25 persons, most likely small family groups, who traveled often in search for

resources.42 Evidence for travel can be found in Mashantucket, Connecticut, where over 4,000

waste flakes were uncovered along with plant remains natural to upper New York.43 These Paleo-

41 Dincauze, 19. 42Mashantucket, 16. 43 Lavin, 46.

Hoy 21

Indians were nomadic, and it would not be for another 3 to 4,000 years until mobility would

become more standard and ritualized. Roughly 8,000 years ago, the climate began to warm, and

with the shortening and lessening in severity of the winters, large mammals like the caribou

returned northward.44 Yet, the human population remained in what is today the Northeast, and

began to grow. Supporting this is a cremation cemetery following the Connecticut River,

revealing evidence of spirituality in the groups of the Terminal Archaic period. The cemetery

contained offerings including copper fragments and blades, of which would have been valuable

during the era.45

The diets of people living in New England 4,000 years ago, consisted of white tailed

deer, bear, fish, nuts, and fowl. Men primarily did the hunting of such animals, during the winter

months when locating and tracking would have been easiest.46 It is also during this time that

semi-formulized group relationships, by way of marriage, appears to have begun.47 Further

developments in technology appeared some 500 years later when valuable and difficult

sandstone was replaced by clay ceramics. These tools and containers were essential for the

grounding of foodstuffs like goosefoot and march elder.48 This was an incredible advancement as

sandstone required both skill and time to carve, which clay ceramic did not.

The Late Woodland Period, from 950 years ago to 1524 C.E., marks several important

transitions. The continued warming of the climate gave rise to extended agriculture and the

cultivation of the Three Sisters: maize, corn and squash.49 This period is likely when

recognizable social systems like the installation of leaders, Sachems, began. This is suggested to

44 Dincauze, 21-23.45 Lavin, 136. 46 Mashantucket, 20. 47 Dincauze, 25.48 Dincauze, 29. Mashantucket, 21. 49 Mashantucket, 25.

Hoy 22

be a result of the increasing formalization of territories and the need for representation between

groups in the exchange of goods.50 Ceremony and spirituality was also further implemented and

specified. The Old Lyme Shell Heap in Old Lyme Connecticut, has extensive evidence to

suggest this. The heap spans 4,000 sq. ft., and contained over 420 pottery shards, 31 bone tools, 5

antler tools and 334 additional stone relics.51 These relics and the amount of garbage left at the

site (remains of birds, deer, fish, shells, and waste flakes) would suggest that the site was

commonly visited during the Spring and Fall seasons when these resources were particularly

plentiful.52 Perhaps most captivating about the Old Lyme Shell Heap are the remains of two

males, both adult, found nearby. The graves were made even more unique by the quantity of

offerings laid to rest with the men.53

Fig. 1: A carved bowl made of steatite soapstone, later replaced by ceramics.54

50 Dincauze, 30. 51 Lavin, 227.52 Ibid, 229-290.53 Ibid, 294. 54 Lavin.

Hoy 23

Archeological evidence dating between 1,000 B.C.E. and 1600 C.E., has provided

researchers with the oldest and most comprehensive data set. Such evidence stimulates further

understanding of tools, diets, and movements, however it cannot clarify languages, social

organizations and beliefs that are so essential to the formation of a culture.

In 1524, Giovanni da Verrazzano described the Native peoples of Southern New England

as “…the most beautiful and have the most civil customs…their manner is sweet and gentle.”55

Though kinder than the words spoken about the same people some 100 years later, this vague

description of the complex communities of Connecticut and the surrounding region has led to a

misunderstanding of Native culture. Native peoples were very spiritual, held family in high

esteem and were innovative, though they were not without conflict.

The Narragansetts, the eastern neighbors of the Pequot, had over 35 gods, including the

Creator. Every living being and object contained a Manitou (similar to the western idea of the

soul), which connected it with the spiritual world.56 Individual nations, or tribes, also had

spiritual guardians; the fox for the Mashantucket Pequots, the rattlesnake for the Schaghticoke.57

The spirituality of the people were exhibited in their ceremonies, the most conclusive being

burial rituals. A Mohegan-Pequot burial dated to 1687 ± 70 years, determined that bodies were

purposefully placed in a flexed position, facing in the southwest direction, often near bodies of

water. The Narragansetts identified the southwest as the direction which the Creator lived and

many other gods were associated with water.58

Though it is highly likely that all members of Native society had spiritual knowledge,

two groups of people were held in higher esteem for their awareness. The Pniese were witness to

the supernatural, and Powwows were the spiritual mediators between the current and divine 55 Ibid, 303. 56 Ibid, 28357 Ibid, 278. 58 Ibid, 281.

Hoy 24

worlds.59 Both gave consul to the Sachem, a leadership position which was passed patrilaterally,

though capability was held in higher regard compared to blood.60 Societal hierarchy placed these

members, and their families, on top and the majority below. However, this is not to suggest that

there were vast differences in wealth or lifestyle. Every member of the community had a job that

would ensure the continuation of the culture.

Simplistically, the creation of ceramics, the caring for the children, the harvesting of

foodstuffs, and the cooking of meals were female jobs. While the men hunted, fished, created

tools and weapons, and built structures like palisades.61This is a general summary of societal

roles which were incredibly flexible based on needs. As food acquisition varied with every

season it was essential that all members participate fully; fruits and flora throughout the warm

seasons, nuts and roots during the fall and winter.62 Both men and women built the wigwams, or

houses, which housed an entire family within its diameter, 10-16ft. These building were built to

be quickly assembled and dissembled when the population had to move for new resources, and

the average village contained between 10 and 20 structures.63

Inter-tribal relationships in the late 16th and early 17th century was not unlike the semi-

unstable European relations in the east. Historian Alden Vaughan said of the Pequot, “had

incurred by its forced intrusion into New England the enmity of its Indian neighbors, and it had

won a notorious reputation for brutality.” Dr. Kevin McBride of the University of Connecticut

has stated that, “there is not a shred of evidence to suggest the Pequot were invaders…That is a

myth perpetuated by 18th and 19th century historians based on a vague statement by 17th century

59 Starna, 43.60 Ibid, 41. 61Mashantucket, 25-37.62 Lavin, 272. 63 Starna, 38. Lavin, 37.

Hoy 25

historian…”64 Multiple scholars have denounced the notion of Pequots as foreigners to Southern

Connecticut, yet Vaughan’s quote does represent the distinct power held by larger nations,

including the Pequot.

By the seventeenth century the Pequot people inhabited 2,000 square miles, and received

tribute from smaller nations including the Niantics.65 Physical evidence supporting the notion of

inter-indigenous warfare is presented through forts along major rivers, which may have also

served as trading posts.66 Trading amongst Native communities focused mainly upon the

distribution of goods including foodstuffs, clothes, pottery, tools and wampum.67 With the arrival

of Europeans new trading networks spread. Commodities such as woolen clothing and iron

tools/weapons were highly sought after, in exchange for pelts and wampum.

Fig. 2: A map by Dutchman Adrian Block of “New Netherland”, dated 1616.

64 McBride. 65 Lavin, 298.66 Ibid, 298.67 Ibid, 308.

Hoy 26

Fig. 3: A map created in 1930 of the Native territories in 1625.

Englishman Thomas Morton writing in the early 1620’s described the Native dress as

“wondrous white, and stripe them with size roundabout the orders, in form like lace set on by a

Tailor…”68 Yet, clothing made of animal skins was time consuming to create, whilst also

attracting insects, and European woolen cloth was fairly quickly incorporated in Native dress.

The profitable trade networks between the Europeans and Native had negative consequences. By

the end of the seventeenth century wild Connecticut passenger pigeons, turkeys and white tailed

deer were near, if not, extinct.69 Beyond the long-term environmental damages, more immediate

effects of European involvement became known in the years of 1616-1619 and 1633-4.

The plaques of 1616-1619 ravaged the eastern coast of New England are thought to be

either the bubonic plague, smallpox, or hepatitis A. 70 The Pequot people, and other more inland

68 Lavin, 66.69 Ibid, 310.70 Starna, 45.

Hoy 27

and western peoples, were relatively sparred of the mass sickness that decimated the east. It was

not until 1633-1634 that an epidemic of smallpox reached the Pequot. Three years after the

beginning of the epidemic Thomas Morton wrote…

But contrary wise in short time after, the hand of God fell heavily upon them, with such a

mortall stroake, that they died in heapes, as they lay in their houses and the living that

were able to shift for themselves would runne away & let them dy, and let there Carkases

ly about the ground without burial. For in a place where many inhabited, there hath been

but one left alive…71

Scholarly estimates vary concerning the loss of live experienced during those years.

Conservative estimates suggest 55% population loss, while others claim as high as 95%.72 Dr.

Dean Snow suggests that the population of southeastern Connecticut and Long Island decreased

by 77%. Undisputed is the drastic drop in Pequot population just prior to the most destructive

period in their history. Prior to first contact in 1632 the Pequot population was roughly 13,000,

after 1634 the population is estimated at 3,000, following the Pequot War 1636-1638 there were

fewer than 1,000.73

Understanding the history of the Pequot people and their neighboring nations, the

Narragansetts and Mohegans, is essential to understanding the next phase in American history,

colonialism. Following the conclusion of the Pequot War, Mohegan Sachem Uncas claimed

previous Pequot land as his own, citing ancient cultural and familial ties.74 The beliefs and

subsequent actions made by non-English forces against the Pequot cannot be placed in correct

context without knowledge of past inter-indigenous relations. The peoples of Northeastern

71 Ibid, 46-47.72 Starna, 46.73 Ibid, 46. 74 Cave, 43.

Hoy 28

America were moving, worshipping, growing, creating, and warring long before any European

stepped on the land.

II. The Pequot War

Pequots first known contact with Europeans was in 1632; by the end of that decade their

culture and those of their neighbors would be forever altered by European colonialism.75 The first

verified Pequot causality to European expansionism was Sachem Tatobem, killed by the Dutch

in 1634. Tatobem’s son Sassacus would inherit his position and fight against the British not 2

years later.76 Though the death of a Native leader was a substantial loss to those he served, it was

not until the death of two Englishman that conflict emerged. The Pequots met with the

Massachusetts Bay companying in 1634 during which there was discussion of a treaty. The

English claimed that as stipulated within the treaty the Pequot were responsible for the death of

Capt. John Stone, and were duty bound to hand over the perpetrators.77 Sassacus and the Pequot

people never formally signed a treaty, and were not directly responsible, as those who most

likely killed John Stone were the Western Niantics, a tributary tribe.78 The following murder of

John Oldham in 1636 by the Narragansetts, was unfoundedly place upon the Pequots. John

Winthrop, governor the Massachusetts Bay noted later that “all the sachems of the Narragansetts,

except for Canonicus and Miantunnomah, were the contrivers of Mr. Oldham’s death.”79

Regardless of the known innocence of Pequots, and the first maneuver against them would be

claimed as retribution for these crimes.

75 Hauptman, 71.76 Ibid.77 Muehlbauer, 168.78 Hauptman, 72.79 Cremer, 309.

Hoy 29

In August of 1636, John Endicott of the Massachusetts Bay Colony accompanied by

militiamen, sailed into Pequot territory in what was the first military action of the war.80 Unable

to engage any Natives in warfare they demolished houses, burned crops, and killed animals.

Commander of Fort Saybrook Lt. Lion Gardiner said of the episode, “the Baymen killed not a

man, save that one Kichomiquin, an Indian Sachem of the Bay, killed a Pequit, and thus began

the war between the Indians and us in these parts.”81 On April 23 of 1637 the Pequots assaulted

the colonial town of Watertowne (more commonly known by its modern name of Wethersfield)

killing nine and taking captive three women.82 Two of the women were returned unmolested

through negotiations initiated by the wife of Pequot Sachem Monontto.83 The Sachem Monotto’s

wife would later be taken captive by the colonists following the end of the war, and serve in the

house of John Winthrop.84

In early dawn, May the 26th of 1637, Captains John Underhill and John Mason with 90

men, and the support of the Narragansetts and Mohegans, attacked Mystic Fort.85 By means of

full scale warfare the English and their Native allies killed between 300-700 women, children

and elderly. “And thus in little more than one Hour’s space was their impregnable Fort with

themselves utterly Destroyed,” Mason wrote after the fact.86 Two Englishmen were wounded,

only seven Pequots survived.87

The last military action of the war took place on July the 13th of 1637, Capt. Israel

Stoughton surrounded a fleeing group of Pequots. After negotiations, an estimated 200 women,

children and elderly surrendered to English troops.88 The remaining 80 able Pequots fought, and 80 Hauptman, 72.81 Hirsch, 1197.82 Hauptman, 72.83 Fickes, 70.84 Cremer, 321.85 Hauptman, 73.86 Hirsch, 1198.87 Hauptman, 73. 88 Muehlbauer, 171.

Hoy 30

and fell. 89 A month earlier Capt. Stoughton’s forced seized a group of 100 Pequots from the

English allied Narragansetts; he immediately killed the 22 men, splitting the remaining Pequots

for bondage in the colonies or for the Native allies.90 In September 21st of 1638 a formal end to

the war was enacted, the Treaty of Hartford. The treaty was signed by the Connecticut Colony,

the Narragansetts under Miantinomi and the Mohegans under Uncas; no Pequot was present.91

The treaty stipulated that the war was officially over, that both Uncas and Miantinomi would

receive 80 male Pequots, the Pequot people would lose all of their territory and famously

“they…shall no more be called Peaquots but Narragansetts and Mohegans.”92 Thus the first

Native colonial war in the Northeast ended.

89 Fickes, 60. 90 Muehlbauer, 171. 91 Ibid, 172. 92 Ibid, 173.

Hoy 31

Fig 4 : The famous illustration of the Mystic Massacre found in John Underhill’s “Newes from America” published 1638. Shown are the burning wigwams, Englishmen surrounding and firing at fleeing Pequots, with Native reinforcements around the parameter93

Though the war may be summarized in a few passages, the intricacies of the war are

endless. Scholars have written entire books on the motives of the conflict, as such the differences

in the methods of warfare utilized by the English and the Natives, as well as briefly describing

the lives of surviving Pequots after the war, should be clarified.

Fig 5: The seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1629. Depicted is a Native American in the wilderness with only leaves covering his nether regions. He is clearly saying “Come over and

93 Capt. John. Underhill. "Newes from America; Or, A New and Experimentall Dscoverie of New England; Containging, A True Relation of Their War-like Proceedings These Two Yeares Last Past, with a Firgure of the Indian Fort, or Palizado (1638)." Edited by Raul Royster. Electronic Texts in American Studies: 1-47. University of Nebraska.

Hoy 32

Help Us”. This represents both who the English viewed the Natives, as helpless, and themselves, as saviors. 94

Native warfare was less concerned with total annihilation as means of gaining political or

economic power, compared to European wars, but a symbolic action which ascended the victors

above their neighbors or settled previous disputes95. Similarly, warfare against entire Nations was

uncommon, and often the fighting took place between kin-groups or similar small parties.96

Guerilla warfare was often utilized, though clear rules of engagement were widely known; the

sparing of women and children being the most sacred.97 Dr. Kevin McBride claims that there was

not a “deeper religious/spiritual or moral obligation to native warfare  that prevented total

destruction, just a more measured and practical approach to minimize the deaths of women and

children – a valuable resource when captured.”98 Most importantly, mass bloodshed was not the

goal of war. The assuming of war captives into the victor’s society and the intricate kinship ties

that joined many Nations, would prevent such heinous actions as seen at Mystic in 1637.99 The

lack of death was so strange to Europeans that Roger Williams noted, “Their Warres are farre

lesse bloudy, and devouring then the cruell Warres of Europe; and seldome twenty slain in a

pitcht field…when a man is wounded, unlesse he that shot followes upon the wounded, they

soone retire and save the wounded.”100

The English also followed a code of conduct, though it was essentially dismissed after the

Pequot raid on Watertowne, which included mercy for innocence, a declaration of war and the

bravery associated with open battling.101 The forces of the New England colonies were led by

94 Cremer, 307. 95 Hirsch, 119096 Ibid.97 Ibid, 1192. 98 McBride. 99 Ibid, 1191. 100 Ibid. 101 Ibid, 1188.

Hoy 33

trained officers including Lt. Lion Gardiner and Capt. John Underhill, while the remaining

soldiers were militiamen. These men were required to serve as part of their settlement and were

trained periodically.102 The English weapons included muskets, swords, and pikes. Pequots had a

collection of muskets by 1636, yet they had little in the way of ammunition and replacement

parts, and as such it was not a major component in their attacks.103 Beyond the differences in

weaponry, it was the differences in style of fighting that caused great confusion and paranoia on

the part of the English.

Fig 6: A monolithic axe dated to the 17th century. This stone hatchet once had shell inlays. The general shape resembles a bird, while the profile of a face is sculpted into the left side of the spear. This piece was thought to be as much a weapon, as a piece of art.104

102 Ibid, 1189. 103 Ibid, 1189, 1195.104 Lavin, 330-331.

Hoy 34

The torturing of male captives in warfare was a common Native practice, and one the

English both did not understand, and feared. Pequots were described by Underhill as “wicked

imps…Like the devil, their commander, they run up and down as roaring lions, compassing all

corners of the country for their prey.”105 Sassacus, the Sachem of the Pequots was described

similarly by Reverend Thomas Shepard as a ‘proud unhappy and headstrong prince…not fearing

the revenge of the English, having first suckt the blood of captaine Stone and Mr. Oldam, found

it so sweet.”106 These opinions were not constructed solely on the Natives use of torture, however

it does represent a disconnect in cultural understanding.107 A major difference in warfare was the

venue and style of action. The English warfare involved open battle with advanced weaponry

that resulted in high mortality.108 The Pequot, and other Native, warfare was primarily done in

wooded areas, hand to hand combat with minimal casualties.109 When the Pequots would not

engage the English in the battlefield upon Endicott’s first campaign, the English were humiliated

and saw the Pequot as unreasonable. Scholar Adam Hirsch noted that “to be taken lightly by

peers would have been frustrating; to be so treated by persons deemed primitive was

insufferable.”110

At the close of the war the remaining Pequots were separated amongst the victors; the

English, Narragansetts and Mohegans. A total of 319 Pequots were taken captive by the English,

17 of those with the intention of sending to Bermuda. However, there is a misconception that

they arrived there; due to navigational miscalculations, they eventually landed in Providence

Island east of Nicaragua.111 The remaining population was so significant that it elevated the

105 Hirsch, 1206.106 Cremer, 322. 107 Hirsch, 1192. 108 Ibid, 1188. 109 Ibid, 1190.110 Ibid, 1208. 111 Fickes, 60.

Hoy 35

general population of the colonies by 3%, and the servant population by 18%. 112 This was

significant for the small female settler population, only 33.8%; as they had to care for more

children (lower infant mortality rate compared to England) and continue homemaking services

including cooking, making clothing, etc.113 The presence of Native women in house servant

positions made both English women and men’s lives more comfortable. For the most part

English settlers believed their Pequot servants to be content and working under less strict

conditions than previous to the war. Reverend Francis Higginson from Salem claimed of Pequot

men, “their wives set their Corne and do all their worke.”114 And Roger Williams alleged that

Native women suffered “barbarous treatment” by their husbands.115 Interestingly, this convenient

misunderstanding of Native gender labor roles gave justification for both the slaughter of

‘barbarous’ males and the capture of females, which was considered a mercy. The relationship

between Pequots and English as formal slave and master did not last long; by 1659 there was no

mention of Pequot servants, the replacement of such by Africans became the new norm.116

Pequot women were considered malleable in their dispositions and beliefs; however,

males were not considered so. Colonialist Edward Johnson exclaimed, “The Squaws and some

young youths they [English Soldiers] brought home with them, but finding the men to be deeply

guilty of the crimes they undertook the warre for, they brought away onely their heads as a token

of their victory.”117 Pequot males were such a threat to English power that a tax was levied

against the birth of every one.118 The English considered Pequot men enough of a threat to banish

them from their homelands, however there is an odd dichotomy between English views of

112 Ibid, 62.113 Ibid, 63-64. 114 Ibid. 65.115 Ibid, 67.116 Ibid, 74. Cremer, 335.117 Cremer, 336.118 Ibid, 337.

Hoy 36

Pequot men. At once they were effeminate men who were unable to defend their own culture and

people, while also being powerful enough that when they were defeated the English took their

place as the superior group.119 In either instance the English were able to justify their place at as

the top authority in the region, even above their allies the Narragansetts and Mohegans.

The misunderstanding of Native cultures was so common that forty years later William

Hubbard wrote “if revenge, that bewitching and pleasing passion of man’s mind had not blinded

their eyes [the Narragansetts]by the good providence of God, withheld from embracing those

counsels, which might otherwise have proved most pernicious to the design of the English.”120

The Mohegans and Narragansetts motives for allying with the English were more complex and

ancient than any colonist understood. In short, the Pequots were the only formidable threat to the

Narragansetts, and the Mohegans lead by Uncas, once a lesser Pequot Sachem, saw an

opportunity to gain power in the Pequot defeat.121

Before the end of the 17th century another war would take place between the Native New

Englanders and the colonists; King Phillip’s War. Similar in brutality, King Philip’s War would

involve many more nations, and result in more casualties. Yet, it could be argued that King

Philip’s War would not have come to fruition were it not for the Pequot War decades earlier.

III. Puritan Religious and Cultural Influences

There is little argument to suggest that the colonization of New England did not represent

potential economic and political benefits, however the Puritan mission to create an ideal religious

society was the primary motivating factor. It was the impossible achievement of this ideal

society which furthered the disconnect between the subjected Native population following the

119 Ibid, 303. 120 Ibid, 326.121 Muehlbauer, 172-173.

Hoy 37

Pequot War and the dominating Puritan establishment. The Protestant Reformation, beginning in

the 1530’s, lead to a multitude of Christian sects including the Anglican, Quaker, and Puritan

practices.122 Puritans remained a small and vulnerable group within England until the mid-17th

century, prior to that time the religious foundation of England was uncertain. Though the Puritan

cause saw some leniency during the reigns of Queen Elizabeth the First, and her successor King

James, it was not substantial.123 It was the bloodshed of the English Civil War, 1642-1651, and

the installation of Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector which gave the Puritans national

authority.124 Cromwell was viewed “as an instrument of God,” and greatly promoted the Puritan

agenda.125

Puritan values and teachings centered on the importance of the individual practices and

worship. As such, literacy and the Puritan Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace are

fundamental declarations of Puritan worship. The first referred to Adam’s fall and that through

obedience to God there is hope of salvation. The second referred to Jesus’ sacrifice and the

possibility of mercy.126 Many aspects of Puritan culture and ideologies had gained infamy,

including that of predestination. In Puritan theology, all persons are guilty of sin, and by

remaining vigilant towards one’s faith, work and religious education, there is the opportunity for

salvation. The significance lied not in that “God didn’t save everyone…” but rather, “God need

not have saved anyone.”127

The devotion Puritans showed scripture, education and autonomy transferred effortlessly

into their colonial visions. John Winthrop of the Massachusetts Bay Colony declared that “Wee

shall finde that the God of Israell is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of

122 Bremer, 16. 123 Ibid, 23. 124 Ibid, 36-37. 125 Ibid.126 Ibid, 52. 127 Ibid, 51.

Hoy 38

our enemies; when hee shall make us a prayse and glory that men shall say of succeeding

plantations, “the Lord make it like that of New England.” For wee must consider that wee shall

be as a city upon a hill.” 128 The turmoil that had resulted from the successive monarchies and

religious upheavals, gave the Puritans greater motivation to begin anew, as God’s expression on

Earth.129

With this vision of an ideal Christian society, Puritan leaders had to quickly determine

the Native’s place in their New England. Pastor John Cotton noted in 1630, with John Winthrop,

that “God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people

before them by lawful war with the inhabitants. . . Second, when He gives a foreign people favor

in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them. . . Third, when He makes a

country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside.”130

The most favorable would have been the third, however the religious standards of the Puritans

did not leave for the possibility of Native autonomy. The religious and spiritual attitudes of

individual Native cultures, were distinct, with similarities. This made respectful reciprocity

towards neighboring beliefs, amongst neighboring nations common.131 This acceptance of

general beliefs, and respect of differences, did not coincide with the Puritan mission. Proven as

late as mid-1600 with the killing of Quakers, Protestant Christians themselves.132 For “the

Puritans considered any worship directed at any deity other than the Judeo-Christian Jehovah to

be, by definition, Devil worship.” 133 It was essential to either convert the Native people or

destroy them, a difficult task in which the Puritans believed they were prepared. The Puritan

128 John Winthrop. ""A City Upon a Hill"." Sheg.stanford.edu/upload/Puritans. Accessed May 4, 2017.129 Wood, 4. 130 John Cotton. “The Divine Right to Occupy the Land.” Sheg.stanford.edu/upload/Puritans. Accessed

May 4, 2017.131 Wood, 83. 132 Bremer, 100. 133 Wood, 84.

Hoy 39

thought dictated that the Devil would never relinquish his servants so easily, thusly resistance

was expected.134 Always considering the possibility of salvation, the Puritans punished those who

offended God, for fear of receiving punishment due to complacency.135 Roger Williams of the

Providence Plantation wrote that the “Pequots…comfort themselves, that a witch amongst them

will sink the pinnaces…” and that “ bloody Pequod ambassadors, whose hands and arms,

methought, wreaked with the blood of my countrymen.”136 The association of the Native peoples,

and the Pequots specifically, with witchcraft and Satan would persist with brief interruptions of

heightened Native-Christian affiliations.

The formation of Praying-Towns following 1638, added to the confusion of new social

hierarchies, as the Christian Indians no longer belonged to their communities of origin nor those

of the Anglo-Christian. The appeal of these communities came as a response to the plaques and

violence of the previous years, both as a place of security and a theology which could offer

explanations for the suffering.137 The missionary efforts of Minister John Eliot from 1638-1690

in creating Praying Towns is a prime example of the theological zeal associated with staunch

Puritanism. Eliot established fourteen separate Praying Towns, leading to the 10% of the total

Native population in Southern New England being associated with his efforts.138 His first town,

Natick established in 1651, was over 6,000 acres, however archeological evidence suggests that

it’s layout was closely resembled to a traditional Native settlement compared to a colonial

village.139 For all the benefits of living in a Praying Town, such as 30% literacy rate and legal

personhood under English law, there were drawbacks.140 One such being the submission of

134 Ibid, 68. 135 Bremer, 88. 136 Wood, 80. 137 Rubin, 23-24.138 Ibid, 27. 139 Ibid, 31. 140 Ibid, 34,36.

Hoy 40

autonomy both personally and politically; including severing all association and fealty to

traditional Sachems and cultural institutions, as well as abandoning “heathen superstition,

idolatry, and devil worship.”141 Though the Praying-Indians never totaled more than 15,000 from

the years 1638-1675, their presence would act as a conduit for widespread conversion and

normative efforts for the Puritans.142

Decades later, a religious revivalist movement known as The First Great Awakening

swept through the Northeastern colonies. By the early 18th century the Pequot Nation had been

separated into two reservations, the Western Mashantucket and East Lantern Hill Pequots.143

Evidence of Pequot conversion and membership to Congregational Churches is most plentiful

concerning the Eastern Pequots, who numbered roughly 218 from 1730 to 1740.144 Church

records from the First, North and East Congregational Churches of Stonington, Connecticut

suggest that 128 Native affiliations by marriage, baptism, taking confession or owning a

covenant, took place from 1741-1742.145 However, the number of new affiliations by baptism

dropped to zero by 1750.146 Approximately 1/5th of the entire Eastern Pequot population were

confirmed, full members by the end of the movement, with roughly 59% being affiliated at all.147

The Awakening itself was not a sustainable movement, however the small limited Native

members, would suggest a detachment between formal Christianity, and Native culture.

Indeed, such as with the idealized Praying Towns of the 17th century, Native involvement

during the First Great Awakening was incomplete, and conversion slow moving. The Pequots of

141 Ibid, 28, 30.142 Ibid, 21. 143 Fischer, 469. 144 Ibid, 468. 145 Ibid, 473. 146 Ibid, 472. 147 Ibid, 479.

Hoy 41

Groton wrote to the Connecticut General Assembly on May 5, 1742 that they “Of late we have

been much concern’d about our souls & to know wt we may do to please the Great god…”148

This petition, saturated with religious rhetoric, was in fact set forth with the goal of replacing

their colonial overseers and gain funds for a new schoolmaster.149 Additionally, Samson Occom,

a Mohegan Minister, described Christianity as a knife which may be restored so often it becomes

an entirely new knife, while at once retaining the value of the original.150 Both examples of

Pequot, and other Native, ideas concerning Christianity suggest that they were not aligned with

‘traditional’ Protestant, and original Puritan, ideology. Particularly for the Mashantucket and

Eastern Pequots whom remained on reservations, Christianity was malleable and a tool for

achieving goals. Christianity was something which could be formed to fit their lifestyle, while

not being the definition of it.

The lack of continued affiliation with the Congregational Churches of Stonington verifies

that Christian conversion was not a singular or permanent event. Many Native Christians un-

affiliated with a church, while remaining practicing Christians; either through Indian-only

churches or in solitude.151 Another reason for the drop in Native participation following 1742,

was the lack of maintenance of cultural norms associated with Protestant Christianity. One such

being the strict, and culturally foreign, laws concerning sexual relations which the Protestant

community saw as inseparable from their religion. Natives who did not conform to all Protestant

cultural practices were thus expelled from the church, though the separation of church and state

was once a cornerstone of Puritan ideology.152 Lastly, the reason for the lack of continued Native

148 Ibid, 471. 149 Ibid. 150 Ibid, 472. 151 Ibid, 478.152 Fischer,478, Bremer, 93.

Hoy 42

affiliation may have been as simple as lack of interest in Christianity.153 Native peoples were still

considered separate from Anglo-Christians, and retained much of their culture. As such

Christianity was not seen as a necessity.154

Fig. 7: Native affiliations with the Congregational Churches of Stonington, CT. from 1735-1749, by Linford D. Fischer.155

The negative association between the Pequots and Satan began with Capt. John

Underhill’s statement, “the devil, their commander,” in 1638. Prior to the Pequot War, Native

humanity was not directly questioned, and there was not an unwavering belief concerning Native

Americans being devil worshippers.156 Yet, the suggestion remained strong well into the 18th

century when “The Indian’s Pedigree” was written. In 1794, Ezekiel Russell of Boston published

the pamphlet, under the pen name Swany of Pockonocker, which declared that the Natives were

the offspring of Satan and a sow.157 His work was directed towards the Wampanoags of

153 Fischer, 477. 154 Ibid, 480. 155 Ibid, 476. 156 Hirsh, 1206. 157 Mandell, 521.

Hoy 43

Massachusetts, and was ripe with subliminal messages many Euro-American persons would

comprehend, Specifically, the name Swany, associating Native Americans with the fictional

cannibalistic and incestuous character of Scottish folklore.158 Additionally, the decision to

represent a pig as the mother of all Natives was in reference to the Puritan notion of pigs being

filthy.159 Russell played off the fears and ignorance of rural American colonists, while citing the

Bible as universal proof for his conspiracies; “Tho’ Satan was put to his trumps, He did not long

sit in the dumps, He thought he would a race create…Who being all inlin’d to evil, Should be fit

servants to the Devil…A race of Indians did beget…”160

Many Anglo-Christian Ministers including John Eliot and Stephen Badger, viewed

Natives in a more favorable light, it remained considerably ignorant concerning Native moral

and mental capabilities.161 The discrimination through religious rhetoric was so persistent that

William Apess, of Pequot ancestry, recounted in 1837 that the Pequots were “represented as

having no souls to save, or to lose, but as partridges upon the mountains.”162

The association made between the Native people and Satan was both in response to

ignorant fears concerning security and in direct reference to colonial America’s Puritan past. The

attachment of the Satanic imagery to Native persons did not arise prior to the Pequot War of

1636-1638, yet the continuation of the imagery proves its potency.

158 Ibid. 159 Ibid, 532. 160 Ibid, 523.161 Ibid, 529.162 Ibid, 529.

Hoy 44

Fig. 8: The cover of “The Indian’s Pedigree.” The image of a Native American on the top left, and the image of the Devil on the top right. Dated 1794.163

163 Ibid, 522.

Hoy 45

Conclusion

The Pequot War holds a unique place in North American history as the first conflict

between Anglo immigrants and Native peoples. It was the predecessor of many conflicts, yet it

has been largely ignored in the American narrative. By contextualizing how the Puritan religious

and military communities reacted within modern social theories, some explanation as to why the

English acted with the brutality they did may become less cryptic. This research was not

intended to serve as justification for the actions done during this period, simply to explain

historical events through context-driven analysis.

Scholarly works on the subject are not lacking in quality or quantity, simply distribution.

The Pequot War has little recognition outside of Connecticut and the historical, academic field.

The academics that have studied the period have developed varied sub-topics of interest;

including feminist, religious, military, and archeological examinations. By building from their

research, and adding a new dimension with the implementation of social theories, this research

aims to add to the public understanding ng of the conflict.

Symbolic Violence theory by Pierre Bourdieu, Protestant Ethic by Weber, and the Social

Dominance Theory by Pratto and Sidanius gave the research further analytical depth. From these

theories, the war and its participants can be understood as hierarchical relationships, which were

in constant threat of change unless permanent policy and social consciousness be shifted. These

theories aid in understanding the events within the conflict, its aftermath, and why it caused

altered perceptions of justice within the Puritan community.

The Pequot War was the beginning of Native American’s struggles against Anglican

expansion, as well as the end of Puritan idealized existence. The research suggests that the

actions committed during the war by the Puritan settlers and governing bodies did not contradict

Hoy 46

ideology. The Puritans understood their mission to God as the resilience of Puritan Protestantism

against all enemies. The Pequot were simply their first, major, foreign enemy, and as such they

viewed their actions as perfectly justified. The Puritans referred to the struggles they experience

in Europe as the catalyst for their military and religious actions in the New World.

Bibliography

Bremer, Francis J. Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Cave, Alfred A. "The Pequot Invasion of Southern New England: A Reassessment of the Evidence."

The New England Quarterly 62, no. 1 (1989): 27-44.

Cremer, Andrea Robertson. "Possession: Indian Bodies, Cultural Control, and Colonialism in the

Pequot War." Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 6, no. 2 (2008): 295-345.

doi:10.1353/eam.0.0006.

Dincauze, Dena F. "A Capsult Prehistory of Southern New England." In The Pequots in Southern New

England: The Fall and Rise of an American Indian Nation, edited by Laurence M. Hauptman

and James Wherry, 19-32. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993.

Fickes, Michael L. ""They Could Not Endure That Yoke": The Captivity of Pequot Women and

Children after the War of 1637." The New England Quarterly 73, no. 1 (2000): 58-81.

doi:10.2307/366745.

Fisher, L. D. ""It Provd But Temporary, & Short Lived": Pequot Affiliation in the First Great

Awakening." Ethnohistory 59, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 465-88.

Hauptman, Laurence M. "The Pequot War and Its Legacies." In The Pequots in Southern New

England: The Fall and Rise of an American Indian Nation, edited by James Wherry, 69-80.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990.

Hirsch, Adam J. "The Collision of Military Cultures in Seventeenth-Century New England." The

Journal of American History 74, no. 4 (1988): 1187-212. doi:10.2307/1894407.

"History and Culture." Mashantucket Pequot Museum & Research Center: 1-94.

Hoy 47

Lavin, Lucianne. Connecticut's Indigenous Peoples: What Archaeology, History, and Oral Traditions

Teach Us about Their Communities and Cultures. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.

Mandell, Daniel R. ""The Indian's Pedigree" (1794): Indians, Folklore, and Race in Southern New

England." William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 61, no. 3 (July 2004): 521-38.

McBride, Dr. Kevin. "University Senior Thesis Interview." E-mail interview by author. April 20, 2017.

Muehlbauer, Matthew S. "'They . . . Shall No More Be Called Peaquots but Narragansetts and

Mohegans': Refugees, Rivalry, and the Consequences of the Pequot War." War & Society 30, no.

3 (October 2011): 167-76.

Poupeau, Franck. "Reasons for Domination: Bourdieu versus Habermas." In Reading Bourdieu on

Society and Culture, edited by Bridget Fowler, 69-87. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.

Rubin, Julius H. "Praying Town and Praying-to-God Indians." In Tears of Repentance: Christian

Indian Identity and Community in Colonial Southern New England, 19-38. Lincoln: University

of Nebraska Press, 2013.

Salerno, Roger A. "Max Weber: Reason and Bureaucracy." In Beyond the Enlightenment: Lives and

Thoughts of Social Theorists, 59-65. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004.

Salerno, Roger A. "Pierre Bourdieu: Habitus." In Beyond the Enlightenment: Lives and Thoughts of

Social Theorists, 217-22. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004.

Scott, John. "Max Weber." In Fifty Key Sociologists: The Formative Theorists, 203-09. New York:

Routledge, 2007.

Sidanius, Jim, Felicia Pratto, Colette Van Laar, and Shana Levin. "Social Dominance Theory: Its

Agenda and Method." Political Psychology 25, no. 6 (2004): 845-80.

Starna, William. "The Pequots in the Early Seventeenth Century." In The Pequots in Southern New

England: The Fall and Rise of an American Indian Nation, edited by Laurence M. Hauptman

and James Wherry, 33-47. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993.

Underhill, Capt. John. "Newes from America; Or, A New and Experimentall Dscoverie of New

England; Containging, A True Relation of Their War-like Proceedings These Two Yeares Last

Hoy 48

Past, with a Firgure of the Indian Fort, or Palizado (1638)." Edited by Raul Royster. Electrionic

Texts in American Studies: 1-47. Univerty of Nebraska.

Virley, Mikala. "Social Dominance Theory: Explanation behind Social Hierarchy and Oppression?"

Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Jounral 2, no. 1 (2013):

2-20.

Winthrop, John. ""A City Upon a Hill"." Sheg.stanford.edu/upload/Puritans. Accessed May 4, 2017.

Wood, Timothy L. But Very Unsettled in Judgement: Salvation and the American Indian in the Puritan

Thought of John Winthrop and Roger Williams. Master's thesis, University of Louisville, Dept.

of History, April, 1997.