Post on 20-Sep-2020
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.