- This topic has 40 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
OK, please tell me everything you know about this. What do I need to/should know if writing a paper on this topic?Just started a Colonial America course today (yes, there are no holidays at AMU) and, this is interesting, I have to do a book review on a book I will be using in my paper. Just picked up "The Name of War: King Phillip's War and the Origins of American Identity" by Jill Lepore (also got "Wars of the Ancient Greeks" by Hanson - can never pass up the Greek stuff!). Never heard of Lepore, but the book looks well-sourced and she's a professor at Tufts and Boston University which have very good history departments. As long as she's not an ideological flake, it should be OK.As I learn stuff, I will add to this thread for discussion/correction/etc. Just curious what you folks already know about it. What's cool, is it seems most of the events in this war occured within a 10-15 mile radius of my house!What I know so far: it was a war between southern New England native American tribes and the Puritans, and the Puritans had to resort to much brutality which I would imagine shook them and made them question the nature of themselves as a civilized people of God. Is that accurate?
In a nutshell, quick and dirty, Phil is the posterboy for too little, too late. His father had made peace with the settlers (good to have friends with guns) hoping to keep them under control and minimize encroachment. As I remember it also had to do with tribes to the west of the Wampanoags being pretty tough (so couldnb't move away from the whites…) 😮By the time Phil went on the warpath the with the pale faces had a very strong militia and the rest is, as we say, history. Phillip was hunted down and killed and most of the rest of the tribe sold off into slavery.
Abpout all I know of this war is that the Puritans and indians were very brutal in its prosecution. I read an interesting piece on it in one of my undergrad courses that I will have to look up and cite. I think the book is on the ebrary page for AMU. If I remember correctly the book is Major Problems in American Military History by Chambers and Piehler.
Just browsing through a couple of journals and they said the colonists lost 4-5% of their male population which was claimed to be fairly high and the native Americans lost more. Also mentioned was that it was basically a civil war between the southern New Eng. tribes.The Great Swamp is where many natives lost their lives. I've been there a few times, but not recently. It's in southern RI. I'll have to make another visit soon. Of course in typical wikipedia fashion, this is mentioned in the above link:
The building of such a defensive structure gives credence to the argument that the Narragansett never intended aggressive actions, thus the colonist's preemptive attack may have been unwarranted and overzealous.
is probably a bunch of crap and I will try to disprove it. "Narragansett never intended aggressive actions" "colonist's preemptive attack" Yeah, whatever.
4-5% of total male population is fairly high. You should look into the numbers suffered during WWI by the combatant nations, they are fairly similar to those percentages.
Assistance please. I've found some primary sources, but I always have trouble looking for primary source newspaper articles. Apparently there are a lot of them concerning this war in the London Gazette, but for the life of me, I cannot find them or even figure out how to find them. Not asking to do the work for me, but can anyone guide me in the right direction or a good place to start? I've found and downloaded books by Increase Mather and some others from google, but I'm having trouble finding archives of letters and/or articles.
Have you contacted the paper itself to ask about access to their archives. They are still around LG. Failing that I would ask one of the Librarians at school, they are amazing at finding stuff.
Thanks, scout. I've never done that and you've suggested it a few times. I also sent an email to LG to see what they can do. Now back to topic:Who killed John Sassoman, and why? My take on this is psycho-anthropological (or maybe just psycho ;D ). Literacy killed Sassoman. By this I mean when he learned English he lost the trust of the Indians, especially Philip who he allegedly cheated when writing his will. It's also possible Sassoman was treasonous or perceived as treasonous to both sides. An anglicized Indian was not trusted by the settlers either. During the war, the settlers put most of the Christian, English-speaking Indians on a small island in Boston Harbor. Kind of like an internment camp. Must have been difficult for those converted Indians. An interesting concept I'm reading has to do with how we look at war or the enemy. It is usually an us vs. them mentality. With the English-speaking Indian, there is now a new category-the other. This, and all the Indian wars of the 17th century are an interesting topic.
This, and all the Indian wars of the 17th century are an interesting topic.
I dont know that I would call them Wars any more than I would call most of the "Indian Wars" wars. They are more skirmishes or battles than wars. The number of combatants was low and they have more the character of brawls than military campaigns.
Yeah, I know what you mean. If anything ,these were small wars. But when looking at it collectively, maybe they can be viewed as a war between colonists and natives.
The problem with that view is that the tribes saw themselves as individual peoples. They did not resort to collective action until well into the eighteenth century and then only reluctantly. The story of Indian resistance to settlement is one of internecine tribal warfare/competition with only periodic cooperation in the face of settler encroachment. The Indians could have easily stopped European settlement if they had presented a united from from the beginning. Unfortunately for them, they did not until it was too late and the colonists were well established.
I dont know that I would call them Wars any more than I would call most of the "Indian Wars" wars. They are more skirmishes or battles than wars. The number of combatants was low and they have more the character of brawls than military campaigns.
I beg to differ. Perhaps there were many skirmishes in other areas, but in the case of King Philip's War the colonies of Providence, Seekonk, Swansea, Bristol, Sudbury, Dartmouth, Kingston, Worcester, Plymouth, etc. were nearly anihilated by the Wampanoags and their allies. I would define that as war.
I guess it depends on how you define war. I tend to adopt a geo-political viewpoint that War only occurs between states or sovereign institutions. I definitely do not subscribe to the sociological definition for historical purposes.
I guess it depends on how you define war. I tend to adopt a geo-political viewpoint that War only occurs between states or sovereign institutions. I definitely do not subscribe to the sociological definition for historical purposes.
That's why I said "differ". For the most part I agree with you, but I think in this case it could be considered a war because of a few things: the written treaties the Indians violated, Philip's ability to align with the other local tribes, and the way it was carried out. The colonists did struggle to justify it because they were questioning among themselves the sovereignty of the Indians.
