Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Pequot War in 1636-37


First there is this excerpt:

"Pequot War, war fought in 1636–37 by the Pequot people against a coalition of English settlers from the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and Saybrook colonies and their Native American allies (including the Narragansett and Mohegan) that eliminated the Pequot as an impediment to English colonization of southern New England. It was an especially brutal war and the first sustained conflict between Native Americans and Europeans in northeastern North America."



Read more about the Pequot War in the complete Britannica article via this link.




Now, let's discuss something:

In the conflicts between early colonists and Native Americans, whom do you think were most often responsible for violence and problems?

(Note: This question is, I think, more difficult to answer than you might think.)




14 comments:

  1. fascinating article; i never heard of that war before; it's no surprise, tho, that the Indians were fighting each other before the Dutch and English arrived... clash of alien cultures, basically, but over the same old things: commercial profit and advantage and resources... war is always the final resolution of difficulties, it seems, all thru history...
    interesting period, tx for the post...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mudpuddle, too many revisionist histories would have us believe Native Americans lived in idyllic Eden until the invasion of pestilential warriors and land grabbing demons from England and Europe. The Pequot War, a snippet worth pondering, suggests the truth is much more complicated.

      Delete
    2. Mudpuddle, Melville memorializes the Pequod in Moby Dick!

      Delete
    3. Marly, Pequot = Pequot? I thought of that possibility but avoided making the unsubstantiated leap.

      Delete
    4. Correction: Pequot = Pequod?

      Delete
    5. i had thought that also, but wasn't sure about it so i didn't mention it...

      Delete
  2. That very theory — Original Sin — seems to work very well in this instance. The idea that indigenous peoples were always innocent and wondeful is sentimental nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I meant: That very sound theory — Original Sin — seems to work very well in this instance. The idea that indigenous peoples were always innocent and wondeful is sentimental nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frank, I have been surprised in my lifetime by the relentless whitewashing of one side and demonizing of the other side in the history of indigenous v. colonists. The revision has been relentless. I wonder why it has happened.

      Delete
  4. This year I have decided that I want to read more about pre - Revolutionary War America. This conflict is obviously a part of that.

    As I have been reading a little about Witch Trials in Colonial America I am running into references to this conflict. Many of those involved, both accusers and accused, were veterans and refugees of this and similar conflicts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian, I think King Philip's War also is worth more attention than it usually gets. I hope you will posting about the Salem witch hysteria. I have just read about Cotton Mather and some interesting facts and theories about his involvement in the hysteria. Perhaps I will say more later about Mather.

      Delete
  5. Of course it's complicated, with good and ill and lack of understanding on all sides.... I've been reading about the late 17th Century in Mass Bay this year.

    One of the most recent anecdotes I read concerned a Mass Bay woman with newborn dragged from her home. She wanted to have the child baptized; the men who dragged her from the house with the infant in her arms said they would do it in their own style, which they proceeded to do with tomahawks on the forehead. Later she saw the newborn impaled on the top of a pike.

    The thing I have noticed in research that I never noticed before is that the Mass Bay General Court was often quite unresponsive when frontier towns were in desperate need of men to support the homegrown militia. And sometimes they would order soldiers stationed at a needy town to move to another--madness! In at least one case, their withdrawal of troops at the wrong time led to the deaths of more than 200 settlers in a massacre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marly, I have been reading Paul Johnson's book (A History of the American People), and I note that pre-Revolution colonists were becoming increasing annoyed that the British provided insufficient military protection against dangers from Native Americans and elsewhere; reactions to problems rather than anticipatory defensive protections are never good strategies.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but it's not just Britain. It's also the General Counsel and the governors.... Also, it's hard to maintain constant watchfulness when there are insufficient soldiers.

      Delete