Making War and Minting Christians: Masculinity, Religion, and Colonialism in Early New England

Chapter 10. “Best to deal with Indians in their Own Way”

156 y c h a p t e r 10 “Best to deal with Indians in their Own Way” Be yo n d t he o r i g i n s and stakes of a given conflict, warfare was regarded as intrinsically religious and served as an arena for the performance of manhood, where dominance was viewed as manly, and defeat was implicitly tied to effeminacy, weakness, and failure. What defined a manly and honorable mode of warfare, however, remained contested. Natives and anglo-americans understood the connections between religious practice, manliness,and combatdivergently,whilealsodrawingdifferentconclusions over the meaning of war. at the same time, the different ways in which manlinessandreligionfiguredinwarfareshapedtheevolutionofmartialcultures and combat in the region.1 In the 1620s and 1630s, combat occasioned the meeting of two distinct and evolving warrior cultures. the Pequot War (1636–37) illustrated that whatever restraints on violence Englishmen and Native americans had sometimes employed in combat prior to colonization, they did not ultimately work across the cultural divide. the savage anglo-american assault on the Pequot village at Mystic, Connecticut, which left several hundred noncombatants dead amid their smoldering wigwams, especially demonstrated the ferocity of colonial warfare. thenceforth, Native americans who fought the colonists experienced the extravagant violence Europeans typically reserved for rebels or infidels. Facing this reality, Indians quickly and “Best to deal with Indians in their Own Way” z 157 pragmatically adapted European weaponry to older tactics with deadly effectiveness . anglo-american warfare underwent a similar blending of EuropeanandNativeamericanpractices .theemergenceofthesehybridmartial cultures made war all the more violent. the degree of change in the region’s martial cultures was starkly displayed during King Philip’s War (1675–76), an intimate affairbetween longtimeneighborsand occasionalfriendswhich demonstrated the ferocity of colonial violence. a very similar dynamic was present during both King William’s War (1688–97) and Queen anne’s War (1702–13), where irregular warfare continued to predominate and came to define early american war-making. Hit-and-run tactics, ambushes, and attacks on noncombatants, to cite three prominent examples, were common, whereas anything approaching the style of warfare waged by professional armies in European open field battles was very rare indeed. In this way, the evolution of warfare within New England dovetailed with the trajectory of martial cultures in the Northeast more broadly.2 Warfare was overwhelmingly a male occupation for colonists throughout this violent period. In English accounts of warfare, for example, women who engaged in combat, though showing themselves capable and fearsome, were cast as curious, if heroic, aberrations. Such conduct was deemed extraordinary and atypical of women’s roles. relating one such incident during King William’s War, Cotton Mather tellingly described the bravery of womenhelpingdefendagainstanIndianattackastakingup“theamazonian Stroke”bybringing“ammunitiontotheMen,”andfiring“severaltimesupon the Enemy.” He suggested that manhood was somethingto be performed,as thewomenemployed“Manlyresolution”infightingtheIndians.Inthisway, violence was understood as a manly practice outside the ordinary currents of Christian womanhood. By evoking a mythic amazonian and presumably pagan past, Mather depicted the extraordinary actions of the women as an un-Christian, however necessary, transgression of gender roles.3 although one might reasonably doubt whether the women in question reflected on similar matters as they repelled an attack, Mather’s account suggests the importance of masculinity to colonial understandings of the proper conduct of war. For the most part, warfare was similarly the province of Indian men. NativewomennonethelessfilledarangeofrolesincombatexceedingEnglish practices. Sunksquaws, such as the Saconet leader awashonks, sometimes led male warriors and celebrated corporate religious rituals tied to combat. Women like awashonks were not only respected but also spiritually potent 158 y chapter 10 leaders,capableofdrawingonthepowerfulmanitounecessaryforsuccesson the battlefield. Indian women were involved in combat in other interesting ways, sometimes provisioning warriors or carrying pieces of wood shaped like muskets, intended to incite English fears of Indian military strength. Since Native women were also the primary agriculturalists in their societies, female labor often kept warriors and communities fed during conflicts.4 Natives and anglo-americans understood manliness and warfare differently . the English dismissed Native martial culture from the start. William Wood, for example, claimed that Indians “do not now practice anything in martial feats worth observation, saving that they make themselves forts to fly into” should they be attacked. He further disparaged “antic [Indian] warriors” who fought in a “disordered manner,” an approach to combat that lacked “any soldier-like marching or warlike postures” and failed to respect proper channels of military authority. Once having expended their weaponry in battle...