Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: King phillip's war analysis
King Philip’s War, also known as the Great Narragansett War, has been named “America’s most devastating conflict,” and “was a violent and bloody battle between the Wampanoag and English colonists” (Messina). “King Philp’s War settled who controlled Southern New England, and cleared the way for colonial expansion. It also set the tone for future relations between the Native American people and the United States” (“Metacom’s (King Philip’s) War). On January 29, 1695, John Sassamon, a Christian “praying” Indian who had been acting as an informer to the British, died at Assawampsett Lake. Although Sassamon’s exact cause of death is unknown, most likely, Sassamon was murdered by three members of King Philip’s tribe, under the orders of King Philip …show more content…
In January 1675, John Sassamon visited Governor John Winslow at his home in Marshfield, Massachusetts. Sassamon had come with the dismal warning that the Wampanoag had been planning to begin a war against the English colonists. He returned home, but was later found dead under the ice at Assawompsett Pond. At first, Sassamon’s death was deemed accidental, but by June a Christian Indian named Patuckson came forward and testified that he had seen three Wampanoag; Tobias (one of Philip’s counselors), Tobias’ son Wapapaquan, and Mattachunnamo, murder Sassamon. Although Patuckson owed a gambling debt to Tobias, the three were accused, according to Plymouth Colony records, of “laying violent hands on [John Sassamon] … and striking him, or twisting his necke, until hee was dead … [and] did cast his dead body through the hole of thee iyce” (Schultz, 26-27). Schultz states that, “the accusations against these three men soon led to one of colonial America’s most infamous courtroom dramas” (27). Both Indians and English colonists sat upon the jury for the duration of this trial, with there being a jury of twelve Englishmen, supplemented by an auxiliary jury of perhaps four Indians. To this day, it is unknown how the deliberations worked but, is it clear the verdict was unanimous among white and Indian
In 1675, tensions between Native Americans and colonists residing in New England erupted into the brutal conflict that has come to be known as King Philip's War, the bloodiest battle in America history, in proportion to population it was also the deadliest war in American history. The English colonists wished to rid the country of the Indians in order to seize their land. They believed the Indians were savages and therefore were not worthy of equal rights.
The details disclosed that the prosecution highlighted the names of the potential black judges and tinted every black potential juror’s name in a different color. There were four different duplicates of the record of all of the individuals summoned for the task in the case. Evert record had a key, which indicated that the highlighted names represented the blacks. Besides, there were no any blotches made for the white jurors on the lists. There were also many marks made on the black people’s names on the juror questionnaires, and there was no any other race that was
1675-76, the most devastating war between the colonists and the Native Americans in New England. The war is named for King Philip, the son of Massasoit and chief of the Wampanoag. His Wampanoag name was Metacom, Metacomet, or Pometacom. Upon the death (1662) of his brother, Alexander (Wamsutta), whom the Native Americans suspected the English of murdering, Philip became sachem and maintained peace with the colonists for a number of years. Hostility eventually developed over the steady succession of land sales forced on the Native Americans by their growing dependence on English goods. Suspicious of Philip, the English colonists in 1671 questioned and fined him and demanded that the Wampanoag surrender their arms, which they did. In 1675 a Christian Native American who had been acting as an informer to the English was murdered, probably at Philip's instigation. Three Wampanoags were tried for the murder and executed. Incensed by this act, the Native Americans in June, 1675, made a sudden raid on the border settlement of Swansea. Other raids followed; towns were burned and many whites-men, women, and children-were slain. Unable to draw the Native Americans into a major battle, the colonists resorted to similar methods of warfare in retaliation and antagonized other tribes. The Wampanoag were joined by the Nipmuck and by the Narragansett (after the latter were attacked by the colonists), and soon all the New England colonies were involved in the war. Philip's cause began to decline after he made a long journey west in an unsuccessful attempt to secure aid from the Mohawk. In 1676 the Narragansett were completely defeated and their chief, Canonchet, was killed in April of that year; the Wampanoag and Nipmuck were gradually subdued. Philip's wife and son were captured, and he was killed (Aug., 1676) by a Native American in the service of Capt.
So when, “Francis West and thirty-six man (sailed) up the Chesapeake Bay to try to trade for corn with the Patawomeke Indians..” he was looking for food to trade to last through the winter. Document D also says, “”some harshe and crewell dealinge by cutting of towe (two) of the savages heads and other extremetyes.” Now from where I come from, we don’t chop up our business partners. This shows extreme mistrust and greed, which caused them to act crazy and ruin a good opportunity at partnership. They needed the indians and their knowledge of the land, crops, and enemies. But they put a wall up in between them and sparked anger and possibly war. Document D supports the fact that they died because of mistrust. (Doc
The Pequot tribe inhabited most of Southeastern Connecticut when the colonists arrived to the new world. The Pequot were among the most feared tribes in Southern New England in relation to the colonists. Actually, the name “Pequot” is of Algonquian descent and translates to mean “destroyers”. As the Pequot were migrating westward continuous altercations with the colonists arose. One incident in particular led to the murder of an English man believed to be a traitor by the Pequot. John Endicott, of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, organized an attack against the Pequot in retaliation for the murder of the alleged traitor, John Oldham. On May 26, 1637 the Pequot were attacked by some colonists as well as the Pequot former tribesmen the Mohegan and Uncas. Nearly all the Pequot villages were burned and nearly all of the Pequot were killed. Some small groups did escape but most were found and either murdered or sold into slavery to other Indian nations as well as residents of the West Indies. After the “Pequot War”, the Pequot name was all but eliminated giving way to the Mohegan. The pride of the Pequot people and their immense hatred of the Mohegan tribe were very prevalent t...
...s. (Bailey) For the third text, the author was a little more specific with the Indian tribe name. The tribe was the Tsenacomoco, and their weroance was Powhatan. Powhatan brother watched the colonist try to expand and convert Indians to Christianity. The war leader set up attacks all along the James River leading to 347 colonist dead on March 22, 1622. (Norton)
John Smith explains the hardships of the voyage in the “General History of Virginia” he and others endured. While finally landing on land and discovering the head of the Chickahamania River, The colony endured Disease, severe weather, Native American attacks, and starvation all threatened to destroy the colony. Smith talks about his accomplishments of being a “good leader” and how he helped in many ways. John Smith was captured by the Native Americans and brought back to the camp. Within an hour, the Native Americans prepared to shoot him, but the Native Americans done as Chief Powhatan ordered and brought stones to beat Smiths brains out. John Smith gave an ivory double compass to the Chief of Powhatan. The Native Americans marveled at the parts of the compass. After the Native Americans admired the compass for an hour Chief Powhatan held...
The New England colonists were in constant contact with Indians since their arrival. Conflict was unavoidable between the two polar opposite cultures. The colonists sought to convert the Indians into Christians and attempt to civilize the "barbarians." Also, the expansion of colonies into Indian Territory was a major concern among the Indian tribes. King Phillip's War was the result of the ongoing tensions between the two cultures. Both the colonists and the Indians grew increasingly suspicious of each other eventually leading to war.
King William's War was a war fought in England over religious differences between the English and French. In the colonies, however, it was fought over not only religious differences but also over jealousies concerning fisheries and the fur trade in the St. Lawrence area. Both the English and the French knew that the Indians of the area would play a large part in the war, whichever side they took...
This scandalous case centers on a woman named Katherine Watkins. On Friday, August 18, 1681, Katherine accused a slave by the name of John Long, also known as Jack, of rape. There was some evidence of violence, but there were also outstanding questions about her character and conduct. Those who testified, however, painted a different picture about certain events preceding the crime. They were John Aust, William Harding, Mary Winter, Lambert Tye, Humphrey Smith, Jack White (Negro), Dirk (Negro), and Mingo (Negro). Whether these individuals were so inclined because Katherine Watkins was a Quaker, rather than an Anglican, we can never really know. That certainly fueled the fire, though. The day in question involved an afternoon of cider drinking. Several of the witnesses in the testimonies recounted Mrs. Watkins sexual advances to multiple of Thomas Cocke 's slaves, particularly, a mulatto named Jack. John Aust pleaded that Katherine, at one point, had lifted the shirt of one slave and announced “Dirke thou wilt have a good long thing” (Sex and Relations, 53). She allegedly had thrown another on the bed, kissed him, and, “put her hand into his codpiece” (Sex and Relations, 53). The most interesting piece of evidence that Aust brings forward is that Jack was actually avoiding Watkins at the party, an apparent attempt at avoiding any intimate entanglement with her (Sex and Relations, 52). Finally, he reported that Watkins and Jack had gone into a side room (Sex and Relations, 53). Later in the trial, Humphrey Smith seemingly referred to Aust 's testimony. His deposition suggested that he and Aust had some reservations about Jack 's guilt (Sex and Relations 54). Clearly, the character of the plaintiff was considered important evidence in the trial of a slave for rape. The reasonable extenuating circumstances of the case might have granted the magistrates leave way
Therefore the colour of Tom Robinson’s skin was the defining factor in the jury’s decision. Since the jury declared Tom Robinson guilty, that reveals his fate of going to jail and eventually being killed which is obviously an injustice based on the discrimination against him.
In addition to the road to battle, it is important to know that historical accounts of what led to the battle and what transpired are in dispute. These are not disputes over minor items, such as the exact order of battle or a clear sequence of events in what was a confusing night and dawn battle. Accounts of what transpired are often fundamentally different, and it is clear that various actors suppressed or championed differing accounts for political or personal reasons. By some accounts, the battle began by accident as an Indian patrol sent to keep watch on the Americans drew fire from nervous American sentries, leading the Indians only a mile away at Prophetstown to attack. By other accounts, the Indians planned a deliberate attack in order to strike the American force before the Americans could strike the Indians. Harrison touted the battle as a decisive victory that broke up the Indian confederacy and many historians agreed. However, modern accounts argue that the battle actuall...
Spurgeon, Ian Michael. “Natchez Revolt” in Encyclopedia of North American Indian Wars, 1607-1890: A Political, Social, and Military History. Edited by Spencer C. Tucker, James Arnold and Roberta Wiener. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO Publishing (2011): 535.
In “A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson,” Mary Rowlandson, a Puritan mother from Lancaster, Massachusetts, recounts the invasion of her town by Indians in 1676 during “King Philip’s War,” when the Indians attempted to regain their tribal lands. She describes the period of time where she is held under captivity by the Indians, and the dire circumstances under which she lives. During these terrible weeks, Mary Rowlandson deals with the death of her youngest child, the absence of her Christian family and friends, the terrible conditions that she must survive, and her struggle to maintain her faith in God. She also learns how to cope with the Indians amongst whom she lives, which causes her attitude towards them to undergo several changes. At first, she is utterly appalled by their lifestyle and actions, but as time passes she grows dependent upon them, and by the end of her captivity, she almost admires their ability to survive the harshest times with a very minimal amount of possessions and resources. Despite her growing awe of the Indian lifestyle, her attitude towards them always maintains a view that they are the “enemy.”
I don’t believe the Philippine War was justified. There are more ways than war to solve the annexation of the Philippines. I agree on some of the policies, but not all of the policies, that were in place during that time period.