Christianity: The Ingredient that Changed the Mohicans into the Stockbridge Mohicans

In my last post I defined ethnogenesis as the creation of an ethnic group.

I expected to get some objection from my Indian audience for stating that I believe the Mohican Indians underwent an ethnogenesis as their Massachusetts mission town took shape. Although you see no comments posted here, I did get some argument on Facebook, especially from Shawn Stevens. And let me tell you that Shawn is one of a small number of people whose support is part of what makes my research and writing worthwhile. Shawn's response to my last post was long (for facebook) and it included some exclamation marks.

Since I make it a point to keep my blogposts relatively brief, I didn't have enough space to make my argument completely clear in my previous post so I will fill it out here. The essence of my argument is that the Stockbridge Mohicans are different from the pre-Christian-era Mohicans because of religion. The American Heritage Dictionary defines ethnic as "of or relating to a specific group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage." So one's ethnic group can be defined by race or "blood quantum," but it can also be defined by religion and culture.

In my previous post I stated that John Sergeant baptized 182 Indians "at a time when baptism was a rather exclusive rite among Calvinists." I noted that many of the converts were not "Mohicans" and, for that reason, it is understandable that some people (Shawn Stevens included) thought that I was making a "blood quantum" argument. Instead, I was arguing that being a Stockbridge Mohican was different from being any other kind of Mohican because they [the Stockbridges] had taken on a different religion and culture.

Those "other kinds" of Mohicans didn't survive as distinct ethnic groups. But the Stockbridge Mohicans are with us today. That is a paraphrase of something that Captain Hendrick Aupaumut said in a speech to the White River Delawares in 1803. The Stockbridge chief was encouraging the Delawares to accept a Christian mission and the things that went with it, primarily learning to farm and learning to read.

Please don't misunderstand me. I myself have documented the hard times of the Stockbridge Mohicans. And I would guess that they are among only a small minority of tribes who (for the most part) had good relations with white church bodies and white ministers.

So again I make the argument that there was an ethnogenesis at the Massachusetts mission. The new ethnic group was different to some extent because some (or many) came from non-Mohican tribes, but mostly, the Stockbridge Mohicans were different from the pre-Christian Mohicans because they adopted a new religion. And don't forget: back then religion wasn't separated from almost everything else - it was your culture.


[mc4wp_form]

Ethnogenesis: Another Comparison between the Stockbridge and Brothertown Indians

I hadn't heard of the term "ethnogenesis" before I found Craig Cipolla's new book at my public library.

The title of the book is
Becoming Brothertown: Native American Ethnogenesis and Endurance in the Modern World

I've only read part of it so far, but based on the table of contents and the opportunity I've had to read Cipolla's PhD dissertation (which the book is based on) it is largely an analysis of gavesites and other above-ground types of archealogical data. Not the kind of book you'd expect to see in your local public library, but I live in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, the home-in-exile of the Brothertown Indians.

Anyway, this blogpost is about ethnogenesis. Cipolla defines it on page 23:

Ethnogenesis is the process by which new ethnic identities emerge.

If you know anything about the Brothertown Indians, you can understand the relevance of ethnogenesis to their history. The Brothertown community was formed out of Indians from the following tribes: Narragansetts, Pequots, Mohegans, Montauketts, Niantics and Tunxis (an inexact list, based on page 5 of Cipolla's Becoming Brothertown).

Every Native nation went through big changes when Europeans arrived on the scene.

But evolutionary changes are experienced by all ethnic groups. A lot of tribes were at least able to stick together and keep their old names. For example, the pre-white contact tribe known as the Lakota Sioux are - despite the very tough times they are experiencing - still known as Lakota Sioux today. While the Lakota Sioux have gone through many changes as a people, today's Lakota Sioux "evolved" from the pre-contact Lakota Sioux. So it follows that social scientists don't speak of a Lakota ethnogenesis.

Can you tell where I'm going with this?

Like I often do here, I'm going to relate the concept of ethnogenesis to the Stockbridge Mohicans.

Did an ethnogenesis occur which "created" the Stockbridge Mohicans?

You're entitled to your own opinion on that, but I feel pretty strongly that the answer is yes.

Some may argue that the Mohicans (or any variation of that name: Mahican, Muhhecunnuk, Mohheconnew, and possibly others) existed prior to white contact. And in a very real sense they did - because there was a group of Indians that used that name.

Again, some may argue that although Indians from other tribes were added over the years, that was nothing different from what every other tribe did - they married Indians from other tribes and sometimes a village added to it's numbers by means of raids on other tribes.

But I'm arguing the other side.
Based on my research, the Indians that got together at Stockbridge, Massachusetts underwent an ethnogenesis.
 
Starting with people from two Mohican villages on the Housatonic, the community grew... and in the first few years it grew largely from the appeal of John Sergeant's preaching (Patrick Frazier covers this well in The Mohicans of Stockbridge).
 
At a time when baptism was a relatively exclusive rite among Calvinists, many Indians pressured Sergeant to baptize them. Between 1735 and his death in 1749, Sergeant baptized 182 Indians (source: Hopkins, 1753). And they came from a number of different tribes.

Then in the 1750's, the last remnant of Wappingers came to town. Numbering over 200, they were probably more numerous than the "Mohicans," but the name "Mohican" stuck, nonetheless.

I won't belabor the point. There may be some who disagree with me and I'd like to hear their (your) arguments.

 
[mc4wp_form]

A Video about "Black Indians"

Since it is Black History Month, I thought it would be appropriate to embed a video about "Black Indians" for this blogpost.
This particular video is primarily about modern-day Black Indians, but it should be logical enough that the existence of "Black Indians" today suggests - or even proves - that the two races have long been associated with each other on this continent.

The video you see below, was produced for a Virginia-based TV channel known as Cox 11.

 



Credit for creating this video goes to Vince Schilling, Executive Vice President of Schilling Media, Inc. - Award-Winning Native American Photojournalist & Book Author

Indian Country Today Media Network

I also want to thank my Google+ friend, Elder Anthony Quentin Vaughan, for his comment:

This is very good because brothers and sisters who have African American descent struggle with acceptance from both Native Americans and Caucasian Americans. We need to measure with our hearts instead of blood degrees. We are not pedigreed animals, we are people who have the responsibility to take care of Mother Earth and each other...

Little Turtle, William Wells and "Mad" Anthony Wayne

William Wells

 

The Miami chief Little Turtle was introduced in an earlier post. I wrote about him as a statesmanlike figure who advocated peace and befriended white leaders like President George Washington. Prior to that, Little Turtle was a war chief who made a name for himself as a brilliant military tactician. He was the biggest hero of La Balme's Massacre in 1780.

Not only did Little Turtle and his warriors beat the French under La Balme, but they beat the Americans too. If we can simplify the outcome of battles down to personalities, Little Turtle deserves credit for defeating General Harmar in 1790 and General Arthur St. Clair in 1791.

William Wells was what might be called a "white" Indian. Born in present-day Kentucky shortly before the Revolutionary War, Wells was orphaned and lived with his extended family as they headed west. One day William and a few other boys were out in the woods hunting and managed to get a bear. Precisely at that time they were captured by Indians, probably Delawares. Sometimes captured whites were killed, but, especially if they were young, many of them had the opportunity to become part of a Native community. William Wells was adopted by a Miami chief whose name in English translates to Porcupine. He took on Native ways and generally forgot his upbringing.

At some point Little Turtle was impressed by William Wells' toughness and skills and they became close allies, to say the least. William Wells even married Little Turtle's daughter, whose name translates to "Sweet Breeze." [Unfortunately, I have read somewhere that historians know "nothing about her, aside from her lovely name."] Anyway, in The Life and Times of Little Turtle: First Sagamore of the Wabash, the author, Henry Lewis Carter, often refers to something he calls the legend of the family pact.

Some background is needed to understand the so-called family pact. What was happening is that - after Little Turtle and William Wells defeated Harmar and St. Clair together -  Wells decided to try to make a go of it in the white man's world. Sweet Breeze might already have died by that time, but could Wells just put aside his relationship to Little Turtle?

The legend of the family pact (as recorded in a pamphlet prepared by the staff of the Public Library of Fort Wayne and Allen County, Indiana in August of 1952) has Wells saying to Little Turtle:

We have long been friends; we are friends yet, until the sun stands so high (indicating the place) in the heavens; from that time we are enemies and may kill one another.

Maybe those exact words weren't spoken, but it stands to reason that Wells said something to the Turtle before he left. They may well have had some kind of a "no kill" agreement. Wells' next stop was to enlist under General "Mad" Anthony Wayne.
 


General "Mad" Anthony Wayne

Back in Indian country, a number of tribes had gotten together to prepare for General Wayne and his forces. Little Turtle received a scouting report on Wayne's forces from a promising young Shawnee warrior, Tecumseh.

I need to emphasize that much of the lives of people like Little Turtle and William Wells - especially what they said in the Miami language - may be more the stuff of legend or oral history than it is known fact. Nevertheless, the "legend" that we do have is consistent with everything else that we know.

According to the oral history that was later recorded in the Fort Wayne Public Library's pamphlet, Little Turtle made the following statement in council:

We have beaten them [the white Americans] twice under separate commanders. We cannot expect the same good fortune always to attend us. The Americans are now led by a Chief who never sleeps; night and day are alike to him. Notwithstanding the watchfulness of our young men, we have never been able to surprise him. Think well of this; there is something that whispers to me, it would be prudent to listen to his [General Wayne's] offers of peace.

Little Turtle was accused of "cowardice, treachery, and self-interest," by some of the other chiefs. Some of them thought that William Wells had something to do with Little Turtle's viewpoint.

History proved Little Turtle correct. The Battle of Fallen Timbers was a decisive victory for General Wayne and his forces. It led to the Treaty of Fort Greenville, which put most of present-day Ohio, and a lot of present-day Indiana, into white hands.

After Little Turtle signed the Greenville treaty, he kept his vow of peace with the United States. and was re-united with his old friend and son-in-law, William Wells.

 

How did the Stockbridge Mohicans get Dragged into the French and Indian War?

The front cover of The Mohicans of Stockbridge

The vast majority of Indians fighting in the French and Indian War were allied with France. So why then did the Stockbridge Mohicans ally themselves with the British?

Well, they already were allies with the British. The Christian mission established in 1734 in what is now the state (commonwealth) of Massachusetts came about largely or at least partly, for political reasons. If it seems to you that the British were being deceitful, remember that the thing we call "separation of church and state" had not been invented at that point. So there was no shame in "using" religion to recruit Native subjects to the British Crown. (Some of those subjects later proved to be a great guerrilla fighting force.)

The Indians needed white allies because they were struggling to survive. Meanwhile, the British needed Native allies because they were struggling with the French - for world domination.

Another question is why were individual Indians wiling to fight the French and their Native allies. The answer, if I remember what Patrick Frazier wrote somewhere in The Mohicans of Stockbridge, is twofold: 1) the Indian men still identified themselves as warriors - that was who they were and what they did, and 2) they had debts to pay and fighting was a way to earn money and avoid their creditors.

All of that is the context. Just as important were the real events - initiated by France's Native allies - that brought the white and Native residents of Stockbridge [Massachusetts] into the French and Indian War. These events were described so well by Patrick Frazier in the Mohicans of Stockbridge, that I scanned page 107 for you to read (click on the image to enlarge it):



That page and much of the rest of The Mohicans of Stockbridge is available from Google books.

The long and short of it is that the Scaticokes and Abenakis had been busy in the neighborhood of Stockbridge and Albany, killing cattle, burning buildings, and even murdering an infant and a servant in the town of Stockbridge. Such aggression would not be tolerated. War was on!

[mc4wp_form]

The French and Indian War: Something about that Name

This painting was borrowed from the Lake George Mirror.

Have you noticed that there is something Anglocentric about the name "French and Indian War." It assumes that you're English or British. Maybe some would argue that the winners of a war get to name it. I don't know if that is true, but if the so-called French and Indian War had gone the other way, we might not be speaking English here in the United States today.

Instead, that war went the way that it went. The British side (including, of course, their white colonial allies and their Native allies - the Indians from Stockbridge, Massachusetts) won that war.

But the name... I still don't like it. The bias is too obvious. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a better alternative. One Indian I know tried to give that war a different name. I don't remember exactly what she called it, but it seemed to also reflect her own biases.

To French Canadians that war is known as La guerre de la Conquête, which means "The War of Conquest." I like the drama in that name, but it is so generic.

The historical event that we refer to as "The French and Indian War" refers to the North American part of the Seven Years' War, which was essentially the world's first "world war," despite not getting credit for that in its name. In addition to North America, the Seven Years' War had the superpowers of France and Great Britian in a tussle over parts of Europe, as well as much of Central America, the West African coast, India, and the Philippines. Arguably, the colonizers had no right to claim land that was already occupied by people, but that moral argument is beside the point. The war was what it was, and the name still is what it is.

The best alternative name I can come up with is "The North American Theater of the Seven Years' War." Nine words long. It will never be adopted into common English usage.

How about you, is there a name you'd prefer to use for the so-called "French and Indian War"?

West Point Recognizes Stockbridge Mohican Warriors

Not only does Jaeger's Battalion re-enact the French and Indian War, but their focus is on  Rogers' Rangers.

The United States Military Academy is commonly known simply as "West Point," because that is where it is located. The academy created a report that was designed to be used to help the Army consult with Native tribes and indidviduals, particularly as it relates to NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990.

The title of the 2006 report is Native American Historic Context for the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. Diane K. Mann is the author. Citing Patrick Frazier's The Mohicans of Stockbridge as her source, Mann makes it known that the Native allies of the British in the French and Indian War were co-founders of the Army Rangers.



The Indians that lived in the town of Stockbridge, Massachusetts weren't known as the Stockbridge-Munsee tribe back then, but somehow, the author is aware of the offical modern name of the tribe that is made up of their descendants. On page 21 she declares:

The proud and illustrious tradition of the United States Army Rangers was in large part created by warriors of the Stockbridge Munsee tribe fighting alongside American and British soldiers commanded by Robert Rogers and Captain Jacob [Naunauphtaunk] and Lieutenant Solomon [Uhhaunauwaunmut].

That quote, for me, is clearly the most remarkable part of Diane Mann's work. At the same time, there is a lot more in the document that I'll be not only reading, but also using to continue my ongoing research of the Stockbridge Mohicans and their friends and neighbors.

By the way, Diane Mann also notes that Jacob Cheeksaunkun eventually was promoted to Captain in the British army. While that is not disputed, where she may go wrong is in claiming that Cheeksaunkun was Jacob Naunauphtaunk's son. I'll have to look into that, but I have my doubts.
[mc4wp_form]

Little Turtle and Austin E. Quinney: Native Dairy Pioneers Whose Cows were Killed

Little Turtle was a great war chief for the Miami Indians. After beating the rather small and unorganized armies of the United States twice in the 1790's, he became a leader of his people in peace. As a result, Little Turtle had the opportunity to do some traveling and meet some famous white Americans. In fact, George Washington took a liking to the Miami chief and invited him to stay at his house over the winter of 1796-1797. Other friends encouraged Little Turtle to move to Philadelphia permanently. However, Turtle knew he did not have a skillset that he could use to make a living in the city, so he returned to his own people.


This artist's rendering of Little Turtle is historically correct in that he wore a bear claw necklace and George Washington gave him a large medal that had his own likeness engraved on one side and Little Turtle's on the other.

But when he returned, Little Turtle wasn't the same old Indian that he'd been before. Not all the changes can be touched on here, but one thing that is important is that Little Turtle developed such a taste for milk that he brought a cow back with him to Indian Country. He even got his wife to make butter!

These kinds of anecdotes can be amusing to us in the 21st century. But serious historical analysis takes it farther.  In "Three Men from Three Rivers" (a chapter out of The Boundaries Between Us), Donald Graff writes about how frontier whites and Indians managed to slide between the two racial identities. Graff observed that cow ownership was a prime example of Little Turtle's "Americanization":

[H]is first cow, a flagrantly Euro-American symbol, was maliciously killed. Publicly, Little Turtle expressed a belief that the cow had been diseased, but the message sent by its death was as clear then as it is today.

Not all of Little Turtle's tribesmen agreed that peace was the way to go. Not all of them were proud of the fact that he had been "pal-ing around" with people like George Washington. And so they made a political statement by killing his cow. As a chief, Little Turtle knew his power was based on his approval rating, so he let it go. He wasn't going to be baited. Making a stink over what had happened could lead to other arguments that might ultimately strip him of whatever political power he still had with his own people.

Fast forward to Stockbridge, Wisconsin Territory in 1838. A similar thing happened to Austin E. Quinney's cow. This is from my own book, Proud and Determined:

When one of Austin E. Quinney's cows died, he alleged that it was killed "in a clandestine manner" by Thomas Hendrick. Witnesses were called and the case proceeded according to the new [tribal] constitution. It could not have seemed fair to Hendrick that one of the judges was the plaintiff's cousin, John W. Quinney. He and the other judge ruled in favor of Austin E. Quinney.

So the shoe was on the other foot. Not only were the "civilized" Stockbridge Mohicans in favor of adopting the agricultural practices of white Americans, but their leaders were willing and able to protect livestock with a written constitution and a court system that was similar to that of the whites. As I mentioned in my previous post, Thomas Hendrick - the one who allegedly killed Quinney's cow - was a leader of the more tradional Emigrant Party Stockbridges. They made use of the treaty of 1839 to leave the tribe and move to the Delaware Tract in present-day Kansas.

Sadly (but unavoidably, it seems) the Quinneys and other more "civilized" Indians were glad to see them go.



 
[mc4wp_form]

"I was murdered by the Stockbridge Indians"

The words "I was murdered by the Stockbridge Indians" were carved upon Joseph Palmer's grave, the "oldest grave in the cemetery" according to Letters Home from the Brothertown Boys, written by former Brothertown genealogist Caroline Andler and Andrea Brucker.



Another book tells us the rather gory details of Mr. Palmer's last day:

The tragedy occurred July 3, 1837 [sic], at the house of Peter and Jacob Konkopot, two Stockbridge Indians. They had already reduced to small measure an immoderate supply of whiskey, when Joseph Palmer, a Brothertown Indian, in company with another of his tribe and a white man, entered their cabin. The latter party had just returned from the Fox River with a full jug, "fire-water" being then an unknown commodity of sale in Calumet County. They drank together several times, but with this fresh supply the Konkapots' loud demands for more continued and increased beyond the bounds of reason or considerate fellowship. Palmer, therefore, refused to be robbed further of his " Fourth of July," whereupon he and his comrades were assaulted by their crazed and unreasonable companions, one wielding an ax and the other a club. Being unarmed the former were unable to defend themselves. Palmer was liberally hacked and beaten to pieces. The other two escaped. Without going into details, the murderers were arrested, tried in October before a commission chosen from both tribes, and sentenced to be hanged near the dividing line between the two reservations. On the day preceding that fixed for the execution (October 24), they escaped across Lake Winnebago in a boat furnished by friends, and were never recaptured.

--The History of Northern Wisconsin, accessed from Ancestry.com

 

 Palmer's grave
This photo gives the correct date of Palmer's death as July 3, 1836 (not 1837 as the quote above asserts).

Somewhere - I cannot find it now, but somewhere - I read that Joseph Palmer's epitaph was symbolic of a period of tension between the Stockbridge and Brothertown Indians. And it makes a lot of sense too, I mean, they could have chosen other epitaphs:

Murdered in a drunken accident

Manslaughtered by the Stockbridge Indians

Killed by the Konkapots

 

Or they could have decided on something more generic:

Rest in Peace

Beloved Husband and Father

or add your own here.
I don't mean to make light of what happened. I was just trying to make the point that we should assume that the exact words of the epitaph should not be dismissed or disregarded. It said "Murdered by the Stockbridge Indians" because that is what his family wanted it to say.

Here are my own thoughts about the murder:

Alcohol was a factor in Joseph Palmer's death, that cannot be disputed and, in fact, the Stockbridge schoolteacher at that time, Chauncey Hall, wrote his employer (the ABCFM), that he felt the white trader who sold the whiskey should be brought to justice as an accomplice in the murder.

But the epitaph doesn't single out alcohol or the Konkapots, it really tries to lay the blame on "the Stockbridge Indians." Why exactly, we'll never know for certain.

But we do know that Peter and Jacob Konkapot's father, Robert, and Thomas Hendrick became the leaders of a party of Stockbridge Mohicans who didn't want the assailants to hang and somehow helped them to escape.

Roger Nichols was probably the first historian to note that this "Hendrick-Konkapot faction," later became the Emigrant Party, using the treaty of 1839 to leave Stockbridge, Wisconsin Territory for the Delaware Tract in what is now Kansas.

Again, we don't know all the details, but an overarching theme of conflict within tribes was the extent to which people wanted to adopt white ways.  The Hendrick-Konkapot faction are believed to have been more "traditional" than the elected leaders of the tribe that they left behind. Meanwhile, the Brothertown Indians, were farther along in the process of losing their Native culture. They were made up of remnants who spoke various languages, so they adopted English as their offical language early on. Maybe the fact that the Brothertown Indians were more "assimilated" or less "traditional" than many of the Stockbridge Indians was a key element in their conflict.

 
[mc4wp_form]