15. WAR AND CAPTIVITY IN COLONIAL NEW ENGLAND (4/01/04) Guns and war New England colonies full record. Different aspects much studied. With Indians, much on war, captivity. Settler colonies like New England worldwide have bad record of harming native populations. They are less interested than some colonists in controlling and exploiting Indians. We now know that there was more slaving of Indians than thought---shows how understanding changes---esp. in southern colonies. Puritans also some use of Indian labor. But indigenous labor was not foundation of colonial economy. More interested in Indian lands. New England, New Zealand, Australia, Tasmania, Argentina, in different ways had terrible record of displacement and mistreatment or extermination of native populations. In New England, as Cronon and Taylor show, there were several decades of usually peaceful interaction, co-existence. Trade, selling land, some labor. They even lived together for brief periods, New England Algonkians too refuge from the Mohawks with colonists. Some areas better than average Indian relations, Rhode Island, also with a Pilgrim rebel, named Morton. But continuing tension and possibilities for trouble. Some would say just matter of time until war. In particular, great population growth in settler population, decline in Indian population, continuing incremental dispossession of land. Also in effect bullying Indians. unstable situation. Guns and military tactics One might think that understanding of military technology, tactics, strategy would be one of best established historical points. In fact controversies. Even with very intensively studied wars---Civil War, World War I---enduring controversies. We know that technology and tactics often very important. Importance of repeating rifles, machine gun to late imperialism. “Light” weapons like AK47s today. But also cultural dimension, not inevitable. Famous claim that Japanese delayed use of firearms for long time because they would wreck the Samurai system. For North American Indians, several recent positions, disputes. Very revealing about nature of historical enterprise. One recent position historian, Michael Bellesisles, made radical claims. Said gun culture late to develop in White America. Charlton Heston and others very upset, critical. But won major historical prize, much acclaim.Then some began cast doubt on validity, even truth of evidence. Said some records used in research were distorted, even non-existent. Investigations, and the award was retracted. Major academic scandal. Concerning Indians, Bellesisles suggests guns may have hurt their cause: they were adopted for reasons of prestige, copycats, would have done better to stick to bow. Guns had strong psychological impact, but much less after all Indians adopted them. Bow was quieter, faster, and esp. not tied to white supplies of ammunition. Guns were expensive, hard to load. (Daniel Day Lewis in “Last of the Mohicans” grossly misleading.) Guns misfired, bad on rainy days. Whites palmed off bad guns on Indians. Unclear how to assess these claims. Another position, Patrick Malone, Skulking Way of War (on list of recommended books). Others before him. Emphasized impact of guns, intelligent Indian use of guns, eventual impact on colonial war-making. Malone says guns couldn’t be dodged, made horrendous wounds. Indian bows not as powerful as English longbows, couldn’t pierce armor. So two opposed positions, both plausible, hard for us to assess. Malone also analyses adoption of guns. Colonial worries about Indians getting guns, there were laws prohibiting, but were subverted, exceptions made. Indians wanted guns for intertribal wars, hunting. Indians also learned technology: already very adept with copper, flint-working. Making lead shot easy. Indians learned to repair guns, to blacksmith. One major problem was powder. Even colonists did not make powder themselves. So notion that powder supply major weakness for Indians, esp. in protracted wars, correct. Indians, according to Malone, also very fussy about kinds of guns. Two kinds of gun at time: Matchlocks, older technology. Heavy, inaccurate, smoldering match. Saw in “Black Robe”. Flintlocks newer, expensive, but much better. Colonists stuck with matchlocks, but Indians insisted on flintlocks. Colonists very bad in use, Indians became experts. Also Indians more effective, according to this view in forest warfare. Traditionally, mixed methods. Some fights in open, masses of men, showers of arrows, low casualties. Stockades, with sieges and ambushes. Especially forest fighting, with ambushes. Colonists saw forest fighting as entirely random, individual---shows dangers of historical testimony---but some say Indians had well worked-out tactics. In first major colonial conflict, King Phillip’s War, according to this view, colonialists at first blundered around, tried to use European tactics, not adapted to forest. Indians much more effective, skulking, ambushing. Then Whites did better as they adopted Indian patterns, learned about forest, adopted ranger or guerrilla pattern. Sounds plausible.Now third view. Guy Chet (see supplementary reading list.) Says in fact previous view misinterpreted record. Says that understanding distorted by self-serving memoirs of most famous colonial ranger, who exaggerated his own exploits and the significance of ranger patterns. Chet says that many Indian successes came much more from attacks on lightly defended western towns; that scorched earth tactics, destruction of subsistence base crucial. And that battles and defensive tactics much more important than previously claimed. Colonists’ major weakness was not their use European war patterns but their incompetence in implementing them. At very beginning of colonization, professional soldiers like Myles Standish were very effective, but within a few years, militia was mostly sloppy, untrained. Concerning battles, previous interpretations had often emphasized attack: initial volley with guns, then run in, fight with edged weapons. Chet says campaigns were strategically offense, but effective battle-fighting was tactically defensive: so long as colonial troops held ranks and were fairly well trained, traditional European patterns won battles. Even if e.g. they were chasing enemy, once engaged in battle, goals was to make them attack you, destroy them from defensive position. Can see that very different picture