Presentation by Kate Bradley - 1/16/2014
A Summary of James Drake’s “Restraining Atrocity:
The Conduct of King Philip’s War”
(The New England Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 1 (1997): 33-56)
James Drake’s article starts out by stating that the Native Americans earned their infamous
reputation as uncivilized beasts through their unfortunate conflicts with the English over the
centuries. Drake explains that the only way to accurately analyze the atrocities committed by both the
Indians and the English during King Philip’s War is to compare, in terms of brutality, that war to the
other wars of the same time period. To unbiasedly compare the brutal atrocities committed during
King Philip’s War, the treatment of enemy soldiers during future wars must be completely
disregarded, since some of the most inhumane acts of wartime were not possible in 1675-1676 (33).
In A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mary Rowlandson, Rowlandson describes the
horrific acts the Indians did to the colonists. For instance, after the Indians pillage and burn the
villages, they strip, scalp, and shoot some of the villagers. One villager was “chopped into the head
with a hatchet, and stripped naked, and yet was crawling up and down” (Norton Anthology, 8th
edition, volume A, p. 237). Yet, Drake claims that words like “atrocity” and “slaughter” are terms
relative to the time period of the war (34). Prior to King Philip’s War, on a wholly European
battlefront, the Irish subjected enemy combatants to extreme acts of torture, such as the raping of the
English Protestants (49). As Drake states, “formal political identities, cultural affinities, utilitarian
motives, interpretations of the rule of war, and the actions of one’s opponent all influenced the course
of conduct” (34). Upon reading Rowlandson’s narrative, readers might have been shocked at the
brutality the English faced at the hands of the Indians. However, compared to the other wars of that
era, King Philip’s War was arguably equally brutal, perhaps even less so. Thus, Drake claims that the
brutality the English and the Indians carried out against each other was on par with contemporary
war conduct.
In 1675, the Indians were no longer sovereign nations, but subjects of colonies and their
policies (37). Had the Indians stayed sovereign nations during King Philip’s War, any acts of treason
or murder would have been excused by the English government with wartime immunity. The Indians,
however, were now subject to the laws of the colonies. Any Indians that committed acts of treason
against the English were viewed as by the English colonials as Separatist Indians, and subject to
execution. Therefore, Drake asserts that King Philip’s War could be viewed as a Civil War between
the Separatist Indians and the forces of the English (which also included the converted Christian
rebels). To the English, the Separatist Indians were rebels, revolting against English rule. Drake
speculates that the Indians, on the other hand, may not have realized they had signed away their
allegiance to the English, and therefore fell under the jurisdiction of English law. They may have just
signed the contract to prevent conflict with the English, unaware that it would only lead to an
increase in conflict in the future. In addition, Drake points out, the Indians undoubtedly had no
choice but to sign the contract in the first place to avoid potential violence.
As Drake’s essay explains, in the code of ethics prior to King Philip’s War, combatants tried
not to accuse their opponent of “civil offenses” and only treated them like “prisoners of war,” so that
any crimes against the opponent would be excused as a war crime and would not result in any serious
consequences (38). This code of ethics during the war was well known by the English, but the
Indians had never declared their assent. Since the English may have employed tactics unknown to the
Indians, the English were given an unfair advantage, from a legal standpoint. In addition, as the war
progressed and one side started displaying dominant force against the other side, the dominant
opponent could start applying stricter punishments against captive prisoners. Likewise, Drake’s essay
documents the fact that as King Philip’s War continued on, captured Separatist Indians were sold as
slaves, indentured servants, or executed, all depending on the level of guilt displayed by the Indian
(44). If an Indian was a prominent Separatist leader, he or she would definitely have been beheaded.
If the Indian volunteered to fight for the English, he or she would receive “immunity on their lands
not previously confiscated by colonial soldiers” (39). Unlike in previous wars, the English followed
civil rule in King Philip’s War, thus any Indian that was found guilty of murder or treason faced
execution, rather than immunity due to the ongoing war. Yet, Drake explains when the Indians signed
over their sovereignty, they also acquired English protection, such as a trial. While the English tried
to enslave or murder every Indian captive, the Indians in contrast treated their hostages with more
mercy. Mary Rowlandson was given money for her sewing, a little food, shelter, and eventually freed
with her family. Drake points out that while the English did label the Indians as “barbarous” and
“savages,” the Indians treated their captives with respect and civility, and never raped any of the
women (50). While Indians displayed acts of brutality toward the English too, the English were less
merciful with the enemy.
Drake’s essay details the level of punishment deemed suitable at the time for the crime
committed and the points of view held by the English of the Indians. Some Indians took refuge in
Rhode Island during the war. Even the refugee Indians faced terms of indentured servitude (42). That
said, Drake points out that the English attempted to display acts of kindness by acquitting all Indians
under the age of twelve, the elderly, and a few others (42). Furthermore, Drake claims that the
English tried to not murder or enslave the entire Indian population. However, over the course of a
few hundred years, the English did just that. The colonists that were “Puritan volunteers, civilians,
and English combatants without formal military training,” tended to view all Separatist and nonSeparatist Indians as brutal and favored execution (44). On the other hand, those with military
training and the magistrates disapproved of the universal hatred toward all Indians (44). Drake
provides an example, writing, “Daniel Gookin, a military leader, portrayed the praying Indians as
loyal subjects and victims of Puritan prejudice” (44). Yet, overall, the English treated the Indians with
brutality throughout the war.
Both the Indians and the English partook in stripping, mutilating, and placing the heads of the
enemy on poles (50). This level of brutality was on par with the other wars during the time period.
However, there was a high level of Indian enslavement that was irregular, indicating that the Puritans
assumed cultural superiority over the “barbaric” Indians. All in all, Drake concludes that the brutality
displayed during the war paralleled the other wars during that era, and was not any great deviation
from the norm.
Additional Recommended Readings:
Coke, Edward. “The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England,” Concerning High
Treason, and other Pleas of the Crown, and Criminal Causes, 5th ed. (London, 1671), p.
211. Print.
Donagan, Barbara. “Atrocity, War Crime, and Treason in the English Civil War,” American
Historical Review 99 (October 1994): 1137-66. Print.
Gookin, Daniel. “An Historical Account of the Doings and Sufferings of the Christian Indians in
New England, in the Years 1675, 1676, 1677 (1677; reprinted, New York: Arno Press,
1972), pp. 459, 462, 472, 449, 466, 503. Print
Kupperman, Karen Ordalh. “Settling with the Indians: The Meeting of English and Indian
Cultures in America, 1580-1640,” (Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980), pp. 184-85.
Print.
Ranlet, Philip. “Another Look at the Causes of King Philip’s War,” The New England Quarterly,
Vol. 61, No. 1 (1988), pp. 79-100. http://www.jstor.org/stable/365221