The Plymouth Colony Archive Project

From Thanksgiving to War:
Native Americans in Criminal Cases of Plymouth Colony, 1630-1675

© 2001 Copyright and All Rights Reserved
by Jennifer L. Aultman
University of Virginia
Distinguished Undergraduate Thesis
May 1997; Feb. 2001 rev.

We know much less about the Native Americans who lived in and around Plymouth Colony than we do about the Europeans settlers who lived there. This fact is not surprising. The Indian people who interacted with Plymouth did not write about their experiences—pen and paper were not their way. As a result, the Wampanoags and other native peoples of the seventeenth century Plymouth area seem frustratingly distant. They may not speak to us directly, but there are ways to examine their experiences, feelings, actions, and intentions through colonial records.

In this paper, I will examine relationships between Native Americans and the European settlers of Plymouth Colony through the Records of the Colony of New Plymouth.⁽¹⁾ Focusing on the period from the beginning of the Court's records, around 1630, up to the outbreak of King Philip's War in 1675, my intention is to lay out a narrative that shows how the tense but cooperative relationship established between the Wampanoags and Plymouth in the colony's early years could turn, five decades later, into a bloodbath. I will illustrate overall changes in Indian-colonist relations during this period by examining criminal cases involving Native Americans in the Plymouth General Court. These cases both exemplified and, in some instances, likely catalyzed changes in Indian-colonist relations. Infamous cases like the trial of the "Peach Gang," discussed later in this paper, certainly did both of these. Readers can use their own perceptions of the "First Thanksgiving" and King Philip's War to form the symbolic bookends of this analysis, thinking as they read about changes during the poorly known years in the middle—changes that stole autonomy from native groups while empowering colonial governments.

The Plymouth General Court records provide a particularly useful data set for examining changes in the colony's attitude toward Indian people. They provide concrete examples of the ways in which collective sentiments became translated into policy. For example, Indians seldom appeared in court in the early years of the colony. This fact illustrates the relative autonomy of colonial and Indian governments in the early years of Plymouth. However, as this paper will show, by 1675 a native person accused of a criminal transgression would most likely be brought before the Court, and would have faced the possibility of being sold into slavery for punishment if found guilty.

This paper concentrates on the period from 1630-1675 for two reasons. First, before King Philip's War between the Wampanoags and colonists in 1675, the tribe retained at least some degree of autonomy from the colony. By and large, the English settlers essentially considered the tribe a foreign nation whose members, when in the colony's jurisdiction, were subject to the colony's laws. After the war, a totally new pattern of relations emerged, which provides a natural break in analysis. Second, increased persecution of Native Americans by the colony after King Philip's War resulted in an enormous number of criminal cases, the sheer volume of which would require a completely different approach than that taken in this paper.

The court records of the New England colonies provide expressions of native actions, feelings, and values. Special laws for Indians, records of land transactions, civil suits, and criminal cases involving native people all reveal otherwise inaccessible facets of their seventeenth century lives. Special laws that applied only to Native Americans clearly illuminate colonists' fears of and prejudices against Indians.In forbidding natives to drink alcohol, restricting their mobility, imposing curfews, limiting their rights to own guns and other objects, the colonists sought to control the danger they perceived Native Americans to pose.⁽²⁾ Laws that made Indians subject to the English court system allowed colonial governments to maintain control over all Indians who resided in their colonies.   Perhaps most importantly, colonial regulations impressed upon Native Americans the English view that "laws based on the word of God and English experience, should prevail over un-Christian and un-civilized native customs."⁽³⁾ It is crucial to remember, however, that neither the colonists nor the Native Americans were monolithic groups. Individuals had their own feelings, and it should not be assumed that the actions witnessed in the court records reveal unanimous sentiment within either group. Though we will glimpse these individual feelings from time to time, by its nature this paper seeks to illuminate general trends in sentiment, and relegates individual differences of opinion to the background.

I have chosen to focus on what I call criminal cases for precisely the reason that they tended to evoke the most emotion from both colonists and Native Americans. These criminal cases in Plymouth essentially fall into three categories: 1) cases with Native American plaintiffs, 2) those with both Indian plaintiffs and defendants, and 3) cases with English plaintiffs and native defendants. In the first twenty to thirty years of the records, the first type clearly dominated. A shift occurred through the next half-century, however, and by 1670 colonists assumed the role of plaintiff in a large majority of these suits. This shift convincingly illustrates how colonial control over Indians had begun to tighten several years before the outbreak of King Philip's War.

In criminal cases, the opinions of colonists and Native Americans surface in a number of ways. Changes through time in both the frequency and type of Indian cases reveal possible shifts in the intensity of interaction between Englishmen and Indians. For example, an increase in the number of Native American defendants may illustrate a growing intolerance of Indians by the colonists, or growing hostility toward the English on behalf of the natives, or a general increase in contact between the two. Most likely, such changes occurred through a combination of these and other factors. In any case, Native Americans' involvement in Plymouth's judicial system clearly grew in both frequency and intensity as the years passed.

English and Native American opinions turn up more explicitly in the records through testimony and court decisions.Although court reporters rarely noted the reasoning behind court decisions, by comparing punishments meted out to natives and colonists for the same crimes, similarities and differences in treatment are revealed. Additionally, changes in these punishments through time show the Court's changing attitudes. By extension, we can assume that such changes to some extent reflected public opinion. Providing a supplementary source of insight, diaries and letters written by colonists occasionally mention specific cases, and articulate the general feelings in the colony as well as perceived attitudes within the Native American community. The facts and feelings surrounding the Peach Murder Trial, as extracted from both court records and personal accounts, bring Plymouth Colony to life in a way unparalleled by examining either type of document in isolation.

Methodologically, I have organized my analysis around the court cases themselves. Every case in my study comes from the Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England.⁽⁴⁾ By grouping the cases chronologically, rather than topically, I hope to effectively illustrate changes in colonists' and Indians' attitudes toward each other through time.The substantial number of criminal cases involving natives, particularly after 1650, precludes me from discussing each case individually. I have therefore attempted to include two types of cases in the paper itself: those cases that seem to best represent the bulk of the cases at the time, and those that set important precedents. The remainder of the cases appears only in Appendix A, though each was carefully considered in the conclusions at which I arrive in the paper.   

4 September 1638.

Arthur Peach, Thomas Jackson, Richard Stinnings, & Daniell Crosse were indicted for murther& robbing by the heigh way.They killed and rob^d one Penowanyanquis, an Indian, at Misquamsqueece, & took from him fiue fadome of wampeux, and three coates of wollen cloth.

. . . They found the said Arthur Peach, Thomas Jackson, and Richard Stinnings guilty of the said felonious murthering & robbing of the said Penowanyanquis, but say that they, nor any of them, had any lands or tennement, goods or cattles, at the tyme of the said felonie conitted that they know of; and so say they all.

Daniell Crosse made an escape, & so had not his tryall; but Peach, Jackson, & Stinnings had sentence of death pnounced; viz^t, to be taken from the place where they were to the place from whence they came, and thence to the place of execucon, and there to be hanged by the neck vntill their bodyes were dead, w^ch was executed upon them accordingly.⁽⁵⁾

3 September 1639.

Mary, the wyfe of Robte Mendame, of Duxburrow, for using dallyance diuers tymes w^th Tinsin, an Indian, and after committing the act of vncleanesse w^th  him, as by his own confession by seuall interpters is made apparent, the Bench doth therefore censure the said Mary to be whipt at a cart tayle through the townes streets, and to weare a badge vpon her left sleeue during her aboad w^thin this gount; and if shee shalbe found w^thout it abroad, then to be burned in the face w^th a hott iron; and the said Tinsin, the Indian, to be well whip w^th a halter about his neck at the post, because it arose through the allurement & inticement of the said Mary, that hee was drawne therevnto.⁽⁶⁾

Four runaway indentured servants, lost and hungry in the wilderness between Plymouth and Providence, lay in wait for a lone Nipmuck Indian to pass by on his return from a trading errand to Plymouth.⁽⁷⁾ Premeditating their trap, Arthur Peach enlisted his comrades, Richard Stinnings, Thomas Jackson, and Daniel Cross, for highway robbery—a crime he surely thought would remain concealed by the cloak of the forest.However, the foursome underestimated the strength of their victim, Penowanyanquis. This Nipmuck Indian, who was running an errand on behalf of the Narragansetts, had been traveling through the territory of his enemies, the Wampanoags. Penowanyanquis proved a more formidable opponent than Peach and the others had surmised. The four fugitives managed to coax the lone Indian to join them by their campfire, and proceeded to steal his "five fadome of wampeux, and three coates of woollen cloth." Peach, perhaps in the heat of the moment, or maybe as an unspoken part of his plan all along, violently stabbed Penowanyanquis in the leg and stomach with his rapier. But the injured Indian dodged Peach's third lunge and fled to the marsh, where he eluded his assailants.  

Rescued the next day by three passing natives, the dying Penowanyanquis was carried to Pawtucket, Rhode Island. There he received a visit from the great preacher, Roger Williams, at whose house the Peach foursome had, ironically, been entertained only hours earlier. Lost in the woods near Providence, the runaway servants had stumbled upon a group of Nipmucks who directed them to Williams. Peach and his cohorts became nervous, however, and departed Providence before their deed was revealed to the great preacher. By the time Williams learned of the attack and reached Penowanyanquis' bedside in Pawtucket, the shroud of death had begun to close around the wounded man. Yet, he managed to convey the story of his attack and descriptions of his assailants to Williams in great detail. The preacher and his Native American allies set a trap for the Peach gang in Connecticut and, in a very short time, had at least three of the four fugitives in custody.

The landmark Peach Murder Trial of 1638, despite its rather perfunctory treatment in the Court records, crossed political and social boundaries never before breached by Europeans in the New World. I have emphasized the events behind the case in detail because the Court set a very strong precedent by executing Englishmen for the murder of an Indian. However, its motivation for doing so emerges only by understanding the sociopolitical context of the murder. The largest case of its kind in New England up to 1638, at least two Indians tribes and four colonies played a part in the case and influenced the General Court's decision to hang Peach and his cohorts.

The Peach trial allows a glimpse into the inner workings of Anglo-American society in relation to Indians, and hints that the Court considered not only justice, but the Colony's safety as well, in this high-profile decision. William Bradford, in his history Of Plymouth Plantation,⁽⁸⁾ recorded that immediately following the discovery of the dying Penowanyanquis:

The Indians sent for Mr. Williams and made a grievous complaint, his friends and kindred were ready to rise in arms and provoke the rest thereunto, some conceiving they should now find the Pequots' words true, that the English would fall upon them. But Mr. Williams pacified them and told them they should seek justice done upon the offenders . . . ."⁽⁹⁾

As the colony from which Penowanyanquis came, Rhode Island felt particular urgency to bring the Peach gang to justice—a justice that would appease the Narragansetts and Nipmucks. These two tribes were, rightfully, nervous about the state of English-Indian affairs in Rhode Island. Having only two years earlier observed the near obliteration of the Pequots at the hands of the English, the Narragansetts and Nipmucks feared that acquittal of the Peach gang would cause an increase in brutality towards natives by colonists who had little fear of punishment. Williams, in encouraging the wronged tribes to seek justice on Peach, Stinnings, Cross, and Jackson, hoped to calm the nervous tribes and prevent and uprising that would endanger the lives of colonists. Times were tenuous, and such an uprising was a distinct possibility. The preacher's urging on this point no doubt greatly influenced the final decision of the Court, especially since the government of Massachusetts Bay also "pressed by all means that justice might be done in it, or else the country might rise and see justice done; otherwise, it would raise a war."⁽¹⁰⁾

The Peach case reveals the complex forces that influenced Plymouth's decision to execute the English murderers of an Indian.   This case also highlights the substantial influence that Native Americans had on colonial governments in the early years of New England. At this time, the relatively small colonies feared the power of Indian alliances, which allowed the natives to use the Plymouth court system to their advantage in this case. Through political pressure and subtle threat, native groups helped to shape colonial judicial policy in early New England.

In sharp contrast to the murder of Penowanyanquis and the ensuing Peach trial, the second Indian-colonist case of the 1630s illustrates that Native Americans and Europeans often developed extremely close personal relationships, and reminds us that monolithic category of "Indian" means very little in colonial times. Some native people lived with their own tribes and stayed away from colonists, other transacted business with them, and still other Indians had personal and frequent contact with colonists. Mary Mendame, of Duxburrow, came before the Court for committing adultery with Tinsin, a native. Mary and Tinsin, like many others before and after them whose deeds went undiscovered, bridged the gap between Native Americans and English colonists in a way forbidden, but far from uncommon.

At this point, a discussion of the physical distance between Native Americans and English colonists is merited, since a long-term affair between Mary and Tinsin hints that they were probably fairly proximate neighbors. Several historians note that as early as the seventeenth century, colonists recognized three groups of Indians, each of which was viewed differently within the colony.⁽¹¹⁾ First were the independent tribes who retained their political independence from the colonies, including the Wampanoags until the end of King Philip's War. People who remained in these tribes would have been familiar with colonists but would probably have interacted with them very little individually. The second group was the plantation Indians, or the "praying Indians," who had been Christianized and lived in native "praying towns. "These groups often had a European overseer, and maintained substantial contact with nearby colonists. The final group, Indians living in English towns by choice or by force, was completely subject to the rules of the colony, and retained essentially no roll in tribal life at all. These Native Americans had intense, daily contact with English men and women, usually as servants and manual laborers. Not surprisingly, those Indians living within the English towns seem to have been the most likely to develop personal relationships with individual colonists. Although these natives held a lower social standing than their European counterparts, as evidenced by the special laws applied to restrict their behavior, they appear to have been generally treated akin to English settlers by the Court in the early years.⁽¹²⁾

Occasionally, Court records provide information about individual natives' places of domicile, and in some instances even when not specified a good guess can be had as to which of the three groups an Indian belonged. Tinsin, for example, came to Court on his own behalf, was called by name, and was having an affair with a Duxburrow woman -- all indications that he lived within the colony, probably within the town of Duxburrow. In contrast, when tribal Indians came to Court, the records often note that the sachem of the tribe represented the native, who sometimes was not required to appear personally.

The Court's decision in the case of Mary and Tinsin reflects perhaps a greater bias against women than against Native Americans in the colony. Mary received a harsher punishment than Tinsin because their affair "arose through the enticement and allurement of the said Mary, that hee was drawne therevnto." Legal historian Yasuhide Kawashima notes that, "In the cases recorded, the white married women were punished more severely than the Indian men; this would seem to indicate that they had taken the initiative in the adventure."⁽¹³⁾ Though Mary may not actually have initiated the affair, the Court, at least, assumed that she was responsible. Strangely, the Court also seems to have punished Mary, rather than Tinsin, for his Indianness, indicating perhaps that the Court felt she should have "known better." Mary was both whipped at the cart tail and forced to wear an "A" on her sleeve, which represents more severe punishment than that given to most female adulterers. Tinsin's penalty, on the other hand, conforms quite closely to those meted out to other male adulterers in the Colony. For example, the same day that the Court heard Mary and Tinsin's case, the Court also reprimanded a husband and wife, Christopher and Jane Winter, for "committing vncleanesse" before marriage.⁽¹⁴⁾ For their breach of law, Christopher was whipped at the post, and Jane dragged through the streets at the cart tail with Mary. Unlike Mary, however, Jane did not have to wear an "A" on her sleeve. Perhaps the women in these two cases received different punishments because Jane eventually wed her lover, while Mary was already married to another man. Or, perhaps the Court found adultery committed with a Native American more reprehensible than the same act committed with an Englishman, especially in the case where the woman was assumed to have initiated the encounter. Whatever the reason, the Court made a point of singling out Mary Mendhame for her role in "inticing and allureing" an Indian.  

By comparing these two cases, several points about the life in Plymouth Colony become clear. First, the decisions of the General Court of Plymouth Colony reveal that Native Americans -- particularly powerful, cohesive tribes -- commanded respect and attention by the New England colonies. Second, the fact that Tinsin received the same treatment for committing adultery as a white man illustrates that, at least in the early years, the Plymouth General Court applied its laws more or less equitably to colonists and certain Native Americans. Third, the Peach case and the Mendame case show the vibrancy of Colonial life in New England, which contrasts starkly with many popularly held twentieth-century views of the era that emphasize stiffness and coldness in Pilgrim society. And, finally, these two cases give a baseline from which to examine the drastic changes that would occur in Plymouth's policy towards Native Americans during the next half-century.

29 August 1643.

Whereas ^      , an Indian of Barnestable, accidentally tooke a cowe of Thomas Hinckleys in a trapp, and lay so longe therein that the flsh was lost, onely the hide was saued; and yet because the Indian did so ingeniously & playnely confesse the fault, and made dilligent enquiry whose the cow was, the Court doth order the said Indian to pay the said Hinckley fifty shillings in full satisfaccon, and do desire him to be therew^th content.⁽¹⁵⁾

28 October 1645.

Thomas Heyward, of Duxburrow, is ordered by the Court to pay vnto Wannapooke, a Neipnet Indian, half a bushell of Indian corne for veneson he tooke of him.⁽¹⁶⁾

6 March 1655.

John Woodcocke, of Rehoboth, for goeing into an Indian house, and taking away an Indian child and som goods, in lue of a debt the said Indian ought him, was sentanced to sitt in the stckes att Rehoboth an houre on a training day, and to pay a fine of forty shillings.

Adonijah Morris, for goeing into the said Indians house, and taking away goods in lue of a debt due him, was fined forty shillings.⁽¹⁷⁾

4 October 1655.

Weras Teage Joanes accused Masshantamaine to hau stolen a gun from him, the Court, haueing hear what can bee said on both sides, can not find that the said gun is the sad Joaneses, and doe therfore order Thomas Boardman, the cunstable of Yarmouth, to see the gun delivered vnto him, the said Masshantampaine, againe.

. . . Masshantampaine being accused to have a chist full of tooles of all sorts which hee had stolen from the English, to clear himself of this accusation hee deluered his kees in open Court vnto Mr Prence, that soe hee may serch his chists.⁽¹⁸⁾

1 June 1658.

Att this Court, a certaine Indian, named Repent, was summoned, and being examined, was found guilty of speaking some words wherein hee intimated as if would haue shott the Gou att his return home, or to the like effect, & was centanced to bee whipt, which accordingly was executed.   Jonathan Hatch, found faul in som resepct sbout the aforsaid pticulare, was admonished and released.⁽¹⁹⁾

6 October 1659.

On the complaint of an Indian, named Wampeas, against Richard Chadwell, that hee had beaten and wrongfully abused him, the Court directed an order to the said Richard Chadwell, to bee in a reddiness against the gou^r or Mr Hinckley goeth home, that soe they or either of them may heare the case, and order the same as they.⁽²⁰⁾

6 December 1659.

Wheras complaint is made against               , servant to Lieftenant Peter Hunt, of Rehoboth, that hee, the said            , hath attempted the chastity of an Indian woman, by offering violence to her, and that the complaint hath bine heard before Captaine Willett, and that there is great appeerance of truth in the said charge; the Court haue ordered that the said Capt Willett shall further examine the said youth, named, and incase hee shall find the accusation to bee true, that hee cause due correction to bee giuen him, and determine alsoe otherwise about the said fact as hee shall judge meet.⁽²¹⁾

The quiet drama of Plymouth's Indian criminal cases in the 1640s and 1650s pales in comparison to that of the Peach murder that took place in the 1630s. On the surface, the 1640s and 1650s seem to represent a fairly stable period in the relations of Native Americans and colonists. However, looking at all of the cases from 1640 to 1659 (see also Appendix A) elucidates issues that stewed below the surface, largely concealed by the diplomatic skills of Plymouth's leader, William Bradford, and the Wampanoags chief, Massasoit. Identifying these factors will explain the explosion of colonist -- Indian criminal cases after the deaths of these two leaders in 1657 and 1660, respectively.

The 1640s and 1650s were a time during which Native Americans and colonists acclimated themselves to interacting through the judicial system. With only two Indian-English criminal cases in the 1630s, three in the 1640s, and seven in the 1650s, use of the court system as a means of settling disputes between natives and colonists increased through the decades, although admittedly at a snail's pace before 1660. Massasoit, who had pledged his fidelity to the English crown in the treaty he made with Plymouth in 1620, no doubt had a great interest in keeping his people in line and out of the colony's judicial system because the Indian and Anglo justice systems had very different origins and aims. Native law "was essentially a set of binding social customs," which reflected "the values and bonds of traditional society."⁽²²⁾ Adjudication amongst Indians was a highly personal family affair, with retribution its main aim, and which involved little third party intervention in most cases.⁽²³⁾ Clearly, the English judicial system presented quite nearly the opposite, with its extreme individualization of punishment and the objectifying presence of the court as "middle man."

The provisions of the 1620 treaty made the sachem personally responsible for turning in any of his followers who had wronged colonists. The first three provisions of the treaty, which apply to the judicial relationship of the two groups, were recorded by Bradford:⁽²⁴⁾

That neither he (Massasoit) or any of his should injure or do hurt to any of their (the Colony's) people.

That if any of his did hurt any of theirs, he should send the offender, that they might punish him.

That if anything were taken away from any of theirs, he should cause it to be restored; and they should do the like to his.

In keeping his people out of the court, therefore, Massasoit protected his own standing among his people, who had always looked to him, as sachem, as the final authority on tribal issues. He also had incentive to control his followers so that they would not be subjected to a judicial system completely under the control of a foreign government. When he entered into the treaty with Plymouth, Massasoit almost certainly knew that the document inherently favored the colonists—assuming that the document was accurately represented to him. It made few promises to protect the Wampanoags from transgressions by the English -- particularly criminal transgressions. The sachem and his followers, for a combination of these reasons, in almost three decades took only a handful of criminal cases to the court.  

Plymouth's relationship with the Wampanoags is more fully defined by the court records than the colony's relations with other Native American tribes and individuals. Yet, it is important to remember that the court also dealt with other tribes, plantation Indians and individual natives who lived in the Plymouth's towns. Based on these and other issues, it appears that through the end of the 1650s, most Native Americans involved in the court's criminal cases probably were not tribal Wampanoags, but Indians living within the colony's towns.

One such Indian was the Barnestable man who accidentally killed Thomas Hinckley's cow in his trap. The most insightful aspect of this particular case, in terms of the colony's treatment of Native Americans in the court system, is the leniency given to this Indian. The Court reprimanded the man, but because he "did so ingeniously & playnely confesse the fault, and made dilligent enquiry whose the cow was" apparently gave him a lesser penalty than they felt his crime deserved. The colony, particularly in its first few decades, vehemently sought to "effect massive cultural change by the introduction of European social and cultural values."⁽²⁵⁾ To that end, the court occasionally rewarded behavior that it believed to be particularly Christian or English, such as honesty. Therefore, although the case of this Barnestable Indian seems to illustrate exceptional regard for natives, the motives behind the court's leniency may have more to do with English self-interest than benevolence.

The Plymouth government stressed Christian behavior among its colonists as well as among the Indians, and this coupled with the colony's desire to placate Native American anger (as exhibited on a large scale in the Peach case) meant that both Englishmen and Indians had to exhibit honesty and good character. Thomas Heyward, of Duxbury, who stole venison from Wannapooke, a Neipnet Indian, paid Wannapooke for his transgression with one-half of a bushel of Indian corn. This particular commodity, because of its extreme importance in the economy of Colonial New England, would have been an acceptable means of payment to either an Indian or a colonist. As of 1645, therefore, the Plymouth General Court still sought full compensation on behalf of natives wronged by the English.

By the middle of the next decade, the colonial government appears to have experienced a shift in its attitude toward Indians. This shift probably reflected the colony's growing impatience with Native Americans' resistance to adopting English custom and religion. In the court cases of the 1650s, colonists who committed crimes against natives still faced physical punishment and fines, but increasingly the court showed more leniency toward its own people and less toward Native Americans. John Woodcocke and Adonijah Morris, for example, broke into a native's house, stole goods and a took a child(!). Yet, the two merely sat in the stocks and paid a court fine. Nowhere in the entry for this case does the record specify, as was previously the norm, that the Indian received any portion of Woodcocke's and Morris's fine as payment for the wrong done to him.

Cases of theft and assault between Native Americans and colonists increased drastically toward the end of the 1650s. These attacks seem to have come from both sides, but unfortunately the records do not include final judgments for many of the cases, which apparently were handled outside court on occasion. Therefore, establishing similarities or differences in treatment of natives and English in these cases would be more supposition than analysis. What is clear, however, is that Native Americans and colonists engaged in more frequent, more personal, and occasionally more hostile, relationships through time. Significantly, though, throughout the 1640s and 1650s (although relations seem to have been deteriorating between the average citizens of Plymouth and nearby Indians) the Court still generally applied the same range of punishments to natives as to colonists. These included fines, whippings, sitting in the stocks, and occasionally jail time. In the 1660s, however, treatment of the two groups diverged drastically, and the Court began to apply different punishments to Native Americans than to colonists.

10 June 1662.

Att this Court, a sertaine nantuckett Indian named Tetannett, allias Ned, was, for pilfering and stealing sundry thinges from John Mayo, of Eastham, centanced by the Court to bee publickly whipt, and alsoe warned, according to forner order, being a straner in our goument, to depart to his owne place att Nantuckett; and incase hee shall reside within this goument, and bee found therein any other then as a passenger on a journey or the like, that then hee shalbee taken and publickly whipt, and sent home againe.⁽²⁶⁾

1 March 1664.

Att this Court, fiue Indians, for abusing Robery Shelley, of Barnstable, by coming one euening into his house and afrighting his family, and other abuses att that time by them offered, were all sentanced to sit in the stockes on some publicke day of meeting, att the discretion of Mr Hinckley; and likewise they are to pay vnto the said Robert Shelley, each of them, fiue shillings in work or otherwise.⁽²⁷⁾

31 October 1666.

In reference vnto the complaint of Elizabeth, the wife of Gorg Vaughan, and alsoe the complaint of the wife of Samuell Eaton, against an Indian called Sampson, allias Bump, for most insloent and intollorable carriages towards them, whoe coming in to the house of the said Vaughan, hee not being att home, and held vp his knife att the said Elizabeth Vaughan seuerall times in a threatening way and manor as if hee would haue wounded her, with other insolent carriages that much affrighted her, and alsoe carrying to the wife of Samuell Eaton att he same time very wickedly by twisting of her necke to the indangering of her life, and alsoe other insolent carriages to Francis Billington att the same time, whoe was sent or to rescue the said weomen from his violence and wickedness; for which said facts, agrauated by diuers other pticulars, hee was centanced by the Court to be seuerly whipt att this psent Court, and to bee branded in the shoulder with a Roman P, which accordingly was inflicted.⁽²⁸⁾

1 March 1670.

Thomas Mathewes, for vnreasonably beating of the Indian Ned, and therin breaking the Kings peace, is fined three shillings and four pence; and for the abuse of the said Indian, and for and towards his charges in coming too and attending the Court, the said Mathewes is ordered to pay him fourteen shillings.⁽²⁹⁾

7 July 1674.

Wheras there is an Indian, called Hoken, that hath bin a notoriuse theife, and besides former theifts, of late hath broken vp the house of James Bursell, for which hee was committed to prison; and hee made an escape by breaking of prison, and since stole a horse, being insolent in his carryage and an incorrigable theife, that will not be recalimed, but lyeth sherking and lurking about, wherby many persons are greatly in feare and danger of him, wherfore the Court doe order Mr Hinckley and Lieftenant Freeman, or any other majestrate that can light off the said Hoken, that they cause him to be apprehended and sold or sent to Barbadoes, for to satisfy his debts and to free the collonie from soe ill a member.⁽³⁰⁾

William Bradford and Massasoit, through diplomacy, maintained peaceful relations between Plymouth Colony and the Wampanoags for almost forty years. There were shaky times in those decades, but Bradford and Massasoit always managed to repair the damage to their relationship in time to preserve its strength.The deaths of these two men within three years of each other changed the way the Old Colony and the Wampanoags dealt with each other forever.

In addition to the loss of their leaders, the colonists and natives experienced other drastic changes in the 1660s and early 1670s that affected the treatment of Indians by the General Court. The population of Plymouth had been steadily increasing since the mid-1620s, and as the colony grew its demand for new land increased accordingly. (In fact, the ever-growing number of court cases involving Indians probably resulted in part from the encroachment of colonists into native land, and the subsequent absorption of those natives into the colony and hence into its judicial system.) By 1667 the population pressure had become so great that the court established the town of Swansea, on the border of Rhode Island, which actually encroached on the birthplace, at Sowams, of the new Wamapanoag sachem, Massasoit's son Philip.⁽³¹⁾ A mere one year later, the court expanded Swansea despite the objection of Philip's people, who had little choice but to sell their land to Plymouth.⁽³²⁾ The problems at Swansea climaxed in 1671 when the Wampanoags made a display of their arms to the settlers of the town. No change occurred in Plymouth's policy at Swansea as a result of this demonstration, but the colony reprimanded the Indian leader on several occasions and forced him to surrender all English guns held by the Wampanoags.⁽³³⁾ Clearly, the relationship between Philip's peopleand Plymouth was breaking down rapidly, largely due to actions of the colony.

In order to understand the treatment of Native Americans in the criminal cases of the 1660s and 1670s, understanding the political context of these years, as briefly described above, is absolutely critical. The General Court that increased corporal punishments for natives throughout this period was the same court that made the decision to establish a settlement at Swansea despite Indian protest. The two decisions were intimately related.

The extremely numerous cases that occurred during the fifteen year period preceding the breakout of King Philip's War (see also Appendix A), show that the Court began to substitute whipping for fines in many Indian cases. Tetannett, a Nantucket Indian, received a severe public whipping for stealing items from John Mayo's house in Eastham. In addition, the Court also threatened this Plymouth outsider with another whipping if he was ever seen hanging about   Plymouth again. Unlike cases of theft by Indians from earlier decades, Tetannett paid no fine to the Court or to Mayo. Corporal punishment took the place of a fine in the Court's eyes. This is significant because in the English system of justice, the penalty for a crime should in some way make restitution to the victim. In the case of the colonies, stealing or damaging someone's physical property usually meant paying money to replace or repair that property. By the beginning of the 1660s, however, the Court seems to have taken a new point of view towards Native American criminals. By replacing fines with corporal punishment, Plymouth began to seek not restitution, but retribution.

The Court eventually found a way to extract both restitution and retribution from Native American criminals, namely in the practice of indenturing and enslaving them. In 1664, five Indians who abused colonist Robert Shelley were told to pay Shelley five shillings "in work or otherwise." In this case, clearly the natives had the option of paying their fine in currency, but if they could not (as was often the case), they would have to work it off. Thomas Mathewes, a colonist who in 1670 beat an Indian named Ned, did not receive the same option to work off his debt. Perhaps because the Court valued their time more highly than the time of Indians; colonists, unlike natives, always paid their fines in money or goods.

By the mid-1670s, just before the dawn of King Philip's War, the Plymouth General Court no longer gave the worst Native American criminals the option to pay their fines in currency. The case of Hoken illustrates this point to the extreme, and highlights the Plymouth's government's intention to gain ultimate control over Native Americans in their midst. A "notoriouse theife," this Indian had broken into a house, been incarcerated, escaped imprisonment, stolen a horse, and had as a result infuriated and frightened the colony. The Court, in a decision that would forever alter the treatment of Native Americans by Plymouth's judicial system, sold Hoken to Barbados "for to satisfy his debts and to free the collonie from soe ill a member." As the decade of the 1670s progressed, and King Philip's War came and went, and selling Indians into slavery became common practice for the General Court of Plymouth Colony.

1 June 1675.

Att this Court three natiues were araigned viz, Tobias, & Wampapaum, and Mattushamama, for that being acused, that they did with joynt consent, vpon the 29 of January, anno 1674, att a place calld Assowamsett Pond, wilfully and of sett purpose, and of mallice fore though, and by force and armes, murder John Sassamon, an other Indian, by laying violent fhands on him and strikeing him, or twisting his necke, vntill hee was dead; and to hide and conceale this theire said murder, att the time and plac aforesaid, did cast his dead body through a hole of the iyce into the said pond.

These, being examined, deneyed the fact, and put themselues on tryall by God and the countrey, and were found guilty.

The verdict of the jury giuen into the Court in the words following,

Wee, the jury, one and all, both Englishmen and Indians, doe joyntly and with one consent agree vpon a verdict: that Tobias, and his son Wampapaquan, and Mattashunnamo, the Indians, whoe are the prisoners, are guilty of the blood of John Sassamon, and were the murderers of him, according to this bill of indictment.

The verdict of the jury being accepted by the Court, the sentance of death was pronounced against them, the said Tobias, and Wampapaquan hins son, Mattashanamo, viz; to be carried from the place of tryall to the prison from whence they came, and from thence to the place of execution, and thereto be hanged by the head vntill theire bodies are dead; and accordingly was executed, the 8th of June, 1675, on the said Tobias and Mattashunannamo; but the said Wampapaquan, on some considerations, was repriued vntill a month be expired from this psent date;

But afterwards shott to death within the said month.

It was judged very expedient by the Court, that together with this English jury abouve named, some of the most indifferentest, grauest, and age Indians should be admitted to be with the said jury, and to healp to consult and aduice with, of, and concerning the premises. There names are as followeth, viz: one called by and Enlish name, Hope, and Maskippague, Wannoo, Gorge, Wampye, and Acanootus; these fully concurred with the aboue written jury in theire verdict.⁽³⁴⁾

The death of John Sassamon in December, 1674, and the executions of Tobias, Wampapaum, and Matushamama for his alleged murder, mark the turning point in Plymouth history after which the colony and the Wampanoag people would never again live as friendly foreigners. Sassamon, a Christian Indian who had tried to convert Philip on behalf of John Eliot, eventually became Philip's trusted advisor.⁽³⁵⁾ However, the two drifted apart when Philip refused to be converted. Just before his death, Sassamon came to Plymouth with "inside information" to warn the colony that Philip was preparing to attack the English. Sassamon also articulated fear for his own life, certain that since he had come to Plymouth to warn the colony the Wampanoags would harm him. Plymouth, for reasons unknown, took no action in light the Indian's warning. Less than two months later, he was found, dead, below the ice of Assowamsett Pond—Sassamon had never made it home. Plymouth heard rumors that Sassamon had been murdered, and that an eyewitness named Patuckson had come forth. Patuckson, during his deposition, named three of Philip's men as the murderers.

The death of John Sassamon to this day remains largely a mystery, despite the fact that Tobias, Wampapaquan, and Mattashunnamo were executed for his murder. The debate about his case, begun at the time of the trial, endures today. Did these three men really killed Sassamon, or was someone else the murderer? Or, though probably unlikely, did he simply drown? Although the circumstance sof Sassamon's death will likely remain a mystery forever, the implications of the Sassamon murder trial are quite clear. John Sassamon, in the eyes of most Wampanoags, was essentially a white man. A Christian, Harvard-educated friend of Plymouth Colony, many Indians disliked him, and it is not difficult to imagine that a native who heard about Sassamon's trip to Plymouth would take vengeance. However, the colony did not listen to Sassamon, did not really count him as one of their own. He was a man caught in the middle, not fully Indian, not exactly European. The Colony prosecuted Philip's own men for Sassamon's death, and the mixed colonist/Indian jury found them guilty and called for their execution. Though Philip himself paid no penalty for his men's actions, many Indian people felt "it was entirely within Philip's power as king to order Sassamon's execution."⁽³⁶⁾ If the Colony believed that Philip had ordered the murder, in trying and executing the suspects they had denied Philip's powers as sachem to deal as he saw fit with a man who had been, for a time, one of his own most trusted advisors.

In conjunction with other trends in the colony at the time, such as the colonial expansion into Swansea discussed earlier, it is no wonder that Philip and his people took up arms against the colonists in the summer of 1675. And, when Plymouth finally ended the bloody war, it is also no surprise that their treatment of natives extended directly from the treatment of Indians by the court just prior to King Philip's War. Thus, when Plymouth sent nearly 120 Native Americans to the Caribbean as slaves after the war, the Colony was simply acting on precedents set when it had sent serious Indian criminals into bondage in the years before the war.⁽³⁷⁾

At this point, discussion of the treatment of free Native Americans in the criminal cases of the General Court of Plymouth largely ends, because after the war the Indians in and around Plymouth were no longer free. Once they entered the jurisdiction of the colony, either physically or through interacting with colonists, it was difficult to move back out of the Court's watchful gaze. After the war, the court enslaved many of the accused criminals brought before it (see cases in Appendix B). In fifty-five years, Plymouth Colony had gone from dependent neighbor of the Wampanoags to slave trader. Of course, there were exceptions, especially for Indians already working as servants in Plymouth households who, in colony's view, were more committed to obeying the colony's rules. Still, however, the bulk of native criminals after the end of King Philip's War -- as well as hostile Indian participants in the war -- lost their freedom to pay for their apparent transgressions. Certainly, Plymouth had a right to be nervous about their Native American neighbors after the violent war. But the colony, when it shipped off one-hundred-and-some odd prisoners, was not simply responding to the single event of King Philip's War. The Colony had finally trumped the Wampanoags in a power game that began in 1620.

5 May 1646 (PCR vol. 2, p. 99):

Vpon informacon of an affray was made vpon Vssamequin and some of his men by Willm Cheesborrow, of Seacunck, als Rehoboth, and some other, the Court doth oder, that a warrant shalbe forthwth directed to the constable of Rehoboth, to apphend the body of the said William Cheesborrow, and to caue him to be brought from constable to constable, to his ma^ts goale at Plymouth, there to remayne vntill he shalbe thence deliued by due course of law . . . .

2 June 1646. (PCR vol. 2, p. 103):

William Cheeseborrow, of Rehoboth, for mending two locks for peece at three shillings a peece, and for his abuse of Vssamequin, as the case now stands betwixt us and him, and for his breach of ymprisonment and flying to a forraigne goument, and leauing this, is censured by the Court to be ymprisoned for fourteene dayes, w^thout bayle or mainprize, and to pay six pounds fine to the colonies use.

Thomas Hitt, of Rehoboth, for takeing pt with Cheeseborrw in the affray made vpon Vssamequin and his men, is fined twenty shillings, & for his contempt.

4 August 1658 (PCR vol. 3, p. 148):

Att the Court aboue expressed, Capt Richard Morris complained of som injuries, both by speech anfd carriages, offered vnto him by som Indians bordering vpon Rood Island, within the lymetts of this goument.   One of the said Indians, being now att ye Court on other occasion, was by the Court to carry soe noe more; but incase any materiall differences should arise betwixt the said Morris and them theire, that they should repaire to the Court, and make their complaint, and shalbe heard.

6 December 1659 (PCR vol. 3, p. 179):

Att thie Court, James Cole, Senir, and Edward Gray appeered, to lay claime to a pcell of iron wedges that were brought from Taunton, which an Indian had stolen and sould att Taunton; but the Court, haueing not cleare light to determine whose the wedges are, caused them to bee cecured vntill the Indian that is supposed to haue stollen them can bee apprehended and examined,, and therefore tooke a course that the Indian should be apprehended.shall see reason vpon examination of pticulares.

5 March 1661 (PCR vol. 3, p. 209):

Att this Court, a certaine Indian called Caucantawashuck appeered before the Court, hauing bine committed to prison for stealing diuers thinges from diuers psons att Taunton, which was proued to his face, and by him owned and confessed. Hee was heard and examined, and againe comitted to prison, and sence hath broken prison and is fled.

3 May 1664 (PCR vol. 4, p. 57-58):

Concerning a controversye betwixt John Rushell, of Acushena, and an Indian, about a pretended cure wrought by him on the said Indian, whoe had bin sicke, the said Rushell afeirming that the Indians had giuen him his gun in satisfaction for the said cure, hee complaining that sundry Indians, to the number of fiue, come into his house, an in an hostile manor tooke away the said gun, the Court ordered, that for his charge and paynes with the said Indians as towards his cure, that hee, the said Indian, shall pay vnto the said Rushell the eums of twenty shillings, and his gun to bee depoeted in the constables hands till the said 20s is payed; and that the said Indians, viz, Wooham, Pagenatowin, Weesunka, Sucquatamake, and Chacapaquin, for theire said hostile and insolent carriage on takeing away the said gun, bee fined to the vse of the collonie fiue pounds, viz, twenty shillings a peece; and wheras the said Rushell was found blame worthy, on takeing vp of an axe, and indeauoring to improve it against the said Indians in a turbulent and dangerous manor, the Court reproued him for his soe doeing, and admonished him to take heed of doeing noe more soe, as hee will answare it att his perill.

8 June 1664 (PCR vol. 4, p. 66):

In reference vnto the complaint of an Indian called Joseph, liueing neare Taunton, that Mr Gyles Gilbert had killed one of his hoggs, the Court, haueing heard the complaint and defence, haue some ground to suspect that the said hogg was killed by the said Gyles Gilbert, haue therefore ordered, that incase the said Gilbert shall and doe pay vnto the said Indian twenty shillings att his demaund, that then the said case shalbee soe issued but if otherwise, vpon the further complaint of the said Indian of neglect heerof, the said Gilbert is responsible to answare his complaint att Plymouth, and for that end that Thomas Jacus, the servant of the said Gilbert, bee warned to appeer the next Court to giue testimony in thex x.

2 December 1665 (PCR vol. 4, p. 112):

Att this Court, an Indian, called John, haueing bin committed to prison for stealing of a gun and an axe from Willam Harvey, of Taunton, forasmuch as neither the said Harvey nor any other appeered att the Court to procecute against him, hee haueing bine longe in durance and vndergon much hardship, hee was ordered by the Court to repaire to the said Harvey, and either by worke or otherwise to satisfy the wrongs done him by takeing away his said goods; and soe the said John, with warning to doe so noe more, was sett att libertie.

7 March 1665 (PCR vol. 4, p. 82):

In reference to a cow and a steer belonging to Gabriel Fallowell that were taken in the trapps of Harry the Indian and his son, called Samuell Harry, which said cattle were soe hurt as the owner was constreyned to kill them, and thereby were greatly damnifyed, the Court haue ordered, that they, the said Indians, shall pay to him, the said Gabreill Fallowell, of his assignes, the sume of foure pounds, viz, forty shillings the next Indian haruest, and the reamining forty shillings Indian haruest come twelve month, in good and current pay.

5 June 1666 (PCR vol. 4, p. 132):

Att this Court, a certaine Indian named Daniell, allies Tumpassacom, was presented before the Court and examined conserning his strikeing of Samuell Hickes, of Scushena, soe as the said Samuell Hickes languisheth and is in danger of death; hee, the said Indian, confesseth that hee struck or punched the said Hickes with an axe or the helue of it, but saith that the said Hickes first strucke him; the said Indian was returned to prison, there to remaine in close durance vntill the last Tuesday in october, 1666.

31 October 1666 (PCR vol. 4, p. 138):

In reference vnto an Indian calles Daniell, allies Pumpanaho, for his dangerously striking of Samuell Hickes, wherof hee hath languished and hath bine in danger of death, and although recouered, yett much hindered in his time and occation, wherfore the said Indian is centanced by the Court to pay vnto the said Samuell Hickes the sume of four pounds and four shillings in reference vnto his bill of charge, and forty shillings for the losse of his time, and ten shillings vnto John Haward for his coming to Plymouth with him by the constables order.

3 June 1668 (PCR vol. 4, p. 183):

In reference vnto the complaint of an Indian called Powas against Peter Pitts of Taunton, for detaining of his gun from him on pretence of none pformance of a bargaine about breaking vp of ground, the Court haue ordered, that the said Indian shall breake vp twenty rodd of ground for the said Peter Pitts; and when that is don, hee shall haue his gun returned to him againe in good culture.

29 October 1668 (PCR vol. 5, p. 6):

In answare vnto a letter from Phillip, the sachem of Pocanokett, &c, by way of petition, requesting the Court for justice against Francis Wast, for wronge done by him to one of his men about a gun taken from him by the said Wast, as alsoe for wronge dome vnto some swine of the said Indians, the Court haue ordered the case to be heard and determined by the celect men of Taunton, and incase it bee not by them ended, that it be refered vnto the next March Court att Plymouth to be ended.

1 June 1669 (PCR vol. 5, p. 22):

In reference vnto Francis Wast, his takeing an hogg from an Indian neare vnto Mattapoisett, on pretence that the said Indian had forfeited his hogg by marking of him contrary to order of Court, the Court haue ordered that hee pay the sume of thirty shillings to the said Indian; and wheras hee tooke a gun from the said Indian, that hee speedily returne him his gun againe.

8 March 1671 (PCR vol 5, p. 53):

In reference vnto an Indian called Will, for his vnsufferable, insolent carriage in oposing of and strikeing att the constable of Yarmouth with an axe, &c, was fined twenty shillings.

5 July 1671 (PCR vol. 5, p. 69):

In reference vnto the complaint of John Rogers, Seni^r, of Duxburrow, against William Nelson, Jun^r, Adam Wright, and the Indian Willam, the son of the Blacke Sachem, for takeing vp his mare, and markeing her, and detaineing her, wherby the said Rogers is much damnifyed, the Court doe award the said Indian William to pay to John Rogers twenty shillings, and another Indian, called John, being found faulty in the said pticulars, is awarded to pay to the said Rogers ten shillings in currant country pay, att prise currant; and the said Adam Wright and Willam Nelson each of them ten shillings to the vse of the collnie.

5 March 1672 (PCR vol. 5, p. 85):

In reference vnto a complaint of Samuell Harry, the Indian, against Francis Combe, about a hogg taken vo and killed by the said Combe, which hogg is found on examination to be the said Indians, the Court haue ordered that the said Combe shall pay or cause to be payed to the said Indian twenty two shillings, in porke or other currant pay to his content, within one month after the date hereof . . . .

12 September 1672 (PCR vol. 5, p. 100):

The 12th day of September, 1672, two Indians, the one named James and the other Hobson, appeered before Thomas Prence, Esq^r, Gou^r, and Mr Constant Southworthm, Assistant, to answare for their felloniously entering the house of John Macomber, Seni^r, of Taunton, and taking some ony out of his house; and on hearing and full examination of the case, they were centanced to pay to the said Macomber treble restitution, which is nine shillinges, in siluer or the vallue therof, and to suffer corporall punishment by whipin att the post, and to abide in durance vntill satisfaction is made as abouesaid; and likewise to satisfy the marshall for the charge of theire imprisonment, and then to be freed.

29 October 1672 (PCR vol. 5, p. 105-106):

It is orderd by this Court, that an Indian called Old John, allies Mopes, shall pay vnto Willam Swift six pound, to be deliuered in tarr att Sandwich, att or before the first day of May next, with the charges which hath arisen about a suite comenced att the Court of the Celect Men of the town of barnstable against the said Swift; and in defect of payment as aforesaid, then the said Swift is heerby impowered to seize on the body of the said Old John, allies Mopes, and to bringe him or cause him to be brought before the Gou or Court, whoe will take such a due course as that his just dues shalbe satisfyed by the service or sale of him, the said Old John, allies Mopes; and vpon the Courts graunt of this order, the said William Swift did engage to acquitt and release Jedadia Lumbard from that engagement of his to the said William Swift that accompt of the said Old John, or any other Indians who were his cecuritie.

29 October 1672 (PCR vol. 5, p. 107):

William Makepeace, Seni^r, liueing att Taunton Riuer, for laciuious attempts towards an Indian woman, was centanced by the Court to be publickly whipt att the post, which accordingly was pformed.

7 July 1674 (PCR vol. 5, p. 152):

John Rickard, the son of John Rickard, and Samuell Dunham, the son of Samuell Dunham, for abuseing an Indian, and therin breaking the Kings peace, was fined, each of them, three shillings and four pence.

27 October 1674 (PCR vol. 5, p. 156):

Att this Court a natiue named Matthias, allies Achawehett, was indited for killing of another natiue named Joseph . . . .

Wee find him guilty of manslaughter by way of chance medley.

The verdict being accepted by the Court, the said Matthias was oppenly cleared of being guilty of wilfull murder, and was released.

1 March 1675 (PCR vol. 5, p. 159):

The Court, seing cause to require the psonall appeerance of an Indian, called Tobias, before the Court, to make further answare to such intergatorys as shalbe required of him, in reference to the suddaine and violent death of an Indians called John Sassamon, late deceased, the said Tobias and Tuspauin, the black sachem, (soe called,) of Namassakett, and Willam, his son, doe all joyntly and seuerally doe heerby bind ouer off theire lands, to the vallue of one hunderd pounds, vnto the Court, for the psonall appeerns in the criminal cases of the General Court of Plymouth largely ends, because after the war the Indians in and around Plymouth were no longer free. Once they entered the jurisdiction of the colony, either physically or through interacting with colonists, it was difficult to move back out of the Court's watchful gaze. After the war, the court enslaved many of the accused criminals brought before it (see cases in Appendix B). In fifty-five years, Plymouth Colony had gone from dependent neighbor of the Wampanoags to slave trader. Of course, there were exceptions, especially for Indians already working as servants in Plymouth households who, in colony's view, were more committed to obeying the colony's rules. Still, however, the bulk of native criminals after the end of King Philip's War -- as well as hostile Indian participants in the war -- lost their freedom to pay for their apparent transgressions. Certainly, Plymouth had a right to be nervous about their Native American neighbors after the violent war. But the colony, when it shipped off one-hundred-and-some odd prisoners, was not simply responding to the single event of King Philip's War. The Colony had finally trumped the Wampanoags in a power game that began in 1620.

---

Appendix A: Additional Criminal Cases, 1646-1675

5 May 1646 (PCR vol. 2, p. 99):

Vpon informacon of an affray was made vpon Vssamequin and some of his men by Willm Cheesborrow, of Seacunck, als Rehoboth, and some other, the Court doth oder, that a warrant shalbe forthwth directed to the constable of Rehoboth, to apphend the body of the said William Cheesborrow, and to caue him to be brought from constable to constable, to his ma^ts goale at Plymouth, there to remayne vntill he shalbe thence deliued by due course of law . . . .

2 June 1646. (PCR vol. 2, p. 103):

William Cheeseborrow, of Rehoboth, for mending two locks for peece at three shillings a peece, and for his abuse of Vssamequin, as the case now stands betwixt us and him, and for his breach of ymprisonment and flying to a forraigne goument, and leauing this, is censured by the Court to be ymprisoned for fourteene dayes, w^thout bayle or mainprize, and to pay six pounds fine to the colonies use.

Thomas Hitt, of Rehoboth, for takeing pt with Cheeseborrw in the affray made vpon Vssamequin and his men, is fined twenty shillings, & for his contempt.

4 August 1658 (PCR vol. 3, p. 148):

Att the Court aboue expressed, Capt Richard Morris complained of som injuries, both by speech anfd carriages, offered vnto him by som Indians bordering vpon Rood Island, within the lymetts of this goument.   One of the said Indians, being now att ye Court on other occasion, was by the Court to carry soe noe more; but incase any materiall differences should arise betwixt the said Morris and them theire, that they should repaire to the Court, and make their complaint, and shalbe heard.

6 December 1659 (PCR vol. 3, p. 179):

Att thie Court, James Cole, Senir, and Edward Gray appeered, to lay claime to a pcell of iron wedges that were brought from Taunton, which an Indian had stolen and sould att Taunton; but the Court, haueing not cleare light to determine whose the wedges are, caused them to bee cecured vntill the Indian that is supposed to haue stollen them can bee apprehended and examined,, and therefore tooke a course that the Indian should be apprehended.shall see reason vpon examination of pticulares.

5 March 1661 (PCR vol. 3, p. 209):

Att this Court, a certaine Indian called Caucantawashuck appeered before the Court, hauing bine committed to prison for stealing diuers thinges from diuers psons att Taunton, which was proued to his face, and by him owned and confessed. Hee was heard and examined, and againe comitted to prison, and sence hath broken prison and is fled.

3 May 1664 (PCR vol. 4, p. 57-58):

Concerning a controversye betwixt John Rushell, of Acushena, and an Indian, about a pretended cure wrought by him on the said Indian, whoe had bin sicke, the said Rushell afeirming that the Indians had giuen him his gun in satisfaction for the said cure, hee complaining that sundry Indians, to the number of fiue, come into his house, an in an hostile manor tooke away the said gun, the Court ordered, that for his charge and paynes with the said Indians as towards his cure, that hee, the said Indian, shall pay vnto the said Rushell the eums of twenty shillings, and his gun to bee depoeted in the constables hands till the said 20s is payed; and that the said Indians, viz, Wooham, Pagenatowin, Weesunka, Sucquatamake, and Chacapaquin, for theire said hostile and insolent carriage on takeing away the said gun, bee fined to the vse of the collonie fiue pounds, viz, twenty shillings a peece; and wheras the said Rushell was found blame worthy, on takeing vp of an axe, and indeauoring to improve it against the said Indians in a turbulent and dangerous manor, the Court reproued him for his soe doeing, and admonished him to take heed of doeing noe more soe, as hee will answare it att his perill.

8 June 1664 (PCR vol. 4, p. 66):

In reference vnto the complaint of an Indian called Joseph, liueing neare Taunton, that Mr Gyles Gilbert had killed one of his hoggs, the Court, haueing heard the complaint and defence, haue some ground to suspect that the said hogg was killed by the said Gyles Gilbert, haue therefore ordered, that incase the said Gilbert shall and doe pay vnto the said Indian twenty shillings att his demaund, that then the said case shalbee soe issued but if otherwise, vpon the further complaint of the said Indian of neglect heerof, the said Gilbert is responsible to answare his complaint att Plymouth, and for that end that Thomas Jacus, the servant of the said Gilbert, bee warned to appeer the next Court to giue testimony in thex x.

2 December 1665 (PCR vol. 4, p. 112):

Att this Court, an Indian, called John, haueing bin committed to prison for stealing of a gun and an axe from Willam Harvey, of Taunton, forasmuch as neither the said Harvey nor any other appeered att the Court to procecute against him, hee haueing bine longe in durance and vndergon much hardship, hee was ordered by the Court to repaire to the said Harvey, and either by worke or otherwise to satisfy the wrongs done him by takeing away his said goods; and soe the said John, with warning to doe so noe more, was sett att libertie.

7 March 1665 (PCR vol. 4, p. 82):

In reference to a cow and a steer belonging to Gabriel Fallowell that were taken in the trapps of Harry the Indian and his son, called Samuell Harry, which said cattle were soe hurt as the owner was constreyned to kill them, and thereby were greatly damnifyed, the Court haue ordered, that they, the said Indians, shall pay to him, the said Gabreill Fallowell, of his assignes, the sume of foure pounds, viz, forty shillings the next Indian haruest, and the reamining forty shillings Indian haruest come twelve month, in good and current pay.

5 June 1666 (PCR vol. 4, p. 132):

Att this Court, a certaine Indian named Daniell, allies Tumpassacom, was presented before the Court and examined conserning his strikeing of Samuell Hickes, of Scushena, soe as the said Samuell Hickes languisheth and is in danger of death; hee, the said Indian, confesseth that hee struck or punched the said Hickes with an axe or the helue of it, but saith that the said Hickes first strucke him; the said Indian was returned to prison, there to remaine in close durance vntill the last Tuesday in october, 1666.

31 October 1666 (PCR vol. 4, p. 138):

In reference vnto an Indian calles Daniell, allies Pumpanaho, for his dangerously striking of Samuell Hickes, wherof hee hath languished and hath bine in danger of death, and although recouered, yett much hindered in his time and occation, wherfore the said Indian is centanced by the Court to pay vnto the said Samuell Hickes the sume of four pounds and four shillings in reference vnto his bill of charge, and forty shillings for the losse of his time, and ten shillings vnto John Haward for his coming to Plymouth with him by the constables order.

3 June 1668 (PCR vol. 4, p. 183):

In reference vnto the complaint of an Indian called Powas against Peter Pitts of Taunton, for detaining of his gun from him on pretence of none pformance of a bargaine about breaking vp of ground, the Court haue ordered, that the said Indian shall breake vp twenty rodd of ground for the said Peter Pitts; and when that is don, hee shall haue his gun returned to him againe in good culture.

29 October 1668 (PCR vol. 5, p. 6):

In answare vnto a letter from Phillip, the sachem of Pocanokett, &c, by way of petition, requesting the Court for justice against Francis Wast, for wronge done by him to one of his men about a gun taken from him by the said Wast, as alsoe for wronge dome vnto some swine of the said Indians, the Court haue ordered the case to be heard and determined by the celect men of Taunton, and incase it bee not by them ended, that it be refered vnto the next March Court att Plymouth to be ended.

1 June 1669 (PCR vol. 5, p. 22):

In reference vnto Francis Wast, his takeing an hogg from an Indian neare vnto Mattapoisett, on pretence that the said Indian had forfeited his hogg by marking of him contrary to order of Court, the Court haue ordered that hee pay the sume of thirty shillings to the said Indian; and wheras hee tooke a gun from the said Indian, that hee speedily returne him his gun againe.

8 March 1671 (PCR vol 5, p. 53):

In reference vnto an Indian called Will, for his vnsufferable, insolent carriage in oposing of and strikeing att the constable of Yarmouth with an axe, &c, was fined twenty shillings.

5 July 1671 (PCR vol. 5, p. 69):

In reference vnto the complaint of John Rogers, Seni^r, of Duxburrow, against William Nelson, Jun^r, Adam Wright, and the Indian Willam, the son of the Blacke Sachem, for takeing vp his mare, and markeing her, and detaineing her, wherby the said Rogers is much damnifyed, the Court doe award the said Indian William to pay to John Rogers twenty shillings, and another Indian, called John, being found faulty in the said pticulars, is awarded to pay to the said Rogers ten shillings in currant country pay, att prise currant; and the said Adam Wright and Willam Nelson each of them ten shillings to the vse of the collnie.

5 March 1672 (PCR vol. 5, p. 85):

In reference vnto a complaint of Samuell Harry, the Indian, against Francis Combe, about a hogg taken vo and killed by the said Combe, which hogg is found on examination to be the said Indians, the Court haue ordered that the said Combe shall pay or cause to be payed to the said Indian twenty two shillings, in porke or other currant pay to his content, within one month after the date hereof . . . .

12 September 1672 (PCR vol. 5, p. 100):

The 12th day of September, 1672, two Indians, the one named James and the other Hobson, appeered before Thomas Prence, Esq^r, Gou^r, and Mr Constant Southworthm, Assistant, to answare for their felloniously entering the house of John Macomber, Seni^r, of Taunton, and taking some ony out of his house; and on hearing and full examination of the case, they were centanced to pay to the said Macomber treble restitution, which is nine shillinges, in siluer or the vallue therof, and to suffer corporall punishment by whipin att the post, and to abide in durance vntill satisfaction is made as abouesaid; and likewise to satisfy the marshall for the charge of theire imprisonment, and then to be freed.

29 October 1672 (PCR vol. 5, p. 105-106):

It is orderd by this Court, that an Indian called Old John, allies Mopes, shall pay vnto Willam Swift six pound, to be deliuered in tarr att Sandwich, att or before the first day of May next, with the charges which hath arisen about a suite comenced att the Court of the Celect Men of the town of barnstable against the said Swift; and in defect of payment as aforesaid, then the said Swift is heerby impowered to seize on the body of the said Old John, allies Mopes, and to bringe him or cause him to be brought before the Gou or Court, whoe will take such a due course as that his just dues shalbe satisfyed by the service or sale of him, the said Old John, allies Mopes; and vpon the Courts graunt of this order, the said William Swift did engage to acquitt and release Jedadia Lumbard from that engagement of his to the said William Swift that accompt of the said Old John, or any other Indians who were his cecuritie.

29 October 1672 (PCR vol. 5, p. 107):

William Makepeace, Seni^r, liueing att Taunton Riuer, for laciuious attempts towards an Indian woman, was centanced by the Court to be publickly whipt att the post, which accordingly was pformed.

7 July 1674 (PCR vol. 5, p. 152):

John Rickard, the son of John Rickard, and Samuell Dunham, the son of Samuell Dunham, for abuseing an Indian, and therin breaking the Kings peace, was fined, each of them, three shillings and four pence.

27 October 1674 (PCR vol. 5, p. 156):

Att this Court a natiue named Matthias, allies Achawehett, was indited for killing of another natiue named Joseph . . . .

Wee find him guilty of manslaughter by way of chance medley.

The verdict being accepted by the Court, the said Matthias was oppenly cleared of being guilty of wilfull murder, and was released.

1 March 1675 (PCR vol. 5, p. 159):

The Court, seing cause to require the psonall appeerance of an Indian, called Tobias, before the Court, to make further answare to such intergatorys as shalbe required of him, in reference to the suddaine and violent death of an Indians called John Sassamon, late deceased, the said Tobias and Tuspauin, the black sachem, (soe called,) of Namassakett, and Willam, his son, doe all joyntly and seuerally doe heerby bind ouer off theire lands, to the vallue of one hunderd pounds, vnto the Court, for the psonall appeerance tof the said Tobias att the Court of his matie, to be holden att Plymouth aforsaid the first in June next, in reference to the pmises.

---

Appendix B: Criminal Cases After King Philip's War

6 March 1677 (PCR vol. 5, p. 224-25):

Att this Court, likewise, three Indians, named Timothy Jacked, allies Canjuncke, and Nassamaquat, and Pompacanshe, were indited for murdering John Knowles, John Tisdall, Senir, and Samuell Attkins; the said Indian prisoners did put themselves likewise on the tryall of God and the country according to the manor of the English, and had sue processe in law, according to the English manor, by a jury of twelue men . . . .

The verdict of the jury followeth concerning Timothy Jacked, allies Canjuncke, and Nassamaquate: Wee find they are very suspisious of the murder charged on them.

And in reference vnto Pompacanshe, wee find nothing against him, There not appeering further euidence against them to cleare up the case, the centance of the Court was, that the two former were to be sent out of the country speedily, and the other likewise, as hee is prisoner taken in warr.

6 March 1677 (PCR vol. 5, p. 228):

In reference vnto a gun pressed for an Indian called Isacke for the countreys seruice, which gun was pawned by the Indian, and since sold to John Tompson by the Treasurer, the Court haue ordered the said Indian to pay the sume of ten shillings to the said John Tompson, vpon his demand, in siluer money, or fifteen dayes worke in defect therof.

3 July 1677 (PCR vol. 5, 238-39):

In reference to the complaint of Mr Edward Sturgis, Senir, of yarmouth, that his house hath bin robed, and a considerable psell of mony, about eight pounds, was taken away, and an Indian named Nopye, being psented before the Court, is groundedly suspected to haue stollen away the said mony, the Court haueing striclty examined him, and finding that hee wa lurking about the house of the said Edward Sturgis on the Lords day on which the mony was stollen, which giues great suspicion that hee had a hand att least in takeing it away, this Court doth therefore centance the said Tom Nopye publickly to be whipt att Yarmouth, for breach of the Sabbath, att the descretion of the celect men of the said towne, and that hee be allout a month or six weekes from this date to make enquiry and bringe out the theiffe of theiues that stole the mony, and by that time to discouer them to some one of the majestrates of this jurisdiction, or else that hee shall make payment therof himselfe to Mr Sturgis, or to his satisfaction.

11 October 1678 (PCR vol. 5, p. 270):

These may certify any whom it may concern, that certaine Indians, liueing in or neare Sandich, in the jurisdiction of New Pymouth, in New England, whose names are Canoots, and Symon, and Joell, being appreshended, and on theire confession convict of felloniously breakeing open a house, and the chest of Zachariah Allin, of Sandwich aforesaid, and stealeing from him the sume of twenty fiue pounds in mony, they haueing lost or imbezelled the said money, and noe other way appeering how hee should be satisfyed for his losse and charges thervpon ariising, the authoritie of this collonie hauue centanced the aboue named Indians to be his ppetuall slaues, and haue and heerby doe authorise and impower him, the said Zachariah Allin, to make sale of them, and the said Conootus, Symo, and Joell, to any Christian pson or psons in New England or else where, as his lawful slause for tearme for theire naturall life . . . .

It is ordered by the Court, that in case Zachariah Allin can not sell them, that this record shalbe heer extant against them, the said Canootus and Symon, thta if euer they be taken faulty in like respect, that then they shalbe forthwith sold out of the country.

2 March 1680 (PCR vol. 6, p. 32):

In reference vnto an Indian called Jospeh Peter, whoe was monnitted to prison att Plymouth for stealing a hyde from John Gorum, hee expressing himself pensive for his said fact, and promiseing reformation, was released from bodily punishment; but for his satisfaction for two debts, the one which hee oweth to Mr Barnabus Laythorpe, which is 5ll 13s 2d, and for the answaring of the other debt, which is 03 16 06, hee is ordered by the Court to be and abide with the said Barnabus Laythorp and John Gorum, or such as they shall order him to be with, as their servant, for the full terme of two yeers from the date heerof, and not to absent himselfe at any time from theire said service, by night or by day, without a tikett from one of them; and incase hee shall absent himsefe, hee shall pay four dayes worke for one.

7 March 1682 (PCR vol. 6, p. 82):

It is ordered by the Court that Sam Bab and John Mohauke, two Indians soe named   that are now convicted of felloniously takeing the estate from John Williams, of Scittuate, and charges ariseing thervpon, are by the said Court ordered to serue the said John Willams or his assignes the full time of four monthes, each of them, in satisfaction, as aboue said, and then to depart from Scittuate, and not to reside there.

7 March 1682 (PCR vol. 6, p. 81):

Indian James, thou are heer indited byt he name of James, for that thou, haueing not the feare of God before thyne eyes, on the one and twentyeth day of Nouember, 1681, in the towne of Barnstable, didest felloniously, willfully, and of malice forethought, with intent to murder, kicke Samuell Crocker, son of Willam Crocker, of Barnestable, on the bottome of his belley, wherof the said Samuell Crocker died three weekes after died; which thou hast done contrary to the law of God, of England, and this collonie, and contrary to the peace of our sou lord the Kinge, his crowne and dignity.

The jury find the prsener nott guilty of willful murder.

31 October 1682 (PCR vol. 6, p. 98):

Sam, the Indian, soe called, for his rape committed vpon an English gerle, being found guilty by the jury, who found him guilty by his owne confession, in wickedly abusing the body of Sarah Freeman by laying her downe vpon her backe, and entering her body with his, although in an ordinary consideration hee deserued death, yett considering that hee was but an Indian, and therefore in an incapasity to know the horibleness of the wickednes of this abominable act, with other cercomstances considered, hee was centanced by the Court to be seuerly whipt att the post and sent out of country.

31 October 1682 (PCR vol. 6, p. 98):

John, another Indian, for his incorrigable theft the second time, in robing of a barke and other theft, was centanced by the court to be sent out of the country.

6 June 1683 (PCR vol. 6, p. 108):

Att his Court, andIndian names Jsepth Peter, haueing binsometime in   durance, was psented before the Court for stealing thirteen or fourteen pound in mony and a pte of a rundlett of liquor from Robert Parker, of Barnestable, on the Lords day, being alsoe convicted of acts of like nature rendering him a comon theife and incorrigable, is centanced by the Court to be sold out of the country; and the charges of his imprisonment, &c, being defrayed, the resedew of prise to be deliuered to the said Robert Parker.

6 November 1683 (PCR vol. 6, p. 116):

Imdah, an Indian, for theuery att diuers places att seueral times, and goeing on therein in an incorrigable way, is centanced by the Court to be sent out of the country, and incase hee doe att any time come any more into this collonie, that hee shalbe taken and ymeiately brand marked, soe as hee may therby be knowne.

5 March 1685 (PCR vol. 6, p. 152):

Timothy, Indian servant to the reverent Mr John Cotton, being cmoplained of for runing away from his master some time about Nouember last, which was occatino of considerable charge to his master, losse of time, and many waies to his damage, the Court, on consideration of damage that hee sustained, orders the said Timothy, Indian, to serue his master or his assignes one yeer more, or besides the tearme hee is bound for by indenture, which yeers service hee willingly offered and promised in peon Court for satisfaction to his master.

5 March 1685 (PCR vol. 6, p. 153):

Thomas Wappatucke, Indian, being found guilty of burglery att October Court last, --

It is ordered by the Court, that hee be sold for a pptuall servant; and it is left to the honored Gour and the wors^h Barnabus Laythorpe to dispose or make sale of the said Indian, and giue a bill of sale for the, that buy him, and to proportion ye mony made of him to them that haue receiued damage by him.

5 March 1685 (PCR vol. 6, p. 153):

Att his Court an Indian squa, named Betty, was indited for killing her husband, named Great Harry, with a stone; att the fist, being examined by the honored Mr John Walley, shee denyed it, but afterwards owned the fact, but said shee did not intend to kill him, but by throwing of a stone att a bottle of liquore and missing the bottle, shee hitt the said Indian, her husband, on the side of his head, wherof he died.

The case being brought to the grand jury, they brought in billa very.

27 October 1685 (PCR vol. 6, p. 178):

Indian, Joseph Wampus, who by mischace slew Will Wampus, ingaged before the Court to pay a debt of thirty one shillings in mony, which the sd Will Wampus owed to Capt Nathll Thomas, & allso to giue sd Wills mother a coat of two yards of duffles, but woud not pay any other debts of the sd Wills.

4 June 1686 (PCR vol. 6, p. 190):

At the Court of Assistant, June 4th 1686, James, an Indian of Nausett, being convicted before the Court for stealing a hogg from Jacob Cooke, (by Indian his own confession,) is sentenced to pay to Jacob Cooke 20s money, or twenty four days worke, and to pay ten shillings to Mark, and Indian, haveing been prosecuted and put to charges concerning it, and sd James to be publickly whipt.

And Lusty Tom, and Indian, is sentenced to pay & suffer the like, if upon tryall before Mr John Freeman, he shall be adjudged guilt of the sd fact with sd James.

---

Bibliography

• Bradford, William. Of Plymouth Plantation. New York: Random House, 1981, 385 pp.



• Bushnell, David. "The Treatment of the Indians in Plymouth Colony." New England Quarterly, 26(2): 193-218 (1953).



• Demos, John. A Little Commonwealth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.



• Jennings, Francis. The Invasion of America. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1975.



• Jennings, Francis. "Virgin Land and Savage People." American Quarterly, 23(4): 519-41 (1979).



• Kawashima, Yasuhide. Puritan Justice and the Indian. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1986.



• LaFantasie, Glenn W. "Murder of an Indian, 1638." Rhode Island History, 38(3): 67-77 (1979).



• Ranlet, Philip. "Another Look at the Causes of King Philip's War." New England Quarterly, 61(1): 79-100 (1988).



• Ronda, James P. "The Death of John Sassamon: An Exploration in Writing New England Indian History." American Indian Quarterly, 1(2), 91-102 (1979).



• Ronda, James P. "Red and White at the Bench: Indians and the Law in Plymouth Colony, 1620-1691." Essex Institute Historical Collections, 110(3): 200-15 (1974).



• Salisbury, Neal. Manitou and Providence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.



• Shurtleff, Nathaniel and Daniel Pulsifer, eds. Records of the Colony of New Plymouth. Boston: 1856-1861, 12 vols.



• Vaughan, Alden T. New England Frontier. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979, 430 pp.





---




1. Shurtleff, Nathaniel and Daniel Pulsifer, eds. Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England. Boston, 1856-1861, 12 vols. Hereafter I will refer to these as "PCR."

2. Kawashima, Yasuhide. Puritan Justice and the Indian. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1986, pp. 205-224

3. Vaughan, Alden. The New England Frontier. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979, p. 187.

4. I have referenced each court case individually for the volume and page in which they appear in the records.

5. PCR, vol. 1, pp. 96-97.

6. Ibid., p. 132.

7. Information in this chapter regarding the circumstances of the Peach murder was taken extensively from: LaFantasie, Glenn W. "Murder of an Indian, 1638." Rhode Island History, 38(3): 67-77 (1979). His appears to be the only available comprehensive treatment of the circumstances surrounding the murder. For further information on the attack and trial, refer to this article. Other sources, including William Bradford's Of Plimouth Plantation, generally corroborate information given by LaFantasie, with the exception that Bradford notes that Penowanyanquis had been trading in Massachussetts Bay, not Plymouth. The truth remains unclear, although Bradford would probably have heard if the murder victim had been in his Colony the day before the crime. And yet, the fact that Penowanyanquis was heading in the direction from whence the four Plymouth fugitives came is good evidence that he was, indeed, traveling to Plymouth.

8. Bradford, William. Of Plymouth Plantation. New York: Random House, Inc., 1981.

9. Ibid., p. 336.

10. Ibid., pp. 336-37.

11. See Kawashima, pp. 21-36.

12. See also Vaughan, pp. 190-95.

13. Kawashima, p. 166.

14. PCR, vol 1, p. 132.

15. PCR, vol. 2, p. 60.

16. PCR, vol 2, p. 89.

17. PCR, vol. 3, p. 74.

18. PCR, vol. 3, p.90.

19. PCR, vol. 3, p. 138.

20. PCR, vol. 3, p. 175.

21. PCR, vol. 3, p. 180.

22. Ronda, James P. Essex Institute Historical Collections.

23. Kawashima, p. 15.

24. Bradford, p. 88.

25. Ibid., p. 110.

26. PCR, vol. 4, p. 22.

27. PCR, vol. 4, p. 51.

28. PCR, vol. 4, p. 136-37.

29. PCR, vol. 5, p. 31.

30. PCR, vol. 5, p. 151-152.

31. Kawashima, p. 292.

32. Ibid., p. 293.

33. PCR, vol. 5, pp. 63-65, 76-78.

34. PCR, vol. 5, p. 167-68.

35. Since theirs is the most thorough treatment of the Sassamon case available, I have taken all details about the case not in the court records from: Ronda, James P. and Jeanne Ronda, "The Death of John Sassamon." American Indian Quarterly, 1(2): 91-103 (1974).

36. Ibid., p. 99.

37. PCR, vol. 5, p. 173.