Category
Oral - Textual or Investigative
Description
This paper looks to reveal legal roots to the most consequential conflict in colonial American history, King Philip's War, which marked the end of the New England native's resistance to English governance. While it is common for many to assume that the Puritans' behavior toward the natives directly fueled the flames of war, a conflict of this scale was fueled by an irreparable legal divide between the natives and English. Notwithstanding the social and religious differences, Native Americans and English were diametrically opposed in their legal views. The Puritans came from a highly ordered society governed by the rule of law, whereas Native Americans thrived in a loosely structured hierarchical society. For this reason, the issue of law is an important factor to consider when studying the cause of the war in 1675-1676. Rather than being the result of Puritans' failure to apply the law equally to all subjects, King Philip's War erupted from a fundamental conflict between English and Native American perceptions of jurisdiction. With the irreconcilable differences between English and native interpretations of jurisdiction, King Philip's War was almost inevitable. It is doubtful the natives would have accepted English rule without offering some resistance. Of course, this conclusion should not be interpreted as a dismissal of other contributing factors to the war. Rather, highlighting fundamental legal conflicts between the English and Native Americans allows one to better analyze not only this seventeenth-century war but also the more than two hundred years of continual conflict between Americans and Indians.
One Law to Rule Them All: Jurisdictional Conflicts in King Philip's War
Oral - Textual or Investigative
This paper looks to reveal legal roots to the most consequential conflict in colonial American history, King Philip's War, which marked the end of the New England native's resistance to English governance. While it is common for many to assume that the Puritans' behavior toward the natives directly fueled the flames of war, a conflict of this scale was fueled by an irreparable legal divide between the natives and English. Notwithstanding the social and religious differences, Native Americans and English were diametrically opposed in their legal views. The Puritans came from a highly ordered society governed by the rule of law, whereas Native Americans thrived in a loosely structured hierarchical society. For this reason, the issue of law is an important factor to consider when studying the cause of the war in 1675-1676. Rather than being the result of Puritans' failure to apply the law equally to all subjects, King Philip's War erupted from a fundamental conflict between English and Native American perceptions of jurisdiction. With the irreconcilable differences between English and native interpretations of jurisdiction, King Philip's War was almost inevitable. It is doubtful the natives would have accepted English rule without offering some resistance. Of course, this conclusion should not be interpreted as a dismissal of other contributing factors to the war. Rather, highlighting fundamental legal conflicts between the English and Native Americans allows one to better analyze not only this seventeenth-century war but also the more than two hundred years of continual conflict between Americans and Indians.
Comments
Graduate