Cited by 24Indigenous Cultures and HistoryColonialism, slavery, and tradeLatin American history and culture

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 91 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

“Why Shall Wee Have Peace to Bee Made Slaves”: Indian Surrenderers During and After King Philip’s War

Open access
Fisher, Linford D.·2017·Ethnohistory

Abstract

This article is an investigation of the treatment of surrenderers in King Philip’s War (1675–76) in New England, particularly with regard to enslavement. Fear of slavery was a tangible, deep concern for most New England natives involved in the war. Threats of enslavement influenced the involvement of native individuals and groups, driving some into deeper “rebellion” and others to surrender. Each colony had differing policies for surrendering natives, but generally the hundreds of surrenderers received far worse treatment than they expected, facing execution, overseas enslavement, local limited-term enslavement, and forced relocation. Perhaps the most fascinating element of this saga is the degree to which English-allied native leaders worked to influence the treatment of surrenderers, helping them to escape to New York, harboring runaways, and in other ways trying to keep natives out of English households.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This article argues that fear of enslavement—especially being sent to Barbados—was a central force in King Philip’s War, shaping native decisions to fight, surrender, or resist English authority. It shows that Indian surrenderers in New England were often executed, enslaved overseas, subjected to local limited-term servitude, or forcibly relocated, despite promises of mercy.

Key findings

  • Fear of overseas enslavement was a tangible and widespread concern. James Quannapaquait reported in early 1676 that young warriors said, “why shall wee have peace to bee made slaves, & either be kild or sent away to sea to Barbadoes”; after the December 1675 Narragansett stronghold raid, younger leaders including Canochet and Panoquin vowed to fight “to the last man, rather than they would come Servants to the English.”
  • Surrenderers often received treatment similar to enemy captives. Examples include 160 surrendering Indians taken to Plymouth in July 1675 and promptly sold into slavery, according to some reports; 112 natives, at least eight women and children, sold in mid-August 1675; 57 Indians at Sandwich condemned to “perpetuall servitude”; and 178 Indians taken aboard Captain Sprague for Cadiz, at least 45 of whom were surrenderers.
  • Colonial policies varied. Connecticut’s October 1676 law reserved execution or Caribbean sale for those who had killed English colonists, while non-killing surrenderers were to keep their lives, not be sold out of the country as slaves, and serve ten years in English households, with an annual tribute of five shillings per male. Rhode Island used graduated local servitude terms: age 5 and under until 30; 6–10 until 28; 11–15 until 27; 16–20 until 26; 21–30 for eight years; 30 and above for seven years or sale; Newport set nine years.
  • English-allied native leaders worked to keep surrenderers out of English households and off slave ships. Uncas sheltered large numbers at Mohegan, encouraged runaways, and frustrated English resettlement; Pabweegannuck temporarily disappeared with ninety surrenderers; Pequot leaders such as Robin Cassasinamon received kindred and “Incomers” as servants. The paper calls these responses the first sustained anti-Indian-slavery protest in the English Atlantic empire.

Methods

  • Design: qualitative historical investigation of Indian surrenderers during and after King Philip’s War (1675–1676) in New England, with attention to enslavement, servitude, and forced relocation.
  • Sources: colonial correspondence, shipping records, court cases, town records, official histories (e.g., William Hubbard), colonial laws and records, petitions, and other archival documents cited in the notes.
  • Analysis: interpretive synthesis of documentary evidence; no formal sample, statistical model, or quantitative analysis is stated in the paper.

Limitations

  • The paper states no formal limitations section.
  • Evident from the text: the account depends heavily on English colonial records and officials’ reports, so native perspectives are often mediated through English documents; some claims are qualified with “according to some reports,” “likely,” “perhaps,” or “suggests.”
  • Evident from the text: records are fragmentary and uneven, and exact totals of surrenderers enslaved locally or overseas are not fully known; the paper uses phrases such as “hundreds, if not thousands” and notes that many surrenderers eluded colonial control.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1215/00141801-3688391

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

74 Sources not found · 38 Own interpretation · 13 Own result · 10 Not checked yet · 8 No basis given · 7 No full text of the sources

Verify all 8 references — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 42
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 17
56 of 56
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The primary sources cited (colonial records, petitions, reports, and official histories) accurately report the numbers, policies, and treatment of Indian surrenderers.

    “Correspondence, shipping records, court cases, town records, and even contemporary official histories of the war (such as William Hubbard’s) all point to the same thing: Indians were enslaved en masse and either distributed locally or sent overseas to a variety of destinations.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The statements attributed to native individuals in English records reflect their actual views and motivations.

    “Quannapaquait reported that “he understood by the cheefe men & old men [that] they were inclinable to have peace again with the English, but the young men [who are their principal soldiers] say we wil have no peace wee are all or most of us alive yet & the English have kild very few of us last summer why shall wee have peace to bee made slaves, & either be kild or sent away to sea to Barbadoes &c.”
2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Bodge, 1891, Soldiers in King Philip’s War. Containing Lists of the Soldiers of Massachusetts Colony, Who Served in the Indian War of 1675–1677
  2. Boston (Mass.) Registry Dept., 1881, Bostontown Records, 1634–1661: The Book of Possessions of Suffolk County, Mass. 1877
  3. Bouton, 1867, Provincial Papers. Documents and Records Relating to the Province of New-Hampshire, from the Earliest Period of Its Settlement
  4. Bragdon, 1999, Native Americans in Bermuda, Bermuda Journal of Archaeology and Maritime History, 11, 53
  5. Corey, 1898, The History of Malden, Massachusetts, 1633–1785
  6. Easton, 1858, A Narrative of the Causes which Led to Philip’s Indian War, of 1675 and 1676
  7. Felt, 1862, The Ecclesiastical History of New England
  8. Gookin, 1836, An Historical Account of the Doings and Sufferings of the Christian Indians in New England, 423
  9. Hallett, 2005, Bermuda under the Sommer Islands Company, 1612–1684: Civil Records
  10. Hoadly, 1850, The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut
  11. Hubbard, 1677, The Present State of New-England. Being a Narrative of the Troubles with the Indians in New-England
  12. Kawashima, 1988, Indian Servitude in the Northeast, 404
  13. Newell, 2003, The Changing Nature of Slavery in New England, 1670–1720
  14. Perley, 1912, Indian Land Title of Essex County, Massachusetts
  15. Rogers, The Early Records of the Town of Providence, 1892
  16. Rowlandson, 1997, The Sovereignty and Goodness of God: Together with the Faithfulness of His Promises Displayed: Being a Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson and Related Documents
  17. Saltonstall, 1675, The Present State of New-England with Respect to the Indian War
  18. Saltonstall, 1913, The Present State of New-England with Respect to the Indian War, by N.S., 1675, 19
  19. Staples, 1843, Annals of the Town of Providence
  20. Temple, 1887, History of North Brookfield, Massachusetts
  21. Wyllys, 1924, The Wyllys Papers; Correspondence and Documents Chiefly of Descendents of Gov. George Wyllys of Connecticut, 1590–1796

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, L. D.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Fisher, Linford D.
Venue
Ethnohistory
Published
2017-01-01
Volume
64
Issue
1
Pages
91-114
ISSN
  • 0014-1801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-5477
OpenAlex
W2568370317
Cited by
22
References
39
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
7.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ethnohistory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Endowment for the Humanities
  • Brown University
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD041020)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Colonialism, slavery, and trade
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Latin American history and culture
Keywords
King Philip's War, colonial New England, forced relocation, runaways, New York

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review