I’ve been reading a lot of non-fiction in the past few months. At the end of October, I decided at last to pick up a book I purchased a couple of years ago, Nathaniel Philbrick’s Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War.
Philbrick, a Nantucket resident, became curious about the Pilgrim story while researching the Wampanoag Indians native to his island. He divides his book into three sections, reflected in the subtitle: the story of the small group of Separatists who left England (where their religious practices were outlawed) for Leiden, then sailed for America; the careful diplomacy with which the English and the Indian sachem, Massasoit, forged an alliance and partnership in Plymouth Colony; and the unraveling of that relationship as the next two generations of English grew and required more land, and Indian society found itself undergoing change, both internal (with the many Indian sachems in the region jockeying for supremacy) and external (with some Indians maintaining their alliance with the English, while others believed the English had outstayed their welcome and should be sent packing). This latter conflict became known as King Philip’s War (June 1675 to August 1676).
The author has created an impressive work, thoroughly researched and documented in fascinating detail. Some historical narratives that pack a large amount of information are dry and dull to read; this is not so. (At least not for me.) He attempts to understand the inner workings and motivations of both the English and the Indian communities, and does not take sides. He himself makes the observation that
When violence and fear grip a society, there is an almost overpowering temptation to demonize the enemy. Given the unprecedented level of suffering and death during King Philip’s War, the temptations were especially great, and it is not surprising that both Indians and English began to view their former neighbors as subhuman and evil. What is surprising is that even in the midst of one of the deadliest wars in American history, there were Englishmen who believed the Indians were not inherently malevolent and there were Indians who believed the same about the English. They were the ones whose rambunctious and intrinsically rebellious faith in humanity finally brought the war to an end, and they are the heroes of this story.
Perhaps the most refreshing thing in this story (besides the fact that it’s the first thorough account of King Philip’s War I’ve ever seen) is the focus in the last section of the account on Benjamin Church, perhaps one of America’s first true frontiersmen. While his maternal grandfather had arrived in Plymouth on the Mayflower, Church was a true American: of Separatist Christian stock, but independent in the way he chose to live. He settled himself on the edge of Indian country, befriended both Indian and English, and played a crucial role in the war that erupted between the Indians and the English, communicating with both sides, and relying on friendships and trusted individuals (both Indian and English) to lead him to success.
My mother tells me she did not care for the book. Her interest lies in the story of the Pilgrims (from whom she’s descended), but I don’t believe it extends as far as the hostilities. This is also not a very romanticized account of the English. Philbrick acknowledges the Pilgrims’ place in the American pantheon of religious freedom-seekers, but insists that the history of the Plymouth Colony extends far beyond the First Thanksgiving. He writes, “When we look to how the Pilgrims and their children maintained more than fifty years of peace with the Wampanoags and how that peace suddenly erupted into one of the deadliest wars ever fought on American soil, the history of Plymouth Colony becomes something altogether new, rich, troubling, and complex. Instead of the story we already know, it becomes the story we need to know.”
As a former U.S. history teacher, I found this book incredibly relevant. It seems very little attention is paid in history books to the time period between the landing of the Pilgrims and Puritans (in Boston) in 1620 and 1630, respectively, and the end of the French and Indian War, when England began a program of taxation on the American colonists. Mayflower provides a detailed account of the delicate relations which existed between English and Indians, and the many events that both strengthened those relations and tore them apart. European/Native relations in the U.S. are poorly understood by Americans, whose education exposes them to little more complexity in this area than Hollywood’s portrayals of cowboys and Indians shooting at each other, and (if they’re book-readers) Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee. Philbrick’s refusal to demonize either side makes this book a great source of light, and (mercifully) less a source of heat.
Having covered the main substance of the book, I want to add a few very interesting things I learned from the book:
At least 1000 Indians were sold into slavery during King Philip’s War, with ships—in direct contrast to how they would travel in the 18th and 19th centuries—carrying their human cargo from America to the Caribbean. The English colonists did this not for profit, but out of fear of having Indians from rebellious tribes living among them.
While nineteenth-century Indians in southern New England regarded King Philip’s War as a conflict between the English and the Indians, earlier generations who had experienced the war first-hand (or knew those who had) remembered it not as an “us versus them” question, but “more like being part of a family that had been destroyed by the frightening, inexplicable actions of a once trusted and beloved father [King Philip].”
And while many Americans take great pride in the knowledge that they are descended from the Pilgrims of Plymouth, Philbrick writes, “In 2002 it was estimated that there were approximately 35 million descendents of the Mayflower passengers in the United States, which represents roughly 10 percent of the total U.S. population.” Perhaps it’s not so uncommon after all.
…that here were approximately 35 million descendents of the Mayflower passengers in the United States…
That statistic must also be true of other ships that came to these shores. My mom always would sniff when she heard some twit say “MY ancestors came on the Mayflower.” HER ancestors, as she pointed out (sotto voce), came over on the Arbella, which was John Winthrop’s shipload-o’-government-officials sent by the Crown in 1630 (iirc) to GOVERN [emphasis as she said it] the new colony. (Actually I think 10-12 ships arrived in the same fleet, with settlers as well as the officially appointed government.)
Thanks for the review — I’ve been wondering if it’s worth my time (it’s out for display in my local library, being near T-giving and all, but so many history books are kitsch), and now I know it is a worthwhile read.
Be nice to see a post on how (if) the Israeli Anglo community does T-giving, btw.
Lucretia: Thanks for your comment. Your mother’s comments refer, I think, to the Massachusetts Bay Colony founded by the Puritans in 1630, and was much more populous (and in need of governance, I daresay) than the smaller, more impoverished Plymouth Colony to the south (founded 1620). They were separate political entities for a long time, neither governing the other, though they cooperated in King Philip’s War. They were also not of exactly the same religious stamp; Pilgrims (Bradford’s term coined for them) were a small bunch who spent time in Leiden before finally arranging passage for their church group to the New World, while Puritans were less clique-y and of a more generic Separatist affiliation. Philbrick is quite clear that he means Mayflower descendants being 10% of the total population, though I wonder if he counts the several boatloads of Pilgrims who came to join the first batch in subsequent years (including Alice Southworth who became William Bradford’s second wife after his wife drowned–accidentally or a suicide, it’s not clear–as soon as they arrived). I find the statistics mind-boggling too, but that’s what he came up with. Anything that knocks Americans snooty about their yichus down a few pegs is cool with me.
I have no patience for history books of either the dull or the kitschy kind. This one was serious, thoughtful, and interested in the people rather than in perpetrating the myth of white linen tablecloths and oversized shoe buckles at the First Thanksgiving. (Philbrick says Pilgrim furniture couldn’t possibly have accommodated all the eaters, and they more likely just sat on stumps or squatted on the cold ground to eat their meat–with knives and fingers, no forks, thank you very much.)
Funny you should mention it–I have a couple of Thanksgiving posts brewing as a result of reading this very interesting book. Stay tuned…
[…] by Shimshonit While this is not a Mayflower-specific fact, it is one that I gleaned from reading Nathaniel Philbrick’s book, and that interests me […]
Great post, both on the book and on the foliage… has me missing fall colors, food and history.
I would love to find some reading not only on how they ate but what they ate. I’m guessing that there was no pie at the first thanksgiving, or perhaps there was pie with cornmeal crust… all so fascinating.
Thanks for getting me thinking.
Ilana: Thanks for reading! I have a post brewing now that includes information on what they ate at the First Thanksgiving. Stay tuned a little later in the month…