War for the Dawnland: Reimagining King Philip’s War

Objectives for this Source Set

By reading the historical context overview, analyzing the primary sources, and doing the activities in this source set, students will be able to:

1. Gain an understanding of and practice using Indigenous vocabulary terms that appear in the War for the Dawnland source set.
2. Develop an understanding of the causes and consequences of the War for the Dawnland.
3. Analyze primary source documents and engage in dialogue about them with their peers.
4. Use evidence to make a claim about Indigenous and colonist relations in the Dawnland (New England) from the 1660s-1670s.

Background Reading: Causes and Consequences of the War for the Dawnland

Arrival and Disruption: Early Relations and Colonial Expansion in the Dawnland (1620s-1630s)

For many thousands of years, Indigenous Nations such as the Wampanoag, Narragansett, Nipmuc, and Abenaki have called the Dawnland (New England) home. When English colonizers arrived on these shores in 1620, a period of disruption to Indigenous lifeways began. The English established their first permanent settler colony in the Dawnland in 1620 at the Wampanoag village of Patuxet. It was settled after an event called the Great Dying. During that time, it is believed that upwards of 70-90% of the Wampanoag population was killed by a disease outbreak. 

By September 1621, the English settlers at Plymouth Colony and Sachems from ten Wampanoag communities, led by the Sachem Ousamequin, had agreed to a treaty. However, despite promises to protect and respect each other, this treaty was broken many times. By the 1630s, Wampanoag, Pequot and Narragansett homelands were surrounded by the colonies of Plymouth, Mass Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island. In 1637, there was an armed conflict called the Pequot Massacre. New England colonies worked together and killed and enslaved many Pequot people. The English colonists sent many of the enslaved Pequots  to the Caribbean. The colonists would use these same tactics in the War for the Dawnland in the 1670s.

Shifting Relations: Missionary Efforts, Encroachment, and Indigenous Responses (1640s-1650s)

After the Pequot Massacre, many Indigenous communities were outnumbered by colonists for the first time. Between 1630-1640, 20,000 English colonists had migrated to Mass Bay colony alone! As the population of the English colonies grew, colonial forces attempted to take more land and limit Indigenous sovereignty. The English wanted to take more land and have authority over Indigenous people. Indigenous communities resisted in many ways. First, English settlers attempted to force Indigenous leaders to express loyalty to the English Crown. Indigenous communities often refused to declare loyalty to the English King. They were loyal to their own leaders. Secondly, many English settlers tried to convert Indigenous people to Christianity. They formed Praying Towns, which were communities reserved only for Indigenous people who became Christian. Praying Towns caused tension between Indigenous people who converted and those who did not. Third, English settlers pressured Indigenous leaders to sell their lands and sign documents called land deeds. Many of these deeds feature the Sunksqua Weetamoo, female leader of the Pocasset Wampanoag community. In a 1651 land deed [Source 1], male sachems, including Ousamequin, acknowledge Weetamoo’s authority and tell English settlers that they cannot sell lands that are part of her community. At every turn, Wampanoag communities found ways to resist the English and claim their own authority over their lands and people. 

Irreconcilable Differences: Towards English Desires of Domination (1660s-1671)

In 1661, the Wampanoag Sachem named Ousamequin died. Throughout his life, Ousamequin had agreed to sell some land to colonists to try and prevent conflict and protect his people. With his journey into the next life, Ousamequin’s son Wamsutta became Sachem. When he died, Metacom became sachem.

When Metacom became Sachem both the Wampanoag and the English settlers were suspicious of each other. The Wampanoag feared English colonists would continue to limit their rights and take their land. The English feared Wampanoag communities would work with other Indigenous communities to attack them. Metacom’s goal was to protect Wampanoag lands and lifeways. 

In 1671, the Governor of Plymouth Colony brought two Wampanoag leaders: Sunksqua Awashonks, leader of the Sakonnet Wampanoag, and Metacom, Sachem of the Ponkapoag Wampanoag, to two separate meetings. The English made the two leaders sign treaties saying their Wampanoag communities would give their guns to the English and submit to English laws. In turn, the English promised not to take any new land. Awashonks and Metacom both signed the treaties in an effort to protect their homelands and to prevent conflict. (Source 2) This agreement mostly failed. English colonists continued moving onto Wampanoag homelands. Wampanoag peoples refused to turn in all of their guns.

By 1675, relationships between the Wampanoag and the English were tense. Wampanoag sovereignty and thousands of years of lifeways were under threat. The introduction of English domesticated animals and farming practices harmed traditional foodways and land practices. Additionally, English colonial authorities grew even more fearful of a possible attack against them.

Sparking the Kindling: The Death and Trial of John Sassamon (January - June 1675)

A final event that led to the War for the Dawnland occurred in January 1675. An Indigenous man known to the colonists as John Sassamon, was found dead at a pond. Sassamon lived in an Indigenous community and had converted to Christianity. He lived “between both worlds” of Indigenous and English cultures. He spoke Algonquin languages and English. He worked as an interpreter and translator for Metacom and for English missionaries. He was killed on Wampanoag homelands. Officials in Plymouth Colony arrested three Wampanoag men and put them on trial for Sassamon’s murder. It was the first time English law was applied to a suspected crime that took place on Indigenous lands. The Wampanoag were angry that the English did not respect Wampanoag authority. Metacom marched a large force of Wampanoag men to the area in an effort to display his strength. In the end, the three Wampanoag men accused of the crime – Tobias, his son Wampapaquan, and Mattashunnamo – denied the charges, but the jury of colonists found them guilty and sentenced them to death by hanging. Metacom’s anger grew.

A Crashing Wave: War Begins (June - December 1675)

Metacom and Weetamoo Work Together

After Sassamon’s trial, colonial authorities in Plymouth grew concerned Metacom was preparing for war by gathering warriors at Montaup (Mt. Hope) in Pokanoket, present-day Rhode Island, the center of his homelands. Rhode Island officials traveled to Montaup in June 1675 to meet with Metacom and his trusted advisors. Easton hoped to use diplomacy to prevent conflict. At the meeting, Metacom presented a list of Wampanoag grievances. The Wampanoag were angry that the English continued to: move onto Wampanoag land; destroy Wampanoag crops and traditional foodways with their livestock; treat Wampanoag people unfairly in English courts; force Wampanoag people to convert to Christianity; sell liquor to Wampanoag communities; and fail to respect Wampanoag authority. This meeting shows that diplomacy was not solving problems between the Wampanoag and the colonists. For many within the Indigenous communities, the presence of thousands of English settlers posed a threat to thousands of years of continued existence. 

Around the time that Metacom met with Rhode Island officials, Josiah Winslow, the Governor of Plymouth colony, wrote a letter to Weetmaoo and her husband Ben (Source 3). Fearing war could be near, In his letter, Winslow calls Weetamoo and Ben his “friends and neighbors”. He urges Weetamoo not to support Metacom and to provide him with any information her community might have about Metcom’s plans. Despite signing as “your reall friend”, Josiah Winslow’s letter can be seen as an attempt to divide Wampanoag communities from one another. It was also a threat to treat Weetamoo as an enemy if she did not help Plymouth Colony.

Days after this letter was written, the War for the Dawnland began in Swansea (part of Plymouth Colony) on June 20, 1675 when a group of Pokanoket Wampanoag men raided and destroyed several houses. Historians do not know if Metacom authorized the attack, but colonists viewed him as the leader. In the following weeks, Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies sent their own forces into the conflict. The colonists hoped to end the conflict quickly by capturing Metacom. However, Weetamoo protected Metacom and his warriors in the Pocasset swamps. The swamps were an unfamiliar and frustrating battleground for English forces. Despite Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies working together, they did not find Metacom. In the early part of the war, Metacom and Weetamoo used their knowledge of the swamps as a successful strategy. In a letter from Plymouth Governor Josiah Winslow to Mass Bay Governor John Leverett, on July 18, 1675, Winslow acknowledges the strength of Metacom’s forces and mentions that he and Weetamoo were working together to protect their communities (Source 4).

Narragansett Communities Suffer Loss

In the following days and weeks, Narragansett, Nipmuc, and Wabanaki communities would engage in their own conflicts against colonists in their homelands, further expanding the war. Early in the war, Indigenous communities were successful. In response, the colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, New Haven, and Connecticut, and with some aid from Rhode Island, united together against the Indigenous nations. However, in the first winter of the war, Indigenous communities began to struggle.

The Narragansett had signed a treaty of neutrality with Massachusetts Bay Colony. That means they had said they would not take part in the war. For additional protection, Narragansett communities Despite signing a treaty of neutrality with Massachusetts Bay Colony in October, the Narragansett left their homes and traveled to a large fort in the Great Swamp near present-day Kingston, Rhode Island. The following month, Josiah Winslow led colonial forces into Narragansett Homelands. The militia burned abandoned Narragansett villages so that the Narragansett would have no villages to return to after the conflict. After a failed attempt to negotiate peace, Narragansett warriors attacked a local blockhouse. In response, Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies attacked the Narragansett settlement at the fort. After a fierce fight, colonial forces burned down the settlement while many elders, women, children, and non-combatants were still inside. This was a strategy colonial forces had used during the Pequot Massacre in the 1630s. In the conclusion of the battle, most of the Narragansett winter food stores were destroyed and those who survived fled into the swamps. This dealt a major blow to Narragansett strength, but leaders prepared to launch new campaigns in the spring. 

Freedom, Servitude, or Death: Difficult Choices (Winter 1676)

Throughout the war, both Indigenous and English communities became suspicious of the Praying Towns where Indigenous people who had converted to Christianity lived. During the War for the Dawnland, some Praying Towns sided with the English colonists, but officials did not trust them.  Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered Christianized Natives to be interned at Deer Island, a small island in Boston Harbor. Held in jail in bad conditions, many people died during their internment. Colonial officials asked some of them to work as spies during the war. This shows that colonial officials often depended on Indigenous people for their knowledge of their communities and homelands, even if they did not fully trust them.

Although some helped the English, many Indigenous people in Praying Towns resisted colonial authority during the war. For example, a Nipmuc man by the name of James Wowaus, or James Printer, attended Harvard Indian College in Cambridge and worked with both Metacom and English missionaries as an interpreter. Wowaus could read and write in Algonquian languages and English. During the war, he chose to support Metacom. In February 1676, inter-tribal Indigenous forces attacked Medfield (in present-day Massachusetts). Wowaus is believed to be responsible for tacking a note to a bridge explaining that Indigenous people had been pushed to fight in the war because they had lost so much to the settlers, stating that “we have nothing but our lives to lose but you have many fair houses, cattle, and much good things.” (Source 5). 

Another Nipmuc man named Quonopohit had lived in the praying town of Natick prior to the war. During the war, Quonopohit is believed to have asked other Indigenous men why they continued to fight. The younger men responded, “Why shall we have peace to be made slaves, & either be killed or sent away to sea to Barbados”. That is, Indigenous men fought in the War for the Dawnland even after they had begun to lose because if they did not fight they could lose more land or be enslaved. 

These men’s fears proved to be well-founded. During winter and early spring 1676, Indigenous communities had to stretch their food reserves and keep moving to avoid united colonial forces. This prevented them from planting crops for spring. At the same time, some Indigenous leaders were killed. In March 1676, Connecticut forces killed Canonchet, a Narragansett Sachem. His head was sent to the colonial leaders as a trophy. Then, in July 1676, Narragansett Sunksqua Quaiapin returned to her homelands with other community members to retrieve corn to plant. Colonial forces intercepted them and killed many. They sold survivors into slavery. These two examples highlight two main colonial war strategies: large scale massacres of non-combatant Indigenous groups and the legal use of enslavement as punishment. Despite their losses, Narragansett and Niantic forces continued to fight.

The winter months were also hard for Metacom. He set up a camp in Schaghticoke, New York in an effort to enlist the support of Kanienʼkehá:ka (Mohawk) communities, members of the Haudenasaunee Confederacy, in the conflict. However, his efforts were not successful. The Kanienʼkehá:ka had already established relations with French, Dutch, and English parties entering their traditional homelands and did not always have good relations with Algonquian speaking people, like the Wampanoag. Armed conflict between the Mohawk and Wampanoag weakened Metacom’s forces.

Terror and Destruction: The Deaths of Weetamoo and Metacom (Spring and Summer 1676)

Upon Metacom’s return to the Dawnland, his forces launched a series of attacks. A victory in Sudbury in April 1676, however, would prove to be the last major Indigenous victory in the southern Dawnland region. By July, some of Metacom’s allies had begun to surrender or were turned over to English forces. In August, colonial forces led by Captain Benjamin Church continued their raids in search of Metacom. During these raids, many women and children were captured, including Wootonekanuske, the wife of Metacom and sister of Weetamoo, alongside their nine-year-old son. After much debate, colonial leaders decided to sell Metacom’s family into slavery.

Weetamoo, one of Metacom’s most important and powerful allies, wanted to return to her Pocasset homelands with her people. This was dangerous because the English had developed strategies to fight in swamps. Before they made it to Pocasset, Weetamoo and her community were ambushed and most of her forces were killed. In her escape across the Taunton River, it is believed Weetamoo drowned. After Weetamoo’s death, Metacom decided to return to Montaup (Mt. Hope). Soon after, Church’s forces found Metacom in the swamps surrounding Montaup. He was shot and killed by John Alderman, a Christian Wampanoag man who had previously fought on Metacom’s side. After so many years spent trying to control him, colonial forces had finally killed the man they blamed for the war (Source 6). Like other Indigenous leaders killed during the war, Metacom’s body was treated as both a trophy and warning sign. He was ultimately beheaded and colonial authorities displayed his head in Plymouth Colony for twenty years. 

In the weeks following Metacom’s assassination, the War for the Dawnland in the southern theater (Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) came to an end. Colonial forces pursued, captured and punished many of the remaining Indigenous leaders and communities. Metacom’s remaining allies attempted to continue their fight, but were ultimately forced to surrender. Many survivors were punished. They lost their lands or were enslaved. Individuals identified as allies of Metacom – even children – were sentenced to "perpetual servitude and enslavement”, and were sold into slavery and transported to the Caribbean. For example, a certificate signed by Mass Bay Gov. Josiah Winslow on August 9, 1676  sold 110 Indigenous men, women, and children into slavery. (Source 7) During colonial raids, Benjamin Church claimed symbols of Metacom’s sachemship, including his wampum belts, red cloth, and more, as trophies of war. To this day, the Wampanoag Nation continues to search for the belongings taken from Metacom upon his death. 

Cataclysmic Conclusions: The End of the War (1676-1678)

While the war in the southern Dawnland had ended, the northern theater raged on. This area of the war had highlighted long standing tensions between Wabanaki communities and English settlers in New Hampshire and Maine. In 1675, English settlers had marched up the Kennebec River in Maine following the attacks in Swansea, Massachusetts and demanded that Wabanaki communities turn over their weapons. In response, Wabanaki warriors began attacking English trading posts, largely under the leadership of Abenaki Sagamore Mog and Penobscot Sagamore Madockawando. The Wabanaki took control of waterways and destroyed the colonists’ fishing economy. Fighting reached a stalemate and the Wabanaki Confederacy sued for peace. Signed in 1678, The Treaty of Casco Bay ended the War for the Dawnland (Source 8). The treaty called for all captives to be returned without ransom and recognized English property rights in Wabanaki Homelands. However, the treaty required the colonists to pay one peck of corn each year for each family settled on Wabanaki land. Ultimately, peace did not last. Conflicts broke out during the 1700s as English colonists expanded their lands, disrespected Indigenous sovereignty, and worked to end French influence in the region.

Lasting Impacts of the War 

The War for the Dawnland had profound and lasting impacts on Indigenous communities across the Dawnland. It is estimated that between 40% - 50% of the Indigenous population in the region lost their lives during the conflict, compared to about 5% of the colonial population. When the English arrived on Wampanoag homelands in 1620, there were more than 70 Wampanoag communities. By the end of the War for the Dawnland in the 1670s, only about 12 Wampanoag communities remained. With the war brought to an end, the victorious settlers chose to enslave and dominate Indigenous communities instead of seeking a relationship based on diplomacy and shared sovereignty. From roughly 1694 to 1757, New England colonies issued a series of scalping bounties, offering rewards for colonists who killed Indigenous people, with the goal of reducing the Indigenous population, particularly those who had not converted to Christianity. This is perhaps most evident in one particular bounty, Massachusetts Governor Spencer Phip’s proclamation of 1755, which explicitly targeted Penobscot men, women, and children.

During the Revolutionary War, which began in 1775, some Wampanoag men fought alongside the Patriots. However, many never received pensions, and relations between Tribes and the settlers hardly improved. Throughout the coming decades, Wampanoag communities living in the United States continued to see their rights limited. Despite this, many smaller communities merged into larger ones over time;  today, Wampanoag communities in Mashpee and Gay Head continue to ensure their survivance. 

Memory and Endurance: Recollections of Metacom and the Continuance of Wampanoag People 

Indigenous communities have continued in the Dawnland despite so many efforts to remove us from our homelands. However, many of Metacom’s fears for the Indigenous people of the region came true. Even though the War for the Dawnland remains in the past, it still ripples out to today and has profound impacts on our communities, with many of us fighting to be visible and work towards truth and reconciliation efforts. It is common to encounter people across the New England region who firmly believe that there are no Indigenous people here anymore, and that we disappeared with the war. Many histories of the war – from the 1670s until today – have been written from the perspective of settler colonists. This has impacted the way the public has understood the war. 

In the 1800s, with the invasion of Indigenous Homelands out west on the Great Plains, the United States began to think fondly on the era often called the colonial period. Americans began to tell stories about “good Indians” like Tisuantum (Squanto) who they described as helping the colonists. In contrast, American writers described Metacom as an example of a “bad Indian,” who fought against colonists’ interests.  Today, there are statues of Squanto in Massachusetts. There are not any statues for Metacom.

In 1833, the Wampanoag community engaged in an act of protest called the Woodlot Revolt. This revolt  pushed back on Massachusetts' government control over trees and wood on the Mashpee Wampanoag reservation. Three years later, William Apess, a Pequot man and minister, sought to honor the 160-year anniversary of Metacom’s death from an Indigenous perspective. In a speech in Boston on January 26, 1836, Apess delivered what he titled the “Eulogy on King Philip” (Source 9). In this speech, Apess celebrated Metacom and called for justice for Indigenous peoples. Apess told his audience that Metacom had defended his people and homelands. 

Today, Wampanoag knowledge keepers continue to carry and transfer the knowledge and stories associated with the events our ancestors experienced in the past. We continue to honor Metacom and his memory, annually holding a Metacom Day every August 12th as a form of memory and ceremony. The injustices of those events that occurred more than 350 years ago remain and continue to impact the Wampanoag Nation. Despite this and all efforts to remove us from our homelands, we remain and always will. 

Close Reading Questions for the Primary Sources in this Set

Source 1: Map of 17th century Wampanoag communities and their leaders (created 2019)

• To get your bearings, Noepe in the bottom right-hand corner is the Indigenous place name for Martha’s Vineyard. Look at a map (e.g., Google maps) to see what communities are presently located on the Wampanoag homelands pictured in this map.
• The concentric circles represent the idea that Wampanoag communities did not stay in one set place year round. What does this map suggest about the ways in which Wampanoag peoples used the land in the mid-1600s?

Source 2: Land deed between Pokanoket Wampanoag and English colonists that acknowledges Weetamoo as the leader of the Pocasset Wampanoag, 1651

• What strategies did Ousemequin use to govern relations between Wampanoag communities and Plymouth colony? What evidence do you have for that in the text?
• In what ways does Ousemequin acknowledge the authority of Weetamoo? What does this tell you about relationships between different Wampanoag communities?
• What do you think the phrase “pretended claim” means?
• From this document, how do you think English settlers thought about land deeds with the Wampanoag?

Source 3: Sonksqua Awashonks writes a letter to Governor Prince, 11 August 1671

• Worried about the possibility of armed conflict with Wampanoag communities, Plymouth sought to exert control over leaders like Awashonks and Metacom by demanding their people turn over all their guns for a period of time. How might this impact Wampanoag communities? And how did the English justify their own actions?
  • In this excerpt, what obstacles to turning in all guns does Awashonks cite? What does this tell you about Wampanoag responses to English demands?
• Awashonks was a politically savvy Sunksqua of the Sakonnet Wampanoag. Why might she refer to her “poor ability” in a letter to the Governor of Plymouth colony?
• What do the summons of Awashonks and Metacom to Plymouth in 1671 tell you about relations between Wampanoag communities and English settlers at this time?
  • How might these events have been key causes of the war that broke out four years later? 

Source 4: Letter to Weetamoo and her husband Ben, 15 June 1675

These questions come from Dr. Lisa Brooks’ companion website to her book Our Beloved Kin: Remapping A New History of King Philip’s War, The Queen’s Right and the Quaker’s Relation, Pocasset and Pokanoket, Spring 1675

• What does this letter tell us about English tactics and strategy? What does it tell us about their perceptions of the Wampanoag?
• What would Weetamoo have done with this letter, once she received it?
• With the implied threat to her kin, including the husband of her sister (brother to her former husband), as well as their children, would she be likely to carry the letter across the bay, to show them the evidence of Plymouth's intent?
• Did this letter further instigate the conflict that soon erupted? Did it allow Weetamoo's relations time to prepare?

Source 5: Colonial Governors discuss strength of Indigenous war strategies,  18 July 1675

Source 6: James Wowaus (Nipmuc) leaves a note for settlers on the Medfield bridge, February 1676

• James Wowaus had a rare skillset: he was a fluent speaker and literate in reading and writing several Algonquian languages and English. Why might he have chosen to leave this note on the Medfield bridge?
• What is the main idea of Wowaus’ quote? What does it tell us about Indigenous motivations to fight against the English settlers in the War for the Dawnland?
• Wowaus says colonists had provoked Indigenous people for “21 years” which would date back to 1655. What happened between Indigenous communities and English settlers between 1655 and 1676 that would provoke “anger and wrath” among Indigenous communities and how does this notion dispel myths about ‘50 years of peace’ between Indigenous communities and English colonists?
• The note James Wowaus tacked to the Medfield bridge in February 1676 does not exist in an archive or library today. We know about Wowaus’ note from a letter an English settler wrote about it in March 1676 that is held at an archive (the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, MA). Why might this letter have been saved and Wowaus’ note not?

Source 7: Letter from Edward Rawson to Josiah Winslow on the assassination of Metacom, 28 August 1676

• In his letter, Rawson refers to Metacom as a “monster that hath caused us so much mischief.” How might Wampanoag communities have memorialized Metacom?
  • Why would colonial authorities want settlers to perceive Metacom as a “monster”?
• In what ways did this conflict show cooperation between different New England colonies and different Indigenous communities in the Dawnland?
• Despite Metacom’s death, the war continued on in the northern theater (today, New Hampshire and Maine). Why might the settlers have promted Metacom’s death as the ‘end’ of the war and something to celebrate?
• Benjamin Church, leader of Plymouth Colony’s militia during the war, is mentioned in this letter. Church led the pursuit of Metacom. Church later published the diaries he kept during the war, and his son published a book called "The Entertaining History of King Philip’s War” that came to dominate English (and later, American) understandings of the war. Do you think Church would be a reliable narrator of this conflict? What might these sources tell you about the war? What might be missing from them?

Source 8: Certificates of enslavement, August and September 1676

Note: In these two documents Metacom is called “Philip” by colonial authorities. 

• This document claims colonial armies arrested Indigenous people for "assisting the said Philip [Metacom] in his said Rebellion” and it also says that the arrested people included “men, women and children.” What do these attempts to justify the legal enslavement of Indigenous communities tell us about English aims and fears in New England? What does it tell us about Indigenous resistance?
• What types of documents are these? What do these two documents tell us about strategies of colonization the English used in New England? What is the tone of these documents? What words and phrases stand out to you?
• Why were the colonists forcibly transporting Indigenous people to the Caribbean? What can we learn from these documents about the broader system of slavery in early New England and the Atlantic world?

Source 9: 1678 Treaty of Casco Bay as described by the colonist Jeremy Belknap

• In what ways did the end of the conflict in the northern theater differ from the end of the southern theater during the War for the Dawnland?
• Where in this treaty can you find evidence of Indigenous sovereignty being respected?
• Ultimately, this treaty did not maintain peace between Wabanaki communities and the English settlers. What ongoing tensions existed at the start of the war that this treaty did not solve?

Source 10: Pequot historian William Apess describes Metacom's Legacy, 1836

• Why might William Apess, a Pequot activist and historian, have wanted to write a history of the War for the Dawnland in 1836, approximately 160 years after it had occurred?
• In 1833, the Mashpee Wampanoag community began a campaign known as the “Woodlot Revolt” after Massachusetts officials sought profit by cutting and selling wood on the Mashpee Wampanoag reservation. Wampanoag resistance against this helped to reestablish a degree of Wampanoag self-governance. Why might Apess’ have wanted to write a history of the War for the Dawnland in the years after the Woodlot Revolt?
• How did William Apess memorialize, or remember, Metacom in this portion of his Eulogy? How is that different from English memories of Metacom?

Suggested Activities

Word Wall: Pre-Teaching Vocabulary

Materials: 

• Teacher Directions and Student Handout

Activity Overview:

Students work together to define words and build a word wall that they will use throughout their study of the War for the Dawnland.

Gallery Walk: War for the Dawnland source set

Materials:

• Teacher Directions and Student Handout
• 5-7 sources from the War for the Dawnland source set
  • We encourage teachers to print out images of the original sources alongside the transcribed excerpts.

Activity Overview:

Using 5-7 of the primary sources in this document set, students gain an introductory understanding of some of the key primary sources from the War for the Dawnland by viewing documents and analyzing excerpts, and completing a See-Think-Wonder chart. Students then engage in a dialogue about the sources with their classmates.

Making a Claim and Citing Evidence: Primary Source Inquiry

Materials:

• Teacher Directions
• Primary Source Analysis Handout
• Essay Rubric
• War for the Dawnland Source Set
• War for the Dawnland: Historical Overiew

Activity Overview:

In this activity students analyze 5+ primary sources from this source set in order to answer the inquiry question: How did the relationship between Indigenous Nations and English colonial parties change during the 1660s and 70s? And how did both parties justify their actions during the War for the Dawnland? Students will use primary sources and the historical overview as evidence to support their responses to the prompt.

Applicable Standards

Curricular Standards

• MA H/SS Content Standards

  1. Grade 3. Topic 5. The Puritans, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Native Peoples, and Africans
  2. Grade 5, Topic 1. Early colonization and growth of colonies
  3. Grade 8. Topic 1. The philosophical foundations of the United States political system

  4. US History I. Topic 1. Origins of the Revolution and the Constitution 

      

  MA H/SS Skill Standards

  1. Analyze the purpose and point of view of each source; distinguish opinion from fact.
  2. Evaluate the credibility, accuracy, and relevance of each source.

  3. Argue or explain conclusions, using valid reasoning and evidence. 

      

  MA ELA Reading Anchor Standards

  1. Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining technical, connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone.
  2. Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text
  3. Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence

  C3 Frameworks

  1. D2.His.4.3-5. Explain why individuals and groups during the same historical period differed in their perspectives. D2.His.4.6-8. Analyze multiple factors that influenced the perspectives of people during different historical eras. D2.His.4.9-12. Analyze complex and interacting factors that influenced the perspectives of people during different historical eras.
  2. D2.His.6.3-5. Describe how people’s perspectives shaped the historical sources they created. D2.His.6.6-8. Analyze how people’s perspectives influenced what information is available in the historical sources they created. D2.His.6.9-12. Analyze the ways in which the perspectives of those writing history shaped the history that they produced