Flintlock and Tomahawk: New England in King Philip's War

by Douglas Edward Leach

“Marked by scrupulous and wide-ranging research, it is not only good history but good narrative as well.” ―Robert J. Taylor, American Historical Review This classic account of King Philip’s War, first published in 1958, offers a bird’s-eye view of the conflict, from the Wampanoag sachem’s rise to his ultimate defeat. The battles, massacres, stratagems, and logistics of this war are all detailed, with the leaders of both sides figuring prominently in this tale of bloodshed, privation, and woe. The author weighs all the factors contributing to the Native Americans’ defeat and surveys the effects of the war on the lives of both Indians and colonists in the years to come. With insight, balance, and compassion, Leach portrays the tragedy of the war and points toward the future of the nascent American republic.

Genres: History, American History, Native American, Nonfiction, Military History, War, American

320 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1958

About the author

A leading authority on 17th century colonial American history, Douglas Edward Leach graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Brown University in 1942. After service as a deck officer in the U.S. Navy during World War II, he earned his M.A. (1947) and Ph.D. (1952) from Harvard University. Leach began his career as a history professor at Bates College, Lewiston, Maine, where he taught from 1950 until 1956. In 1956, he joined the faculty at Vanderbilt University where he remained until his retirement in 1986.

Reviews

[Jeffrey Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

In it's day, Flintlock and Tomahawk was a cutting edge narrative about the history of King Philip's War. Unfortunately, the language that Leach uses to tell the story is quite dated, and his over use of English sources seemingly without question is just as dated.

Nonetheless, this is still an important work in the historiography of New England, the Algonquian Indians, King Philip's War and the Colonial Era. While you have to overlook the slanted pro-English viewpoint and arcane language, there is a lot of meat to this work and worth taking the time to read if you are interested in these topics.

[Frederick Channell · Rating 4 out of 5]

An older book which may be considered not politically correct these days, but a well written classic story of the event.

[Jim Drewery · Rating 5 out of 5]

Flintlock and Tomahawk is a very well researched and easily read monograph, detailing what history has come to refer to as King Phillip's War, which was considered when it was first published in 1958, to also be quite well written. So proclaimed Samuel Eliot Morison, in the Introduction to this Norton Edition released eight years later. However by the politically correct standards of the twenty-first century, it is written in a language and tone grievously steeped in unenlightened bigotry toward the Amerindian people and culture. Which thankfully gives some hope at least, that maybe humanity is finally learning to deal with the issue of race as the social construct that it is. Certainly not something which should matter in any, except possibly medical concerns. Readers with a strong sense of their own Amerindian heritage will likely find this book to be a quite repulsive. A typically white-washed version of how the Native American people were decimated and vanquished from their lands by the White man, who just kept coming and coming from across the sea. Additionally he cautions that one must be wary of the strong bias in researching and writing history such as this, where there is little or no record remaining from the losing side. Leach also warns that one must take care not to let the strong colonial bias of the contemporary writings comprising the wealth of primary source material relating to this period, from effecting one's analysis. However this was as far as Leach, a New Englander by birth and education, could manage to restrain his own obvious personal bias for the colonials, in relating this interesting and extremely important saga in American history. It seems as though his own world view was a product to some degree of his own environment, as he speaks in the book's preface of how society had so recently revisited the savagery of total war, referring to World War II, and how historians now could explore such topics as this, without undo malice toward either side. This somehow sounds quite fitting coming as it did amidst the specter of the Cold War which had risen from the ashes of World War Two and exploded into a violent shooting war in Korea only a few years before. In Asia, Africa and around the world Americans were told of the Red menace which was trying to destroy freedom and democracy, replacing it with the tyranny of communism.
Indeed the Native Americans who participated in King Phillip's War left practically nothing by way of written record, except as the author notes, a few surviving documents which were dictated by Metacom to John Sassamon. Sassamon's central role in the foundations of this conflict can not be understated. It was his apparent murder by three of Phillip's loyal followers and their subsequent execution by Plymouth authorities, which helped to bring the simmering tensions between the Indians and colonist to a full boil in the summer of 1675. One might have expected Leach to more fully explore the connections between Sassamon, the Plymouth government, and Phillip. There is other scholarship, although subsequent to this work, indicating Sassamon was probably a spy for the Plymouth colony, sent out specifically to collect intelligence on Phillip's intentions and just as importantly the mood of the Wampanoags. The penalty for spying is often death in many cultures, particularly in times of war, thus what the English colonists looked upon as a ruthless murder, might well have been viewed from the Amerindian perspective as a necessary military action, to protect vital intelligence from being betrayed to the enemy. Leach's portrayal of Phillip and of Amerindians in general remains consistently negative. The Native Americans are clearly portrayed as “the enemy” throughout the book, although his tone at time gives a hint of sympathy for this proud and noble people. These undertones are subtle and generally more consistent with what would be better described as contempt. He consistently refers to them as savages, redskins, marauders and a host of other derogatory terms; clearly embracing the myth of the heroic settlers who battled incredible odds to win New England for God and brought civilization by banishing the heathen Indians who roamed endlessly along subsisting but not properly using the tremendous wealth of resources.
Contrastingly he also has little to say about the heavy handed tactics and policies of the English colonists as they tried to mold and shape the Native Americans to their own will and image in his discussion of the causes of the war. The Amerindians were expected to abide by the Puritan code, which they really did not understand and mostly found to be silly white man's foolishness, a point which lacks clarification. He does briefly explains the conflicting views of land management held by the two sides, giving only a general overview which fails to take into account the tremendous environmental impact the huge influx of settlers had on the New England countryside in the 1600's or the unending conflicts which arouse from it. Most specifically he makes no mention at all of the hundreds of disputes which arose over the farming practices of the colonists, especially in regards to their livestock. The settlers fenced in their crops and let their livestock roam free, however the natives did not build fences and their corn fields and gardens often were destroyed or consumed by free ranging hogs and cattle belonging to the colonists. Also the English cut down all the trees and scared away most of the game from the areas they settled and frequently acquired Indian lands via highly questionable tactics and deals. By far the most glaring shortfall of this work is its lack of discussion of outrages and outright atrocities committed by the English colonists. Little is said in condemnation of the routine practice of selling what were considered the most dangerous of the captured Indians into slavery in the West Indies and other ports, which all of the colonies participated. Neither is there a meaningful discussion of the total warfare practiced by the Whites, who also destroyed all crops and food stores of the Indians which they came across. Perhaps though the most glaring omission of this category lies in what became of the decapitated head of Phillip at the end of the war. Leach only says that Captain Church and his men returned home with the severed head on a pole, ignoring the fact the head remained prominently displayed in Plymouth for twenty years after the end of the war.
Leach does very well however, at conveying the delicate state of affairs which existed between the many native and colonial factions of New England region in the seventeenth century. The book also clearly displaces any ill-conceived notions that the Europeans arrived in North America to find a stagnant state of relations between the various Amerindian groups. It was as the author vividly portrays a world of shadowy and shaky alliances, which might unravel at any moment and many times did, which is ultimately how Phillip came to be killed. He also makes very evident, the intricate and quite fluid relationship between the various bands of Native Americans then living in New England, which included a number of long standing bitter rivalries between many of them. Leach also exposes however the terrific amount of dispute and distrust stemming both from ideological differences and economic competition for territory and commercial success, which existed among the British colonies as well. He is highly critical of many of the actions of the militia, calling them blunders on several occasions and relates as well that Puritan expectations of the ability of individual sachems to control even their own younger hot-headed warriors were sorely misplaced. However he might have here again elaborated more upon the aspect rather than lumping it as he does into the single statement that the war was inevitable from the moment the pilgrims landed at Plymouth.
Leach rightly concludes this was a war of tremendous historical importance because it ended forever the influence of Native Americans in New England and firmly established White English dominance in the northeast. It was the first real attempt by the British colonies at unified operations against a common enemy, which as the author shows was severely lacking in cooperation, organization, logistics and execution. The militias were for the most part woefully unprepared and their commanders often showed a complete lack of comprehension of the situation at hand. Especially early on in the conflict they blundered their way into and out of harm's way, but often not without significant losses. Had it not been for their superior numbers and the ability to be resupplied relatively quickly from England, this war might well have turned out differently or lasted much longer at least. For these reasons and others, this was a very important chapter in American history as the author concludes. While the work has an obvious colonial bias, as one would expect from consensus history, it is meticulously researched and documented as earlier stated and is organized quite logically into a dozen highly detailed chapters which cover all of the major events and circumstances of the war, making it a valuable secondary reference. Thus it is a fine academic endeavor which does much to unravel the complexities of this, one of America's first great Indian Wars and remains a viable, though dated part of American historiography.

[Jim Drewery · Rating 4 out of 5]

Flintlock and Tomahawk is a very well researched and easily read monograph, detailing what history has come to refer to as King Phillip's War, which was considered when it was first published in 1958, to also be quite well written. So proclaimed Samuel Eliot Morison, in the Introduction to this Norton Edition released eight years later. However by the politically correct standards of the twenty-first century, it is written in a language and tone grievously steeped in unenlightened bigotry toward the Amerindian people and culture. Which thankfully gives some hope at least, that maybe humanity is finally learning to deal with the issue of race as the social construct that it is. Certainly not something which should matter in any, except possibly medical concerns. Readers with a strong sense of their own Amerindian heritage will likely find this book to be a quite repulsive. A typically white-washed version of how the Native American people were decimated and vanquished from their lands by the White man, who just kept coming and coming from across the sea. Additionally he cautions that one must be wary of the strong bias in researching and writing history such as this, where there is little or no record remaining from the losing side. Leach also warns that one must take care not to let the strong colonial bias of the contemporary writings comprising the wealth of primary source material relating to this period, from effecting one's analysis. However this was as far as Leach, a New Englander by birth and education, could manage to restrain his own obvious personal bias for the colonials, in relating this interesting and extremely important saga in American history. It seems as though his own world view was a product to some degree of his own environment, as he speaks in the book's preface of how society had so recently revisited the savagery of total war, referring to World War II, and how historians now could explore such topics as this, without undo malice toward either side. This somehow sounds quite fitting coming as it did amidst the specter of the Cold War which had risen from the ashes of World War Two and exploded into a violent shooting war in Korea only a few years before. In Asia, Africa and around the world Americans were told of the Red menace which was trying to destroy freedom and democracy, replacing it with the tyranny of communism.
Indeed the Native Americans who participated in King Phillip's War left practically nothing by way of written record, except as the author notes, a few surviving documents which were dictated by Metacom to John Sassamon. Sassamon's central role in the foundations of this conflict can not be understated. It was his apparent murder by three of Phillip's loyal followers and their subsequent execution by Plymouth authorities, which helped to bring the simmering tensions between the Indians and colonist to a full boil in the summer of 1675. One might have expected Leach to more fully explore the connections between Sassamon, the Plymouth government, and Phillip. There is other scholarship, although subsequent to this work, indicating Sassamon was probably a spy for the Plymouth colony, sent out specifically to collect intelligence on Phillip's intentions and just as importantly the mood of the Wampanoags. The penalty for spying is often death in many cultures, particularly in times of war, thus what the English colonists looked upon as a ruthless murder, might well have been viewed from the Amerindian perspective as a necessary military action, to protect vital intelligence from being betrayed to the enemy. Leach's portrayal of Phillip and of Amerindians in general remains consistently negative. The Native Americans are clearly portrayed as “the enemy” throughout the book, although his tone at time gives a hint of sympathy for this proud and noble people. These undertones are subtle and generally more consistent with what would be better described as contempt. He consistently refers to them as savages, redskins, marauders and a host of other derogatory terms; clearly embracing the myth of the heroic settlers who battled incredible odds to win New England for God and brought civilization by banishing the heathen Indians who roamed endlessly along subsisting but not properly using the tremendous wealth of resources.
Contrastingly he also has little to say about the heavy handed tactics and policies of the English colonists as they tried to mold and shape the Native Americans to their own will and image in his discussion of the causes of the war. The Amerindians were expected to abide by the Puritan code, which they really did not understand and mostly found to be silly white man's foolishness, a point which lacks clarification. He does briefly explains the conflicting views of land management held by the two sides, giving only a general overview which fails to take into account the tremendous environmental impact the huge influx of settlers had on the New England countryside in the 1600's or the unending conflicts which arouse from it. Most specifically he makes no mention at all of the hundreds of disputes which arose over the farming practices of the colonists, especially in regards to their livestock. The settlers fenced in their crops and let their livestock roam free, however the natives did not build fences and their corn fields and gardens often were destroyed or consumed by free ranging hogs and cattle belonging to the colonists. Also the English cut down all the trees and scared away most of the game from the areas they settled and frequently acquired Indian lands via highly questionable tactics and deals. By far the most glaring shortfall of this work is its lack of discussion of outrages and outright atrocities committed by the English colonists. Little is said in condemnation of the routine practice of selling what were considered the most dangerous of the captured Indians into slavery in the West Indies and other ports, which all of the colonies participated. Neither is there a meaningful discussion of the total warfare practiced by the Whites, who also destroyed all crops and food stores of the Indians which they came across. Perhaps though the most glaring omission of this category lies in what became of the decapitated head of Phillip at the end of the war. Leach only says that Captain Church and his men returned home with the severed head on a pole, ignoring the fact the head remained prominently displayed in Plymouth for twenty years after the end of the war.
Leach does very well however, at conveying the delicate state of affairs which existed between the many native and colonial factions of New England region in the seventeenth century. The book also clearly displaces any ill-conceived notions that the Europeans arrived in North America to find a stagnant state of relations between the various Amerindian groups. It was as the author vividly portrays a world of shadowy and shaky alliances, which might unravel at any moment and many times did, which is ultimately how Phillip came to be killed. He also makes very evident, the intricate and quite fluid relationship between the various bands of Native Americans then living in New England, which included a number of long standing bitter rivalries between many of them. Leach also exposes however the terrific amount of dispute and distrust stemming both from ideological differences and economic competition for territory and commercial success, which existed among the British colonies as well. He is highly critical of many of the actions of the militia, calling them blunders on several occasions and relates as well that Puritan expectations of the ability of individual sachems to control even their own younger hot-headed warriors were sorely misplaced. However he might have here again elaborated more upon the aspect rather than lumping it as he does into the single statement that the war was inevitable from the moment the pilgrims landed at Plymouth.
Leach rightly concludes this was a war of tremendous historical importance because it ended forever the influence of Native Americans in New England and firmly established White English dominance in the northeast. It was the first real attempt by the British colonies at unified operations against a common enemy, which as the author shows was severely lacking in cooperation, organization, logistics and execution. The militias were for the most part woefully unprepared and their commanders often showed a complete lack of comprehension of the situation at hand. Especially early on in the conflict they blundered their way into and out of harm's way, but often not without significant losses. Had it not been for their superior numbers and the ability to be resupplied relatively quickly from England, this war might well have turned out differently or lasted much longer at least. For these reasons and others, this was a very important chapter in American history as the author concludes. While the work has an obvious colonial bias, as one would expect from consensus history, it is meticulously researched and documented as earlier stated and is organized quite logically into a dozen highly detailed chapters which cover all of the major events and circumstances of the war, making it a valuable secondary reference. Thus it is a fine academic endeavor which does much to unravel the complexities of this, one of America's first great Indian Wars and remains a viable, though dated part of American historiography.

[Boone Ayala · Rating 3 out of 5]

Leach provides a very useful chronicle/military history of King Philip's War, based in meticulous research in New England state and town archives. This text is especially useful for reference, as Leach treats the highlights of the war in careful detail. He was also a talented author, and the book is beautifully written. Leach also - for his time - makes attempts to be balanced, frequently noting English atrocities against Wampanoags and Narragansetts during the war. As Leach writes, "King Philip's War was neither glorious nor humane, and both sides on many occasions violated the noble concept of mercy" (224).

Still, it is impossible to give this book more than 3 stars for its antiquated analysis. Leach's whole perspective is grounded in a teleological idea of inevitability. "From the day when the first English settlers landed on New England's shores and built permanent homes there, King Philip's War became virtually inevitable. Here in the wilderness two mutually incompatible ways of life confronted each other, and one of the two would have to prevail" (1). Leach calls the war "a struggle for survival between two mutually antagonistic civilizations" (178). The war becomes a tragedy that could not be avoided, one for which nobody was responsible.

Leach deserves credit for improving upon his predecessors in this regard. His advisor, Samuel Eliot Morrison, provides an introduction which reflects this older historiography. Morrison notes the parallels between King Philip's War and decolonization: "In view of... the many instances today of backward peoples getting enlarged notions of nationalism and turning ferociously on Europeans who have attempted to civilize them, this early conflict of the same nature cannot help but be of interest... behind King Philip's War was the clash of a relatively advanced race with savages" (ix). Leach at least strives for a more balanced take than the previous generation, something he attributes to the fact that the frontier has closed (viii).

Throughout it remains clear that Leach has a partiality for the English side, and certainly sees them as the destined victors. Philip's resistance was "futile" and "misguided" (241) says Leach, the doomed effort of a "primitive people, occupying a much lower level of civilization than that of the English settlers" (6) to resist "the White man's civilization" possessed of "an aggressive and usually predominant strength" (21). This approach taints the whole work. Leach adopts the perspective of his colonial sources, viewing Philip and his cohorts as rebels against colonial authority, but also against destiny. Leach does not entertain the possibility of peaceful coexistence, or of a backing-off of English land greed, as solutions to alleviate Native grievances. By naturalizing both the English and Indigenous positions, Leach makes it impossible to hold the English, in particular, to account.

This comes through most shockingly in chapters II and III, the leadup to the war. Leach lists the Native grievances - settlers peddling alcohol, swindling Natives out of land, dividing Native nations by setting up praying towns - but compares these to the English sense of Natives as an obstacle to occupying and making the land productive "by those for whom it had been destined by God" (22). In other words, to the Natives the English were treacherously eroding the foundations of their society, stealing the land out from under them and so posing an existential threat to their civilization. To the English, the Natives were a burden to the expansion of their civilization. The basis of the English civilization was their replacement of Natives as the rulers of the soil. Even in his attempt to tell a "both sides" narrative, Leach hints at the reality - of the two models of civilization, one allows for shared space and the other does not.

Yet in addition to naturalizing the conflict and painting it as a clash of civilizations, Leach follows his sources and sees the controversy largely as the English saw it, without trying to understand the Native view. Lisa Brooks's Indigenous history of the war, Our Beloved Kin, notes that "just as many colonial statements censured the Wampanoags' failure to act as proper subjects to the colonial government, the Wampanoag leaders' statement critiqued the newcomers' failure to participate in the Indigenous system of reciprocal relations" (OBK, 134-5). If we ought to understand the war as a mutual misunderstanding, then we should interrogate the ways in which the English failed to understand what was expected of them.

Leach has here written a very useful account of King Philip's War as experienced and recorded by those on the English side. But his account of the Native view of the conflict, its causes and course, is underwhelming, and his bias in favor of the English comes through even in his attempt to be impartial. Flintlock and Tomahawk was a key stepping-stone to better histories of the conflict, moving away from explicitly white supremacist narratives, but Leach is unable to shake off that baggage in his own account, and so the book's analysis today hangs fairly limp.

[Joshua Neil · Rating 3 out of 5]

The historical narrative of King Philip's War: An English-Native American war in the late 1600s centred around the New England colonies. Focusing largely on the colonists, the book details their early losses, the difficulties of campaign in New England and the eventual collapse of the Native American war effort.
The book is fairly well-written, engaging enough though nothing spectacular; one notable point (though not at all an issue, given that the book was written in 1950) is the language: The Native Americans are referred to as "Indians" (naturally for the time) or "savages" throughout.
This points to a larger bias on the book's part that runs throughout its length: Leach attempts admirably to be even-handed and often shows considerable humanity and sympathy for the Native Americans, but the chronology of the book lends itself to natural one-sidedness. Native Americans, often decried as savages, are given the raw side of the deal: I'd say it's evident throughout that Leach is somewhat biased to one side. This is not helped by the fact that there is so little historical evidence of Native American thoughts, feelings, movements or details for the time: Leach gives as much detail as he can, but it is a shame we can never see the prime movers of the conflict in detail.
Narrative-wise, the book is well-paced and consistently engaging, with a considerable body of historical evidence lending itself to some gripping scenes of conflict and chase. Leach adds to the great research by small diversions to discuss the friendly Native American tribes or how people lived: it lends detail and interest to an already exciting book.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book. It really covers every single aspect of the war. Of course, I would temper this book (considering its age) with The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity and Puritans Besieged: The Legacies Of King Philip's War In The Massachusetts Bay Colony

[Dan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hooooo boy! Get ready for some very unreconstructed views on native Americans! The only grace that saves this book from being a pure act of historical malpractice (not counting its evocative title) is a much closer examination of inter-colonial acrimony. Oh, perfidious Connecticut!! The majority of other modern histories offer far less detail on this damned important factor in the war.

[Batusi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Provides a well-balanced analysis of the conflict between the colonists and the tribes of the region.

Conflict appears inevitable as the book analyzes the disparate cultures vying for control of the same region.

The narrative emphasizes the colonial governments’ initial disorganization and slow response to a gradually mounting threat, offering a comprehensive look at this historic clash.

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Douglas Edward Leach’s Flintlock and Tomahawk: New England in King Philip’s War is an enthralling piece of “traditional” historical writing from 1958 that seems very fair to both sides of this fascinating conflict.

[Jackson · Rating 3 out of 5]

6/10