A Historiography of King Philip's War

By Lorie Castro

In 1675, a little-known war changed the course of American history. In Massachusetts, colonial violence revolving around land, encroachment, and religion between Puritans and American Indians sparked King Philip’s War. The Algonquian Sachem, King Philip, after attempts at compromise, engaged in the war that would forever bear his name. When the embers cooled, both English and American Indians had been killed in droves. King Philip’s War would go down in history as one of America’s most merciless and fatal wars.[1] However, the recorded history of the war has been told differently over time. The early histories gave a biased English perspective. The absence of written history from the American Indians left their version of King Philip’s War largely untold. Changing attitudes and cultural trends helped to redirect the history, and different interpretations emerged. Over time, history has become more focused, sympathetic, and inclusive. Modern historians have applied postcolonial and social lenses to reveal the American Indian perspective. This shift in focus alters the written histories from biased English perspectives that justified the war with religion to a broader understanding that takes into consideration the native view. A historiography of King Philip’s War reveals an evolution in the understanding of colonial violence and American Indian resistance, with interpretations shifting from colonial narratives that justified expansion to modern viewpoints that prioritize the American Indian perspective and highlight the complexities of the war.

            King Philip’s War was fought early in American history, 1675-1676, during English colonization. The war was a direct consequence of land expansion and encroachment, religious pressure, miscommunication and failed compromises, and oppressive policies. King Philip, an Algonquian Sachem and son of Massasoit, had attempted compromises with the English. However, with tension already at its peak, the war ignited after a “praying Indian” and go-between named John Sassamon was killed. His death sparked the fuse of war. Over the centuries, the interpretation of King Philip’s War has highlighted scholarly movements and revealed changing attitudes about the war.

The historiography of King Philip’s War began with Increase Mather. In 1676 Mather wrote A Brief History of the War with the Indians. Mather was a Puritan Harvard and Cambridge scholar and Boston’s First Church minister. Religion was ever-present in his life and molded him into a pious colonial man. His father had been a minister and had left England for religious freedom. His parents submerged their children in religion. Regarding his devotion to God, Mather wrote in his biography that “if you live to him here, you shall live with him in another and better world.”[2] 

He felt morally superior to American Indians, and his writing reflects that. Religion was the foundation of Colonial New England. The Puritans believed they were living in a new Israel and felt entitled and destined to the American land. Cultural religious expectations and rules guided the Puritan community. Their cultural norms spilled into politics and influenced laws, government, and war. An examination of Mather’s writing with a religious lens reveals that religion influenced every aspect of his life. It shaped his beliefs, his decisions, and his perspective. These are apparent in his history of King Philip’s War.   

            Mather wrote his book immediately after King Philip’s War, aware of its historical importance. Douglas Edward Leach, who two hundred years later wrote Flintlock and Tomahawk: New England in King Philip’s War, was most likely referring to Mather’s book when he wrote that, “A few intelligent men who lived through King Philip’s War…sensed the historical significance of that great conflict.”[3] In his book, Mather argued that King Philip’s was a war of good versus evil. His book became one of the “de facto histories of the war for nearly two centuries.”[4] It was highly influential, taken for truth, and was not questioned until decades had passed. Mather’s history of King Philip’s War justified the slaughter of native people for the inquisition and expansion of land in the name of God, divine right, and moral superiority. He refers to his as a “true account” that “certainly God would have fuch providences to be obferved and recorded.”[5]

Modern historian Lisa Brooks points out that Mather’s Biblical claim to New England as divine right completely disregards the ancient people who lived and farmed there.[6] She also accused him of downplaying roles of important leaders such as the female diplomat and sachem Weetamoo as little more than a scorned wife. Hundreds of years later, she took up the study of Weetamoo and proved Mather wrong in his assessment. Historian Jill Lepore wrote that Mather was a pretentious “bombastic bully” who depicted the American Indians as inhuman.[7] Mather’s bias is apparent through a modern postcolonial lens; nonetheless, his powerful words shaped the American perspective of the war. Hoping to perform the role of “historian,” Mather’s biased history relied heavily on opinion rather than concrete facts, therefore is not entirely credible.[8] Blame for King Philip’s War is placed squarely on the shoulders of the American Indian, whom he refers to as “perfect children of the devil.”[9] Mather’s Eurocentric perspective, in combination with another biased colonial outlook by William Hubbard, were the dominant perspectives for over a hundred years.

            Keeping in the tradition of the Eurocentric perspective, Benjamin Church’s 1716 book, The Entertaining History of King Phillip’s War, written in his senior years, gives another biased telling of King Philip’s War. Church regarded King Philip as the enemy, and his writing reflects that. This primary source was written with the help of his son and is based on his own personal experience fighting and killing King Philip. He wrote, “I have had the perusal of, and find nothing amiss as to the truth of it.”[10] However, there has been some debate whether his book has been exaggerated. Lisa Brooks found his account contradictory to primary evidence.[11]  Nonetheless, the “entertaining” history was Eurocentric, justified expansion, and disregarded native voices.

            In 1858, the first attempts at understanding the American Indian standpoint surfaced. The interpretations shifted and attempted to understand the American Indian perspective and the complexities of the war. Prior to this, the complexities of war were overlooked in favor of a Eurocentric historical version of history. John Easton wrote his “canonical” book, A Narrative of the Causes Which Led to Phillip’s Indian War, of 1675 and 1676, with the intent to show the American Indian perspective.[12] With the use of primary colonial records, he argued that the conflict was caused by the pressure to expand and the misunderstandings between the two. Easton pointed out the unfair treatment of American Indians, with a focus on diplomacy and economic exploitation and intent on understanding a broader perspective. Easton was a Deputy Governor of Rhode Island and was a mediator. Shortly before the onset of the war, Easton wrote a letter on behalf of the American Indian Sachem Weetamoo to Plymouth governor Josiah Winslow expressing her concerns over land encroachment and underscoring his concern for the American Indian people. One of the first to bring attention to the American Indian perspective, his book was foundational for future historians seeking a more comprehensive understanding of King Philip’s War.

            There was a renewed interest in military history and the study of American identity after World War II and during the Cold War. Additionally, Americans began to think about Colonial and Revolutionary history with the upcoming bicentennial of the American Revolution. In short, a sense of patriotism and national pride prompted scholarly studies at the time. Using a military and cultural lens, in 1958, Douglas Edward Leach wrote the book Flintlock and Tomahawk: New England in King Philip’s War. A Harvard graduate, he was an expert in early American Indian and European relations and wrote several books on colonial history. Prior to teaching, he served in the U. S. Navy during World War II. Leach is a credible historian and is acknowledged within the history community to have initiated the modern study of King Philip’s War. Leach argued that King Philip’s War was a critical moment in the history of New England that culminated from land disputes, religion, and cultural differences that would alter the lives of both American Indians and Puritans. He emphasized the human toll and the complexities of the war beyond race, highlighting the fragile American Indian and European relationship.

            What was unique about Leach’s book was that he veered from the biased “canonical” interpretations of Mather and Church. Prior to Leach’s book, histories of King Philip’s War were what he calls “uncritical and otherwise limited in scope.”[13] Since there are no American Indian perspectives, Leach attempted to give a narrative that encompassed their ordeal. For example, he tells of how the “praying Indians” were forced to remove to Deer Island where they lived under extreme and harsh conditions and constant threat of retaliation from colonists, highlighting that cruelty was executed by both the natives and the colonists. This allowed for a broader understanding than historians had been previously told.

Leach’s analysis of the war reveals a more nuanced understanding of colonial violence and American Indian resistance. Reviewing Leach, Historian Philip Ranlet wrote that he “sought to achieve a more balanced view” of the war.[14] With his book, Leach highlighted the complexities of war as prior books had not previously done. He shifted his focus from the colonial experience to one that included the American Indian perspective, influencing future historians and creating scholarly discourse for broader studies. While he used language that is no longer socially acceptable, such as “savages” and “squaw,” he scrutinized the recorded history and successfully gave a modern, inclusive retelling. His book inspired further extensive studies.

In 1988, Professor Philip Ranlet of Hunter College wrote an article for The New England Quarterly called “Look at the Causes of King Philip’s War.” There was renewed interest in American Indian studies at the time because of cultural shifts such as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the 1970’s “history from below” movement, and in 1976, America celebrated its bicentennial. Using a postcolonial lens for his article, Ranlet addressed the nuanced causes of the war, rather than early depictions of whites versus the “others.” Ranlet argued that cumulative issues such as the growing pressure to assimilate and convert to Christianity, “devious” acquisition of Native lands and fear of future land loss, destruction of land and livestock by both the colonists and the Natives, the death of John Sassamon, and the inability to work together were causes that sparked the war. His article revealed the changing cultural interests and scholarship on the topic of the native people. Interest in the American Indian continued afterward and was reflected in government policies, scholarly debates, and pop culture.

            Numerous happenings in the 1990s were influential in Native American studies, such as the 1990 The American Indian Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the 1990 Academy Award winning movie Dances with Wolves, 1992’s The Last of the Mohicans, and 1996’s The Crucible. Additionally, history from below had rooted itself among scholars and would influence the studies of King Philip’s War. History from below is defined as “historical writing that tries to recover, articulate, and interpret the experience of people who are typically overlooked in …major historical events.”[15] Scholars were influenced by these and applied it to their analysis.

It was at this time that Virginia DeJohn Anderson wrote her unique take on the causes of King Philip’s War in a 1994 article called, “King Philip’s Herds: Indians, Colonists, and the Problems of Livestock in Early New England.” Her article shows a clear shift in the historiography of justifying colonial expansion to prioritizing the native perspective. Using an environmental and cultural lens, she gives an in-depth and credible analysis of land encroachment and livestock while highlighting the complexities that caused the war.  

  In her article, Anderson argues that Philip resorted to violence in 1675 because of building tension due to land use and the colonist’s thousands of animals and the direct problems related to them. They disputed the need for fences, the lack of fences, shared land, growing herds of livestock, destructive herds and animals, and the accidental and intentional killing or injuring of loose animals. The former teacher at the University of Colorado Boulder has written several books on colonial America, including the role of animals in colonial America. Her expertise on the subject and use of primary and secondary resources such as books and colonial records by Leach, Vaughn, Mather, and Puritan John Winthrop unveil that the native people had increasingly fewer avenues for justice regarding their land. New measures were continually taken that benefitted the colonists and made it difficult for the natives to find recourse for their grievances. Restrictions were put in place that left colonists with the leverage of control rather than the native people. She noted that Philip was forced to face the fact that colonists valued land more than their relationship with the Native people.[16] Anderson’s article prioritizes the American Indian perspective and highlights the complexities of King Philip’s War.

  A few years later, in 1999, historian Jill Lepore wrote a book called The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity that would further expand upon the American Indian perspective using a cultural and postcolonial lens. Lepore’s book analyzed language to understand King Philip’s War, writing that the Puritans used descriptive language of savagery to ensure moral perpetual superiority. In her book, Lepore argued that despite the cruelties inflicted upon the American Indians, which were similar to what the Spanish had done in South America, the English could maintain a “clean” reputation by distancing themselves “from the cruelty in the words they used to write about it, the same way the English had when writing about the Irish.”[17] In other words, they presented language used to describe King Philip’s War that reflected their cultural and historical interpretation. She calls on readers and writers of history to consider how language constructed the past. The name King Philip’s War itself, she argued, has been a disputed title for the conflict with variations that make incorrect implications. This distinctive linguistic approach to studying King Philip’s War with emphasis on the American Indian perspective helped her win the Bancroft Prize and secure her as one of the most credible and leading versions of King Philip’s War.

Lepore’s interpretation of the war is highly regarded. Professor John Canup wrote that her book should serve as a model study for other scholars in the field.[18] Professor Gregory Evans Dowd finds her study to be provocative, brilliant, and a breath of life into the study of King Philip’s War.[19] Historian Lisa Brooks, who wrote the Bancroft Prize-winning book Our Beloved Kin wrote that Lepore’s book was a “landmark study.”[20] Her book is an example of a modern perspective that prioritizes the American Indian experience while highlighting the complexities of the war.

Metropolitan State University of Denver Professor James Drake analyzed the complexities of war in his 1999 book King Philip’s War: Civil War in New England, 1675-1676. Drake referred to King Philip’s War as a civil war with “groups and individuals of different cultural affiliations…and often changing, allegiances and interests.”[21] This approach considers the American Indian alliances that often fought alongside the colonists and against their American Indian rivals. He emphasized the multi-racial and diverse community and argued that there was no firm divide between the colonists and the American Indians. His notion that the war was less of a white versus “other” war but rather a war among two groups of interconnected, blended people is a unique perspective. They had a shared community and social and political system that, he argued, was enough of an overlap to be considered a civil war.[22] 

Using a diverse collection of primary and secondary sources, including Leach, Mather, Lepore, and valuable colonial records, Drake brought forth good evidence to support his claims. His approach was revisionary and unique. His analysis revealed complexities not present in early histories and opened the arena for further studies. The notion of King Philip’s War as interconnected communities struggling for power has its merits, however, the absence of American Indian perspective cannot be ignored. Drake wrote that “Looking closely at the political culture of the Indians and the English, we see that Philip sought to preserve his people’s sovereignty by incorporating them into the English political system.”[23] Making comparisons of colonial community leaders such as Benjamin Church and others to tribal chiefs, he emphasized more cultural similarities than differences.

            Amherst College Professor Lisa Brooks, and author of Our Beloved Kin, was interested in the ethnohistory of the American Indian people. She is a member of the Abenaki and is involved in community-based projects and non-profit organizations that focus on cultural projects. With a PhD in English with a minor in Native American Studies, she “builds bridges among scholarly disciplines,” and applies her broad knowledge of Native American literature, American history, and oral traditions liberally across the spectrum of her writing.[24] A credible historian, her bias leans in favor of the American Indian as it is her field of specialty, nonetheless, it has provided groundbreaking insight on the native people. Her research included numerous primary and secondary sources, including Lepore and Leach, and with the aim of retelling King Philip’s War, she left no stone unturned.

Brooks wrote a revisionary history in what she calls “decolonizing” the Eurocentric version of history to recover the Native recollection of the devastating war.[25] Brooks gave unique attention to Weetamoo, a female Wampanoag leader and “praying Indian,” James Printer, and in doing so achieved her goal of retelling of the tragic event. By doing this, she tapped into history from within- a way to work through past myths and recover a sharper and more truthful history.[26] She argued that King Philip’s War was a complex and interconnected struggle for land and power. She reinforced Anderson’s thesis that land and livestock were a leading cause of trouble and that the native way of life was increasingly constrained by “invading livestock” and the domestication forced upon them.[27] Her attention to the American Indian perspective is unique and thorough and does, indeed, recover the American Indian perspective. Brooks epitomizes the modern scholarly viewpoint that prioritizes the American Indian perspective to understand the complexities of King Philip’s War. Her book shows a clear evolution in the understanding of colonial violence with her analysis of American Indian diplomacy, compromise, and resistance, which she urged historians must not repress.

The historiography has changed significantly from the early biased histories to the modern histories of King Philip’s War. Cultural trends have allowed for broader studies, and modern scholars have built upon the works of previous scholars. Early histories from Increase Mather and Benjamin Church are one-sided and express no cultural sensitivity to the American Indian, as would be expected for the context in which they were told. Historians such as Jill Lepore, with her linguistic approach, and Lisa Brooks, who gained incredible insight as a student of the Abenaki language and people, presented significant culturally sensitive perspectives. Studies with unique focus and interdisciplinary studies have allowed for a more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of the war and the interactions in colonial America.  

Early historians wrote a biased history of King Philip’s War that reinforced negative stereotypes of American Indians, enabling a Eurocentric, entitled, and righteous state of mind that lasted centuries. The American Indians left no written record; therefore, their voice was unheard and unrecorded. Generations of Americans were influenced by the early sources claiming that the English were victims of native violence. The Eurocentric telling of King Philip’s War created a foundational belief that the American Indians were savages and instigators, while the colonists were passive participants who were guided by divinity. The early historiography revealed a Eurocentric understanding of colonial violence and American Indian resistance that would root itself deeply into the American conscience.

Stereotypes and fear were ingrained in the American psyche that lasted hundreds of years. Hollywood reinforced the stereotype with imagery of American Indians warring, taking scalps, and wearing feather headdresses.[28] However, many have begun to challenge the biased media representations, just as scholars have challenged the early historical depictions. Historians believe that educating and understanding cultural influences paired with targeted action meant to change stereotypes are crucial to changing the stereotype of the American Indian.[29] Understanding a broader, inclusive, and more truthful history is important to fully understand and correct American history.

            Analyzing the literature of King Philip’s War revealed the early popular notion that American Indians were savage aggressors and that religion justified any acts of violence committed by the English. However, John Easton wrote that it was a war of “mutual extermination.”[30] An analysis of the historiography of King Philip’s War revealed that both the English and the American Indians are guilty of acts of violence. The complexities of war were numerous and far more than the Puritans versus the “other,” and the facts are more than just black and white. The gray area, or middle ground, is ripe with complexities. Negotiations, complicated land transactions, misunderstandings, compromises, and, vast cultural differences led to a process that broke down the fragile alliances between the two factions of people. The long historiography of King Philip’s War highlights the cultural complexities of this pivotal war. Shifting cultural trends, scholarly movements, and national pride prompted further discourse on the topic. The exploration for a broader understanding has revealed religious, military, postcolonial, and linguistic interpretations that have brought inclusiveness and clarity to the topic. The tragic tale of King Philip’s War has remained a significant chapter in American history.

            King Philip was eventually killed; his head was severed and put on a pike, and many natives were forced to Deer Island, where they suffered terrible hardships. The colonists acquired the land they desired and expanded their colonies outward. In time, the brutal war became a distant memory and case study that offered insight into the complex world of colonial New England. While the early interpretations of King Phillip’s war are heavy with moral superiority and American Indian condemnation, they left a gap that scholars needed to fill. Incorporating the American Indian voice began gradually with Easton, and modern interpretations from scholars such as Lepore and Brooks prioritize their voice and strive to understand the nuances and complexities that caused it. Continued scholarly examinations of the topic may continue to lend to a broader understanding.

            A study on the “middle ground” and the key players during King Philip’s War would be a fascinating study. John Sassamon was not the only person working in this capacity. He is nearly always mentioned in histories of King Philip’s War, but little is known of other operatives. The middle ground was a politically powerful place that was in between cultures. It was a place of understanding colonial encounters as “both an event and a cultural process.”[32] The middle ground was often dangerous and consisted of constant intervention, understanding, and persuasion. An intense study of the relationship that men like Sassamon had with the American Indians and the English could yield new cultural insights. Their role put them in a dangerous and socially valuable position. Was that position exploited for their own benefit? Was this position coveted or feared? An in-depth study could benefit the history and yield new information on the culture of colonial America.

            The historiography of King Philip’s War has unveiled hundreds of years of cultural ideologies and agendas. The war was revealed to be far more complex than initially written. The simple Puritans versus “other” stereotype has been dismissed, and the nuances and gray areas have emerged to tell a broader, more insightful story. Modern prioritization of the American Indian perspective has revealed the complexities of the war. Rife with cultural misunderstandings and outright omission of the native perspective, the early histories were incorrect and incomplete. However, the historiography of King Philip’s War revealed an evolution in the understanding of colonial violence and American Indian resistance, with interpretations shifting from colonial narratives that justified expansion to modern viewpoints that prioritize the American Indian perspective and highlight the complexities of the war. Future scholarship on King Philip’s War will continue to expand upon the current literature for fresh, new insight.

Copyright © 2025 by Lorie D. Castro

All Rights Reserved

[1] Jill Lepore, The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity, (New York: Random Vintage Books, 1999), xiii.

[2] Increase Mather, The Autobiography of Increase Mather, (American Antiquarian Society: University of Michigan, 1962), 277.

[3] Douglas Edward Leach, Flintlock and Tomahawk: New England in King Philip’s War (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1958), 250.

[4] Kevin A. March, “’The Violence of Place and Pen’: Identities and Language in the Twentieth-Century Historiography of King Philip’s War,” Madison Historical Review 17, no. 3 (2020), 10, https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/mhr/vol17/iss1/3/.

[5] Increase Mather, A Brief History, 35.

[6] Lisa Tanya Brooks, Our Beloved Kin: A New History of King Phillip’s War, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 11.

[7] Jill Lepore, The Name of War, xvii.

[8] Increase Mather, A Brief History, 3. 

[9] Increase Mather, A Brief History, 27.

[10] Benjamin Church, The Entertaining History of King Philip’s War (Boston: Solomon Southwick, 1716), IV, https://archive.org/details/entertaininghist00chur.

[11] Lisa Tanya Brooks, Our Beloved Kin, 10.

[12] Kevin A. March, “’The Violences of Place and Pen,’” 10, https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/mhr/vol17/iss1/3/.

[13] Douglas Edward Leach, Flintlock and Tomahawk, vii.

[14] Philip Ranlet, “Another Look at the Causes of King Philip’s War,” The New England Quarterly 61, no. 1 (March, 1988), 79, https://www.jstor.org/stable/365221.

[15] Adam Budd, The Modern Historiography Reader (New York: Routledge, 2009), 267.

[16] Virginia DeJohn Anderson, “King Philip’s Herds: Indians, Colonists, and the Problems of Livestock in Early New England,” The William and Mary Quarterly 51, no. 4 (October, 1994), 602, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2946921.

[17] Jill Lepore, The Name of War, 11. 

[18] John Canup, Review of The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity by Jill Lepore, The American Historical Review 104, no. 5 (December, 1999) 1659, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2649388.

[19] Gregory Evans Dowd, Review of The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity by Jill Lepore, Reviews in American History 26, no. 4 (December, 1998), 661, https://www.jstor.org/stable/30030948.

[20] Lisa Tanya Brooks, Our Beloved Kin, 11.

[21] Patricia E. Rubertone, Review of King Philip’s War: Civil War in New England, 1675-1676, The Journal of American History 87, no. 4 (March, 2001), 1463, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2674754.

[22] Kevin A. March, “The Violences of Place and Pen,” 25. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/mhr/vol17/iss1/3/.

[23] James Drake, King Philip’s War: Civil War in New England, 1675-1676 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 198, https://archive.org/details/kingphilipswarci00/page/203/mode/1up.

[24] Amherst College, “Professor Lisa Brooks,” Amherst College, accessed November 26, 2024. https://www.amherst.edu/alumni/learn/amherstreads/pastfeatures/2018-features/april-2018-our-beloved-kin-by-professor-lisa-brooks/about-the-author.

[25] Lisa Tanya Brooks, Our Beloved Kin, 8.

[26] Adam Budd, The Modern Historiography Reader, 319-320.

[27] Lisa Tanya Brooks, Our Beloved Kin, 80.

[28] John A. Price, “The Stereotyping of North American Indians in Motion Pictures,” Ethnohistory 20, no. 2 (Spring, 1973), 153. https://www.jstor.org/stable/481668.

[29] Arianne E. Eason, Laura Brady, Stephanie, A. Fryberg, “Reclaiming Representations & Interrupting the Cycle of bias Against Native Americans,” Daedalus 147, no. 2 (Spring, 2018), 147, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48563020.

[30] John Eastman, A Narrative of the Causes Which Led to Phillip’s Indian War, of 1675 and 1676 (Albany: J. Munsell, 1858), v.

[31] David D. Smits, “’Abominable Mixture:’ Toward the Repudiation of Anglo-Indian Intermarriage in Seventeenth-Century Virgina,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Bibliography 95, no. 2 (April, 1987), 159, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4248940.

[32] Susan Sleeper-Smith, “The Middle Ground Revisited: Introduction,” The William and Mary Quarterly 63, no. 1 (January, 2006), 3, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3491721.