Like many other tales of murder, the death of John Oldman seems simple; Oldham ended up in a watery grave and justice was quickly dispensed to those who killed him, launching the Pequot War. However, the tale of his death, which is much more complex, begins with a century long conflict that had been going on between Indians and Europeans (pg. 273). Lipman emphasizes that in order to properly understand both Oldman’s murder and the conflict between the two groups, one must look to the sea.
Although there were other reasons for the conflict, the Europeans for centuries had considered themselves the “lords” of the sea, while the Indians had just been ignorant bystanders (pg. 274). In fact, not were the Indians cartographic and geographic knowledge of the region more sophisticated than that of the Europeans, many times their vessels also were, so much so that the European often copied and stole Indian canoes (pg. 280). This led to resentment from many Indian groups towards the Europeans. This resentment was exacerbated by European reliance on Indian navigation and knowledge of coastal areas. On several different occasions, Europeans took Pequots hostage to use them as guides (pg. 283). European’s view of their own supremacy combined with resentment and distrust from the Pequot changed diplomacy between the groups and made them resentful of each other.
My colleague Tram Hua suggests that the rivalry between Indians and Europeans was one of the main points that the author made, which I agree with. While the author mentions the actual death and killing of Oldman, the bulk of his argument is about the conflicts and the lack of diplomacy leading up to the war. Furthermore, he highlights the importance of the sea and the conflicts it created between the two groups.
This article touches on the death of John Oldham and all of the related events and details that were associated with his slaying. The article starts by talking about the actual event and the discovery of his body. The article then goes into discussing those that were involved in his death. The rest of the article is simply giving some historical context before the author finally gives their opinion on the matter as to why Oldham may have been slain.
One of the more interesting points that the author brings up is the fact that Native Americans were not just bound to land, but also took part in maritime activity. For me, this point was interesting as in my previous exposure to Native Americans they have always been depicted and discussed as if all native groups were land locked. In a way, this highlights how many people, ignorantly, believe that native peoples had far inferior technologies and cultures and that it was not until the arrival of Europeans that native peoples were able to become more “sophisticated”. Diana Tran brings up a very similar point in her post and even says that “Natives were constantly painted as barbarians or non-advanced people”.
Another interesting thing that this article highlights is the concept of Competition between nations which has been discussed in class before. In the reading, there is mention of the English and the Dutch being competitive in their pursuits of trade with the native peoples. This sort of competition or fighting over resources, such as trade, were not uncommon in the Atlantic and, were in fact, a major driving force of it.
The article “Murder on the Saltwater Frontier: The Death of John Oldham” goes into detail about the death of John Oldham described by John Gallop, and due to this event caused the Pequot War of 1636-38 to happen between the Native Americans and the European foreigners trying to expand their sphere of influence with expansion of land and trade. The article starts by explaining John Gallop’s fears about trade and navigation in new lands, which happen to be American lands were the weather and losing one of his men and one of his fears came true (Lipman, 268). Gallop learned that his fear came true when he found out that the death of John Oldham was conducted by the “Narragansett, Eastern Niantic, and Manisses Indians” (Lipman, 269). Once the death was conducted, vengeance for John Oldham’s death was conducted by killing a mass sphere of Indians (Lipman, 270). This death started the two-year war between the Natives and the Europeans.
In a sense of diplomacy, most nations would first try to avoid bloodshed and unnecessary conflicts by resolving their differences by engaging in conversations of diplomacy, but this does not happen if one party believes that the other group or party in question are savages. Viktoriya Shalunova makes a clear point that should be considered when these events happened: Were we considered as savages (by the Natives) in the same vain that we considered the Native population as savages due to the lack of understanding European “values?” The natives in their eyes believed that the Europeans were savages because they did not practice the Native “values.” This is what I believed that that resulted in the war. Neither group understood that each side considered the other side as savages and it resulted in the Europeans massacring a Native population to avenge just one individual.
Andrew C. Lipman. “Murder on the Saltwater Frontier: The Death of John Oldham.” Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 9, no. 2 (2011): 268-294. https://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed September 24, 2016).
The article Murder on the Saltwater Frontier: The Death of John Oldman by Andrew C. Lipman seeks to explain the causes of the Pequot War. Traditional literature paints Native Americans as land dwelling people who generally stayed off of the water. I assume the perception that they were not seafaring people comes from their lack of grand ships, similar to those that carried the Europeans across the Atlantic. This article shows that they were in fact capable of travel on the sea and were skilled navigators. Although they did their travel in small ships and row boats, they were able to use the seas to create an inter-tribe trading network. A popular belief is that the Native Americans lived on the land and the Europeans came from the sea. This establishes a barrier between land and sea that divides the two groups of people. The existence of a sea trading network not only proves that Native Americans were capable of traversing across the water, but it erases the rigid border between land and sea that has divided the cultures for so long. “Saltwater Frontier” was a fantastic term used by Lipman to describe this interactive area. He explains the use of this phase, “The phrase ‘‘saltwater frontier” is meant to evoke the fluid, shifting, and stormy quality of colonial and Native relations in the area” (272).
In this week’s article by Andrew Lipman, “Murder on the Saltwater Frontier: Death of John Oldham”, the North American coastline and its array of trade networks and players are put on display. The focus of the article is largely built around the death of John Oldham and the proposed start of the Perquot War. However, as Lipman points out it was not as cut and dry as it appeared. There are clues within the accounts of Oldham’s death and they give insight into the real factors that played a part in his fateful last voyage (270). Nothing is ever as it seems and upon reading this article you see that this is not just another colonist vs native American battle regarding breach of territory.
While Matt Everett states that it was “two competing forces of friction that led to deteriorated relations”. The forces within the North American coastline expanded beyond just the two typical forces: colonist vs native American. An interesting internal hierarchy is seen within the usually clumped together category of native Americans. The article does well in displaying this hierarchy, as “…the two largest powers in the region, the Pequots and the Narrangansetts looked to expand their respective orbits of subordinate villages” (286). Under these two heads of power, were the Manisses, and the Mohegan sachem Uncas which would often send many gifts of tribute in recognition of their hierarchical power. However, these subordinates were not content with their places among the “totem pole” and sought to make a difference. It was the quest for independence that led to the breaking of the hierarchy and it is “out of this climate of political instability and economic jealousy” that the plan to kill Oldham appears to arise (286).
At first assumption and based off of minimal knowledge of the Atlantic and all it entailed, one would assume that it was the English and Dutch colonizers that the term political instability and economic jealousy referred to. Yet, it was the native Americans that had established a working political system along the coastline and had done so long before the trade industry began on the North American coastline. These inhabitants of the new land known as America were in their own way very intelligent and capable individuals and groups, not the commonly depicted savages. In fact contrary to the English’s thought that the Indians were bound to the land and could not compete with them at sea, “newly arrived foreigners had to admit that they often lacked the skills that Indian waterman had developed in their frequent small-craft travel” (281). Likewise for the Indians and their ability to command the coastline, “Europeans could sometimes seem [as] unseaworthy companions” (281). The Indians were incredibly talented out on the water and in some cases surpassed the English in skills, however this is not how they are always painted out to be. Indians were actually so good in the coastal water that “Native people … served as the colonist’ de facto Coast Guard” (276) and helped rescue many castaways and colonists that were shipwrecked. Yet not all Indians on the North American coastline were as heroic and rather were after personal gain. Even the Pequots, though “conspicuously clean of Oldham’s blood” (284) were after territorial expansion and defense of their lands.
This leads to the discussion of the start of the Peqout War. Because the common assumption was to think that the native Americans were incapable of meeting the abilities of the colonists, it led to statements like Richard Hakluyt the elder;”the English’s prowess on the water would always give them a clear advantage over the Natives” (274). The arrogant thinking that colonizers were the best and could do as they pleased, essentially led to the death of John Stone. On a mission he captured two Pequot men and held them hostage and made them act as guides in order for him to make it up the river to his destination. Needless to say he was attacked and punished for his acts (283). Ultimately the start of the war did not begin with the death of two colonizers (John Oldham and John Stone), it was “that the English chose to go to war with the Pequots, just as they easily could have chosen to go to war with the Narragansetts” (291). The Pequots were a more sizable Indian power and had more resources and goods to be taken, which is why they made such a good target for the English. It was a political choice that proved to be all for the English’s gain. So while the death of John Oldham was one of hierarchical rebellion in order to make an independent name among the native Americans, the Perquot War was on of English politics for economical and territorial gain.
Lipman, Andrew C. “Murder on the Saltwater Frontier: The Death of John Oldham.” Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 9, no. 2 (2011): 268-294. https://muse.jhu.edu (accessed on September 25, 2016).
At first glance this article the Murder on the Saltwater Frontier by Andrew Lipman seem like a mystery-suspense murder story of John Oldham. In July 1636 John Gallop accidentally discovered a mutilated death body of John Odham at Block Island. The person responsible for Mr. Oldham’s murder was quickly revealed. But it was not the end, hundreds of Indians was killed, dismembered, or enslaved by English colonists looking to avenge Oldham’s murder (p, 270). John Oldham’s murder and Captain John Stone’ murder in 1634 were use as an excuse to launch the Pequot War.
Andrew Lipman stressed that the debate of whether the murders of John Oldham or Captain Stone caused the Pequot War was not important part of this article, but the rivalry between the Europeans and the Native Americans is. I agree with David Zamarripa-Shippey when he stated that an important argument of this article is to “refute the Eurocentric view that Europeans held naval and navigational supremacy over Native Americans.” While it cannot be denied that the Europeans held many superior strengths. The Europeans were arrogant when they did not consider the Natives to be nautical peoples (p, 273). In fact, the Indians had a long traditions of seagoing. Unlike the Europeans, they were good swimmers, they knew how to predict the weather patterns, even their canoes were much more efficient than the Europeans’.
The first topic idea is to examine the way capitalist ventures shaped the settlement of the new world. I want to look at the influence these entrepreneurial endeavors had on the development of the area and the people that settled there.
The second topic would be the use of pirates at mercenaries in the 17th century. I would argue that pirates functioned as an early naval force that existed in the grey areas of maritime law.
The third topic topic would be the triangular trade networks that have existed in the Atlantic. I would like to look at the triangular trades that have existed and find correlation between the different trade routes.
Early America historian Andrew C. Lipman’s article Murder on the Saltwater Frontier: The Death of John Oldham is much more than an investigation of an English mariner’s murder by Indians which started the Pequot War. Lipman also addresses the navigation practices and the trade relations between the Europeans and Native Americans. Europeans believed they were master navigators for having traveled across the Atlantic Ocean (Lipman 274) but, the Native Americans were no strangers to navigation. My colleague, Matt Everett, mentions the navigation abilities of the Native Americans in his post, which I agree with. I believe the Native Americans had to be more diverse in their navigation skills. Not only did they need to know how to negotiate the coastline (Lipman 274), but it was crucial that they needed to know how to traverse the inland waterways especially during the different seasons of the year. So the Europeans relied heavily on the Native Americans as their guides and pilots when they traveled through the northeastern rivers.
During the 1600s it was fundamental for both the Europeans and the Native Americans to establish of trade relations. But trading with Europeans, according to Lipman, caused old rivalries to flare up between Native Americans especially between the Narragansett and Pequot. This is where the stories of the Englishmen John Oldham and John Stone come into play. Both Stone and Oldham were killed by Natives. As a result, the killing of both of these men led to the Pequot War. But both of these men have nothing in common. According to Lipman, Stone was a vagabond, adulterer, and pirate who terrorized the Connecticut River (Lipman 283) and was dispatched by the Pequot, but Oldham was a well-respected and well liked trader (Lipman 286). As it turns out that members from Manisses and Niantics, who were subordinates of the Narragansett, murdered Oldham. Lipman suggests that sachems form the Manisses and Niantics were fed up being minor players and tried to increase their influence in the region (Lipman 288).
Now this sort of begs the question. Why did the English want go to war with the Pequot? Was it over these men? My colleague Diana Tran suggests that the Native Americans were constantly targeted as soon as the Europeans arrived. I disagree with this explanation. During this time the English wanted to expand their territory and saw the Pequot and the Dutch as obstacles for their domination of the North Atlantic. So the murder of the two men provided the perfect excuse to go to war. Lipman states that the English could have gone to war against the Narragansett but, since the Pequot were bigger and carried more influence throughout the region the English decided to go to war against the Pequot (Lipman 291). I fully agree with that assumption. I believe the reason the English did not go to against the Narragansett was because the English were friendly with Narragansett and they needed them as allies as well as for the fur and wampum trade.