Historic Pelham: Did the Native Americans Who Sold Land to Thomas Pell in 1654 Understand the Nature of the Sale?

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

On June 27, 1654, as Thomas Pell wrote, "A great multitude off Indyans & many English" gathered to witness Native Americans and English witnesses execute a so-called "Indian Deed" transferring about 50,000 acres of Native American land to Thomas Pell of Fairfield. I have written on many occasions about the Pell Deed and the Native Americans who sold the lands to Pell. For a bibliography with links to available items, see the end of today's posting.

Today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog poses a very difficult question: Did the Native Americans who sold land to Thomas Pell on June 27, 1654 truly understand the nature of the sale? As will be seen, answering such a question is difficult if not impossible.

Thomas Pell's Handwritten Copy of the So-Called

"Indian Deed" by Which Native Americans Sold Him

the Lands That Included Today's Pelham on June

27, 1654. A Transcription of the Handwritten Text of

the Document Prepared by the Author of this Article

Appears Near the End of this Article. NOTE: Click

on Image to Enlarge.

Munsee Family Like Wiechquaesgecks Who Once

Inhabited the Region Including Today's Pelham

and Sold Lands to Thomas Pell on June 27, 1654.

NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

Some historians such as Francis Jennings, a former professor of history at Cedar Crest College, past Director Emeritus of the Newberry Library Center for the History of the American Indian in Chicago, and past President of the American Society of Ethnohistory, argue that so-called "Indian Deeds" were little more than frauds committed against the Native American population. Indeed, Jennings argues that colonial settlers shunned "[o]vert conquest" and, instead, practiced a "deed game . . . as a means to win by legal strategem what could not be dared by arms." See Jennings, Francis, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialisms, and the Cant of Conquest, p. 278 & pp. 128-37 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1975) (published under the direction of The Holland Society of New York).

Such a view, however, seems paternalistic and, indeed, ethnocentric. It seems to assume that Native Americans were incapable of understanding that an exchange of goods for land on which they lived would lead to their exclusion from such land. Such an argument might carry more weight regarding the earliest such land sales beginning with Peter Minuit's storied acquisition of the island now known as Manhattan in 1626. With near certainty, however, it must have been the case that by 1654 Native Americans in the region of New Amsterdam understood that such exchanges of goods for lands would lead to loss of dominion and control over such lands. There had been a tremendous number of "Indian Deeds" executed in the region by that time. See generally Gehring, Charles T., ed. and translator, New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch - Volumes GG, HH & II -- Land Papers (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1980).

Recent work by historians who have studied the issue seem to agree that the understanding of the implications of such land sales by Native Americans in the New Amsterdam region evolved in precisely such a fashion from 1626 through the 1650s. That is not to say, however, that the process was not still one-sided in favor of the ever-expanding population of colonial settlers who were hungry for land. One expert recently summarized this one-sidedness in the context of Dutch Indian Deeds during this period as follows:

"What might be suggested is that native people were quick to discern that the Dutch were intent on purchasing the land on which they subsisted and that, in turn, they would receive valuable and needed goods in exchange. And among the possibilities is that, in their desire to adhere to stated policy, what mattered most to the Dutch was that deeds were drawn up, signed, and secured to fulfill the requirements of that policy, and if challenged, could be brought into one of their own courts for adjucication. There was no known equivalent forum in native communities, nor should one be expected. In the end, the Dutch may have been unconcerned about from whom the land was actually purchased. It was the deed -- a legal agreement, an instrument -- that counted, one not easily countermanded unless malfeasance could be established. The Indians fully understood that the Dutch wanted to buy land and, taking the position that there were economic and perhaps social advantages to be gained, sold whatever parcels the Dutch wanted. Did the Indians 'own' or manage this land? Were they authorized to sell it? These questions are not answerable. It is possible that, however land tenure was practiced before the arrival of the Dutch, that process my have rapidly been transformed to address and accommodate changing circumstances. Native people, perhaps leaders in their communities or those who may have ingratiated themselves with the Dutch, or who saw opportunities in the making, likely were the initiators of these changes. The familiar view that Indians were simply and always the victims of the colonial land-taking juggernaut need not prevail. There is no reason to believe tht native land tenure systems, and native people themselves, were incapable of the kinds of change and expedient adaptation suggested here. Indeed, there is sufficient evidence in the literature that a bias has been operating, a consequence of which has been a long-standing but wrong-headed assumption that Indians in fact could not adjust to the maelstrom of change around them. They did."

Starna, William A., "American Indian Villages to Dutch Farms -- The Settling of Settled Lands in the Hudson Valley" in Panetta, Roger, ed., Dutch New York: The Roots of Hudson Valley Culture, p. 73 & pp. 84-85 (NY: Hudson River Museum / Fordham University Press, 2009). Of course, precisely the same could be said of the English who purchased lands in the New Amsterdam region at the same time as the Dutch.

Can we divine anything that casts any light on such issues directly from the language of the Pell Deed? It would seem so.

It is not possible to know today if the terms of the Pell Deed were translated for the Native American signatories nor, it they were, whether the translation was complete and accurate. The terms of the deed, however, clearly indicate that a bounded area of land was being transferred to Pell and his heirs forever without any "molestation" on the part of the Indians thereafter (i.e., "Tho^s Pell now inhabitinge in Fayrffield his heyres & assignse to hould injoy improove plant as hee shall see cause to his Best to be improved ffor & to him & his heyres fforever w^h out any molestation on our p^t"). The Pell Deed also affirmed that the bounded area was being delivered into the possession of Thomas Pell and his assigns with the boundaries of the mainland portion of the lands marked (i.e., "doo deliver it into ye posession off ye sayd Tho^s Pell & his Assignes: markinge ye bounds to ye mayne Land w^ch is & shalbe y^e present bounds to ye mayne Land"). As if such provisions were not enough, the deed provides that the Indians transferring the land agreed to "make good" to defend any claims for the land pursued by the Dutch or other Indians (i.e., "And doo herby ingage our Selves to make good our selves against all Claymes intayled either by Dutch or Indyans w^t ever").

Moreover, to affirm Pell's dominion and control of the bounded lands, the Pell Deed carved out only two exceptions that permitted the Native Americans: (1) to allow their cattle to wander onto and feed on the lands; and (2) to allow Native Americans to cut timber on the lands. (I.e., "only Liberty is ffreely graunt ffor ffeedinge offe cattle & Cuttinge off timber beyound those Bounds"). Additionally, the deed included a section entitled "Articles of Agreement" that required the Native Americans to send two men each spring to reaffirm and re-mark the boundaries of the lands that were sold to Pell.

Assuming that the terms of the Pell Deed were accurately translated or described to the Native American signatories, it would seem unlikely that they misapprehended the nature of the transaction and that they were giving dominion and control of lands over which they previously held dominion and control to Thomas Pell.

All this said, it must be noted that there is evidence in 17th century primary sources that Native Americans either remained on Pell's lands in some places, or used those lands in ways not encompassed by the two exceptions permitted under the deed. I have written extensively about the fact that during King Philip's War in the 1670s -- twenty years after Pell bought his lands -- there is evidence that Native Americans could be found on the lands that comprised the Manor of Pelham. See, e.g.:

Thu., Apr. 26, 2007: John Pell Obtains Permission to Allow Native Americans On His Land to Use Canoes in 1676.

Wed., Apr. 25, 2007: 1675 Order by Court of Assizes and Consequent Proclamation Ordering Native Americans to Remove from the Manor of Pelham.

Tue., Apr. 24, 2007: John Pell Ordered Not To Sell Powder and Shot to Native Americans For a Time in 1675.

Mon., Apr. 23, 2007: An Armed English Sloop Patrolled the Sound Near Native Americans Settled in the Manor of Pelham in 1675.

Fri., Apr. 20, 2007: 1675 Order by Governor's Council Directing John Pell to Take Daily Account of Indians on His Land.

Fri., Dec. 29, 2006: Native Americans Ordered to Remove from the Manor of Pelham in 1675.

What conclusions, if any, may be drawn from such considerations regarding the willingness of local Native Americans to sell land to Thomas Pell in 1654? It would seem likely that the Indians understood that they were changing the nature of their relationship with the land by transferring dominion aand control to Pell -- if not complete and utter control to their own exclusion.

What prompted them to be willing to accept consideration from Pell to transfer the lands in such a fashion? It is at least plausible that the atrocities of Kieft's War (1643-45) between New Netherland and local Native Americans during which Dutch soldiers attacked Native American settlements and massacred inhabitants prompted the realization among local Native Americans that the inevitable was at hand. Dutch settlers were pressing northeastward from Fort Amsterdam as English settlers were pressing southwestward from Fairfield, New Haven, and other parts of New England. The subsistence life the Indians had led on lands in the New Amsterdam region was unlikely ever to be possible again. Thus, in instances like that involving the Pell Deed, Native Americans were willing to receive satisfactory consideration for their lands and move elsewhere.

Of course, we will never know with certainty what prompted the local Native Americans to sell their lands to Pell, nor how they understood the nature of the sale. It is at least possible, however, to look to the terms of the Pell Deed and the historical context to suggest that it is unlikely that a fraud was committed. Instead, it seems, Pell had the clear advantage in the transaction.

* * * * *

Immediately below is a transcription of Thomas Pell's handwritten copy of the Pell Indian Deed, an image of which appears above.

TEXT OF THOMAS PELL’S DEED

“Know all men by this present y^t we Shawanarockqúot: poquorum: Anhõõke: Wawhãmkus: Mehumõw: Beinge ye true owners & y^eonly Lawffull Heyres & proprietors off a piece of land Bounded by ye Sea to y^e South w^th y^t Tract off land Called by ye English Longe Island; to ye west & west & by South w^th y^e bay & River & River Diawockinge Acqueonunge (Chemaqūanaock to ye East) w^th all ye Islands y^t are in ye salt water to ye South South East & South West Against y^t Tract off Land w^ch is Beffore expres^d; w^h all trees medowes & all Land w^h in y^e tract off Land w^ch is Beffore Expressed: doo sell & deliver to Tho^s Pell now inhabitinge in Fayrffield his heyres & assignse to hould injoy improove plant as hee shall see cause to his Best to be improved ffor & to him & his heyres fforever w^h out any molestation on our p^t And doo herby ingage our Selves to make good our selves against all Claymes intayled either by Dutch or Indyans w^t ever & doo deliver it into ye posession off ye sayd Tho^s Pell & his Assignes: markinge ye bounds to ye mayne Land w^ch is & shalbe y^e present bounds to ye mayne Land: only Liberty is ffreely graunt ffor ffeedinge offe cattle & Cuttinge off timber beyound those Bounds; & wee doo Acknowledge to have Reseved in full for it ye trou valew & just Satisfaction Accordinge to our Estimate to w^ch we sett our hands beffore these wittnesses off English & Indyans this twenty seaventh off June 1654.

English Wittnesses                                Saggamores (Markes)
     Richard Crabb Magistrate                  +Shawanórõckquot
     Thomas Lawrence                             +Poquõrúm
     John Ffinch +Anhõõke
+Wawhamkus
+Mehúmõw

Articles of Agreement

We also as lovinge neighbours & ffriends doo mutually ingage our Selves to send too men off Each y^r one Day in ye Springe every yeare to marke y^e Bounds of y^e Land y^t a Right Knowledge may be kept w^h out injury to Either side y^t Mutuall peace & love may be mayntayned 2^nd Wee allso doo promise Each to other if any plotts on either Side y^t may be to hurt off Either y^t we Seasonably Discover y^m as Lovinge Neighbours & friends y^t peace & love may be mutually preserved

Indyan Wittnesses
+Marke Cockho
+Mark Kamaque
+Marke Cockinsecawa

This wrightinge was signed & wittnessed Beffore A great multitude off Indyans & many English we who are under written do testify

mark
Henry + Accorly This is A True Coppy off y^e
William Newman originall written Tho^s Pell”