I had the pleasure of reading your recent three-part article submitted by Nicholas Checker concerning John Mason and the war with the Pequots. I question, however, why Mason is depicted as a villain.

There are two specific points in the article with which I disagree.

The first is Mr. Checker’s labeling of John Mason as a “military maverick.” He titles his article, “Man behind the statute: John Mason, Colonial Captain and Military Maverick.” It should be noted that Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “maverick” as an “individual who refuses to conform with his group.”

In the article, Mason is referred to as a “military maverick” on three occasions. In the first occasion, he states, “Mason journeyed to the English colonies of the new world around 1630, during what came to be known as the Great Migration. There he would make a name for himself as a daring ‘military maverick,’ and a faith-based governmental leader.” In the second instance, he states, “he was the ‘military maverick’ who had trained under the renowned Prince of Orange.” On the third occasion, he states, “Mason was a ‘military maverick’ commissioned by the General Court of the fledgling Connecticut colony to end the menace of the hostile Pequots.”

In an effort to back up the assertion that Mason was a “military maverick,” Mr. Checker claims that Mason “went so far as to boldly ignore a direct order to sail on to Fort Weinshauks (what is now Fort Hill in Groton), where Great Sachem Sassacus himself was based.” It is true that Mason had been directed to attack the enemy by landing at Pequot Harbor (New London). In fact, a letter to that effect from the magistrates was delivered to him while he and his men were at the fort at Old Saybrook. (See John W. De Forest’s “History of the Indians of Connecticut” New Haven, 1850, pp. 123, 124).

It should be noted that this order was from magistrates who were not trained in military tactics, were not on the scene, and did not have all of the current intelligence. (An example of this intelligence was information supplied by two English girls who had been captured by the Pequots and subsequently rescued by Dutch traders. The traders had first tried to ransom the girls from the Indians, and when this failed, they lured seven Indians on board their vessels. They then threatened to take the Indians out into the open ocean and throw them overboard unless the girls were released. This tactic worked and the traders then took the girls to the fort at Old Saybrook where the girls told Mason that the Indians had 16 guns some powder and shot.) (De Forest. p. 123)

His military judgment made him averse to the magistrate’s verbal and written orders. He tried to get the rest of his men to agree with his plan to go to Narragansett Bay and attack from the rear. Most of the men were against this tactic as they did not relish a long march thru the wilderness. Additionally, they were in a hurry to get back to their families and thought the best way to do so was to go directly to Pequot Harbor and fight a decisive battle there. (De Forest. pp.. 123, 124)

Mason told his men: “The Pequots, said he, do keep a continual guard upon their river night and day. They are armed, as the maids tell us with sixteen pieces, having also powder and shot. Their numbers be greatly superior to ours, which will make it difficult for use to land in their face. Also, if we effect a landing, they will easily fly away and hide in their swamps and thickets. Whereas, if we go first to Narragansett, we shall come upon them at their backs, so may take them by surprise where they least expect it.” (See De Forest & Mason. Mass. Hist Coll. Vol. XVII, p. 134)

In this diversity of opinion, Mason and his men agreed to have their Chaplin, Rev. Stone, of Hartford, pray that they might be guided in the proper way. “The pious and honest minded minister spent most of the night in prayer, and in the morning, told Captain Mason that he felt convinced that they ought to go to Narragansett. Upon this, Mason’s plan was universally accepted.” (Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. XVIII & De Forest. pp. 123, 124)

To be fair, Mason’s actions do not appear to be a case of “boldly ignoring a direct order” as stated by Mr. Checker. Mason had military experience far in excess of any of the magistrates. He also had intelligence they did not possess. He explained his reasoning to his men, put the issue to the expedition’s chaplain, and abided by the minister’s decision.

Probably, the most accurate method of determining if a person was a “military maverick” or not, is to see how their contemporaries viewed them. The following taken from “Caulkins History of Norwich,” 1976 ed., pp. 140 148, provides an insight as to how Mason’s contemporaries felt about him:

In 1634, he was one of a committee appointed to plan the fortifications of Boston harbor, and was specially employed in raising a batter on Castle Island.

In March 1635, he was the representative of Dorchester to the General Court. He was also Lieutenant and Captain at Dorchester for five and one-half years or until he removed to Connecticut.

In 1637, he was appointed by the General Court of Connecticut as the chief military officer of the colony. The office was equivalent to that of Major-General. He retained it through the remainder of his life and during that time appears to have been the only person in the colony with the rank and title of Major.

On June 9, 1660, the General Court noted: “not many weeks now past, wee are by sufficient information certified, that one night at ye New Plantation at Monheage (Norwich,) some Indians, as will appear, of the Narragansetts, shot 11 bullets into a house of our English there, in hopes, as they boasted, to have slaine him whome we have cause to honor, whose safety we cannot but take ourselves bound to promote, our Deputy Govenor Major Mason.”

He was also Counselor of the government in all Indian concerns; captain of the fort at Old Saybrook, justice of the peace empowered to hold courts as a judge; a member of the Connecticut Legislature, a member of the Board of Commissioners of the United Colonies.

In 1660, he was chosen Deputy Governor, to which office he was annually re-elected for eight years, two of which he performed all of the duties of the chief magistrate of the colony while Governor Winthrop was in absent in England.

In addition, Benjamin Trumbull, D.D., in his “A Complete History of Conn. Vol. 1. New London, 1898,” points out that the people of New Haven claimed lands in Delaware, along the Delaware River and Bay, by patent and also by purchase from the Indian proprietors. The Dutch also claimed the same area. In 1651, the Connecticut people were intent on establishing a permanent settlement on the claimed lands. Fifty men from New Haven and Totoket hired a vessel to transport themselves and belongings to the proposed area. They had a commission from governor Eaton, along with a letter to the Dutch Governor Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant immediately arrested everyone involved including the captain of the ship and had them all incarcerated until they agreed to leave the area and not return. This did not deter the New Haven people who were determined to settle the lands. “They were sensible, that such was the situation of their affairs, that a leader, who was not only a politician, but a man of known courage, military skill and experience, would be of great importance to the enterprise. They, therefore made application to Captain Mason to remove with them to Delaware, and take on him the management of the company. They made him such offers, that it seems he had a design of leaving the Connecticut colony, and put himself at the head of the English settlements in Delaware. The General Court of Connecticut, would by no means consent. They unanimously desired him to entertain no thoughts of changing his situation. This appears to have prevented his going, and to have frustrated the design of the New Haven people.”

These aforementioned examples illustrate that Mason’s contemporaries did not consider him a “military maverick” but instead, held him in very high regard.

The second issue I have with Mr. Checker’s article is his attempt to question Mason’s bravery, morals and humanity by stating: “When Mason launched the deadly ambush on the sleeping foe he made sure to avoid direct confrontation against overwhelming numbers by using the time-tested tactic of igniting a fortified village into flames, resulting in the fiery death of several hundred of the enemy proving as effective as in the past.”

Reading Mr. Checker’s account, the reader would think that the soldiers simply stayed outside of the fort and set it ablaze.

Again, citing De Forest and Mass Hist, Coll. Vol VXII, “It had been determined not to burn the village, but to destroy the garrison by the sword and save the plunder.”

De Forest states that Mason sent Captain Underhill with part of the men, round to the southern slope, to attack the fort on that quarter, while he, with the remainder, led directly up towards the principal entrance. “When they were within a rod of the palisade, a dog barked, and a Pequot yelled out, “Owanux! Owanux! (Englishmen! Englishmen!) The men moved rapidly forward, gave one fire thru the palisade and then rushed to the gateway. It was blocked up with bushes, but mason clambered over them, and the others pulled them out of the way and poured in after him. Mason entered the main street and looked up and down it without seeing a single Indian. He then forced his way into one of the wigwams, where he was immediately attacked by several warriors, who attempted to seize hold of him and capture him. The gallant captain defended himself stoutly, killing one or two of the assailants with his sword. It had been determined not to burn the village, but to destroy the garrison by the sword and save the plunder. Mason soon saw that this would be impossible. The Pequots were continually shooting from the cabins; some of his men were already wounded; the others were confused, scattered, and knew not what to do; and he himself fatigued and out of breath with his exertions. “We must burn them,” he shouted; and entering a wigwam, he seized a firebrand and applied it to the dry mats with which the rude dwelling was covered. The fire kindled in an instant; the Northwest wind swept it from cabin to cabin; the whole fort was rapidly involved in a furious conflagration. The men on the southern side had but just effected its entrance. It had met with a gallant resistance; one of its members had been killed; and Captain Underhill was wounded in the hip by an arrow. Seeing the village was on fire, he kindled it farther by means of powder; and then, with his followers, retreated from the intolerable heat. Mason had done the same. Two of the English were killed, 20 were wounded, and others had been saved from wounds or death only by the most singular providences. Mason was struck repeatedly on his helmet. John Dier and Thomas Stiles were shot in the knots of their neckcloths. Lieutenant Bull received an arrow into a hard piece of cheese which he carried in his pocket.

The assertion that there was no pre-plan to burn the fort and thereby kill all of its occupants tends to be buttressed by the actions taken during the last battle of the Pequot War, the Great Swamp Fight, in what is now Fairfield, Conn. During that battle, Thomas Stanton, an interpreter, was allowed to teat with the Indians. “He told them that life would be granted to all who had not been guilty of English blood. The Sachem of the place accepted the offer, and came out with his people. One company after another of old men, women and children of the Pequots followed until in about two hours, nearly two hundred persons had left the swamp.” (See De Forest pp. 148, 149)

There is no question that atrocities were committed by both sides during the Pequot War, as in any war, but I feel we have to be careful how we label or judge people while sitting in the comfort and safety of our homes 300 years after the event in question.

Robert Brautigam lives in Scotland, Connecticut.

NICHOLAS CHECKER’S RESPONSE:

Maverick ... is defined as an unorthodox or independent-minded person. John Mason was both throughout his career. Senator John McCain was often referred to as a maverick. It is not a derogatory term.

As to the second point, a slight editing change may have changed the original meaning of what I wrote. Here is the original quotation describing the firing of the fort:

“So, when the deadly ambush on the sleeping fort brought Mason and his allies yet into danger of falling victim to overwhelming numbers — after those inside awakened — the time-tested tactic of igniting a fortified village into flames resulted in the fiery death of several hundred of the enemy, proving as effective as in the past. Narragansetts stationed outside the burning palisade, and commissioned to slay those who tried to escape, beheld the effects of colonial “shock and awe.”

Your Turn is a chance for readers to share stories, photos and opinions. To submit, email times@theday.com.