Click here to return to CWP homepage


Edward Terrar, “Is the Quincentennial of American Mission History a Time for Repentance? The Not-So-Bitter Inheritance from Mid-Seventeenth-Century Maryland Catholic History,” originally published in the Journal for Peace and Justice Studies (Villanova, Pennsylvania), vol. 4, no. 2 (Summer, 1992), pp. 143-165. (DM06.01.03; 18c-ar16; box 3.19, pt. 5).

            The National Council of Churches has stated its belief that the quincentennial of American mission history with few exceptions should be a time for repentance. This was because the church was part of a destructive form of cultural-religious colonialism imposed on the native people:

The church, with few exceptions, accompanied and legitimized the genocide, slavery, ecocide, and exploitation of the wealth of the land. The mission left a bitter fruit inherited by the descendants of the survivors of the invasion.[1]

            This article is about whether the quincentennial may have more to offer than repentance. There was perhaps a native people's church and a church of the European laboring people, which had considerable independence from the church of the enslavers. These people's churches may sometimes have contributed to the defeat of the exploiters. The article will discuss one of the churches which was arguably an "exception" to American's bitter church history and suggest that the exception may have often been the rule. The native people and the laboring Europeans, not only the exploiting magnates, may have had considerable control over the church and used it for their own needs. Positive views of religious, economic, and social assimilation, not a conservative social philosophy, may have been in the nature of native and European laboring society. The native's assimilation from the European tradition and vice versa of what served their needs as laboring people may not necessarily mean they gave up their native tradition.

            In judging value in terms of labor, rather than in terms of antiquarianism, the native tradition and that of laboring Europeans may have had much in common. In Europe and probably in North America there had always been a church of the landlords and magnates, which taught obedience to the established order and sanctified their monopolization of wealth and power. But that does not mean theirs was the only church or that the laboring people did not have their own religion that taught contempt for and the leveling of the established order. For example, in the mid-seventeenth century covered in this essay, the laboring people in England and in English North America were engaged in a civil war that in some measure leveled the religion of the monopolists together with their political and economic institutions. The religious leveling included the abolition of the Anglican hierarchy and the church courts, the dismissal of some 2,000 pluralists and absentee clergy, and the confiscation of the bishops' real estate.[2]

            The mid-seventeenth century period in Maryland is of interest because this was the formative era there for the native people in their relation with the European church. It set the pattern that continues to the present among the 7,000 Catholic Conoy who still live in St. Mary's and Charles county, Maryland.[3] In looking at the role of the church, it will be useful to discuss first, the native American, European, and African components of the seventeenth-century population, and then take up the role which assimilation traditionally played for the native population.

            In the 1640s and 1650s, the largest population group in Maryland were the 5,000 to 7,000 native people.[4] The figure included about 1,665 Conoy (Piscataway, Yaocomaco), 300 Patuxent, and 1,000 Accomac.[5] "Conoy" was the Iroquoian language name for the native people of southern Maryland. The Maryland natives were mainly part of the Algonquian language group. The Algonquians were the largest East coast language group and were concentrated especially around the Chesapeake Bay and southern New England.[6] The ancestors of the various native races had migrated to North America from Asia in waves that may, according to some carbon-14 dates, have dated back 40,000 years.[7]

            The Algonquian had been cultivators, that is, farming people in the Chesapeake region since at least 800 A.D.[8] The Conoy traded their tobacco, corn, bean, pumpkin, and deer skin surplus for beaver pelts and other products throughout northeast America with groups such as the Iroquois-speaking Susquehannock, as well as with groups to the west and south, such as the Powhatans.

            Maryland Conoy society was not generally class-divided. Most, including even the political and religious leaders (werowances, wisoes, and caweawaassoughs) did not live off the labor of others. The European migrants John Lewger and Jerome Hawley wrote in 1635, "The werowance [king] himself plants corn, makes his own bow and arrows, his canoe, his mantle, shoes, and whatever else belongs unto him, as any other common Indian."[9] Similarly the Conoy "queen" did the normal labor of a woman, which included field work, preparing meals, dressing meat, baking bread, and weaving baskets and mats from rushes. The mats were used as beds and to cover the houses.[10] The Conoy took nothing for free, as Andrew White, S.J. put it, "You can do them no favor, but they will return it."[11]

            Because there was a division of labor with the Conoy men doing most of the hunting and fishing and the women doing much of the agricultural work, Europeans often assumed the men were lazy and did not view labor in a positive light. But as Helen Rountree notes, "the men had their hands full being hunters and fishers; yet the English persisted for centuries in viewing them as lazy."[12] Besides white-tailed deer, which were hunted by individual men year-round and by whole villages in communal hunts in the late fall, they also trapped raccoons, opossums, muskrats, wild turkeys, and brown bears.[13] At night they fished with fire in a canoe to attract their prey.[14] The Canoy were a riverine people and the construction of weirs for fishing and of dugout canoes was also a big job.[15]

            Seventeenth-century Conoy society contrasted with the class-divided system that had dominated in the previous century. In that period, the Piscataway confederacy leader, called the tayac, with his main village of about 500 inhabitants at Moyaone on the Potomac, had collected tribute from the 7,000 natives of the Potomac and Patuxent River valleys.[16]

            Seventeenth-century Conoy society also contrasted with that of their class-divided neighbors, the Powhatans, who bordered them on the southwest and for whom warfare was endemic.[17] The Powhatans had an empire between the 1580s and 1646 to which most of the Algonquian villages in Eastern Virginia were forced to pay an annual tribute.[18] The Powhatan "emperor" in the 1610s, whose name happened to be Powhatan, appointed his brothers and sons to rule the subject tribes. He had slaves or servants, as well as whole villages that raised food for him and his 100 wives.

            In addition to the native people, a second component of the Maryland population were the Europeans. English Catholics first settled in Maryland in 1634. During the mid-seventeenth century period, the Europeans numbered up to 2,000 people, of which about 400 were Catholic. Nineteenth and early twentieth-century historians, basing themselves themselves on the published writings of the seventeenth-century gentry, pictured the Maryland Catholics and their counterparts in England as mainly gentry.[19] But the county and local histories that have been written since the 1960s, using court, probate, tax, and recusancy records, as well as unpublished diaries, commonplace books and letters, have revised the understanding of the Catholic community.[20] Ninety-five percent or more of the Europeans in Maryland, both Catholic and Protestant, were laboring people, such as yeomen, artisans, laborers, sharecroppers, servants, and small merchants.[21] Only a small percent were landlords and none were gentry by European standards.[22]

            Despite being only a quarter of the population, the Catholics were influential in the political, economic, and religious life of the European community in Maryland. Up to the 1650s the Catholics, as assembly and council members and as functionaries on legislative-drafting and other committees, were dominant in enacting and, as provincial office-holders, in enforcing Maryland legislation. In the ten assemblies that met during the 1640s, the Catholics constituted a majority of those with known religion and in the third assembly of 1639 they were an absolute majority.[23] John Krugler, who has studied the issue, finds the Protestants in this period did not exert "any profound influence on the colony as Protestants."[24]

            The Protestants as such were not influential in the assembly prior to the 1650s and perhaps neither were the Maryland landlords. During the period there were 6 Catholic and 6 Protestant landlords.[25] They were much outnumbered in the assembly by laboring people. Half or more of the landlords were not even assembly members. To the extent a local Catholic landlord like Thomas Cornwallis was able to play a leadership role on some issues, it seems to have been because his interests and those of the laboring people coincided, not because the laboring people were notable for their deference to landlords. For example, despite his being on its legislative drafting committee, the 1638 assembly refused to include a measure covering trade with the native people which would have protected Cornwallis's interests. As a result, he wrote to the proprietor, Cecil Calvert who lived in England, seeking him to examine closely, that is, veto the code.[26]

            A third component of the Maryland population besides the Conoy and the Europeans was the Africans. There were perhaps 10 of them in Maryland during the period. Some and perhaps all were Catholic Portuguese-Kongo freemen. At least the one African whose origin is known for certain, Mathew de Sousa, was a Portuguese-Kongo mulatto (mestiÇo) yeomen. The others had names that seem to have been Portuguese, not African or English: John Baptista, Francisco, and Antonio (Tony).[27] Sousa, who come to Maryland in 1633, in petitioning for naturalization in 1671 mentioned his home country was Portugal. He may have been related to Pedro de Sousa, who was the Kongo ambassador to Portugal under King Afonso I (ruled 1506-1543).[28]

            During the mid-century period the Maryland assembly refused to enact several measures proposed by the landlords that would have legalized slavery in Maryland.[29] In this they seem to have resembled their neighbors on Virginia's eastern shore, where the laboring people refused to accommodate to the wishes of some of the landlords there.[30] Even in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when slave production was fairly widespread, only a small percentage of the population were slaveowners. That the religion of the slave masters was that of the slaves or of the laboring Europeans does not necessarily follow, as has been pointed out by some historians.[31]

            To sum up the population background: it came from three continents but it had in common its shared labor: almost none were landlords or magnates. Some from each nationality were Catholic. Was the role of the church for the native Catholics that of helping to impose a cultural-religious colonialism? In looking at the role of the church, the focus will be on the traditional role which assimilation played for the native population. Conoy religious, economic, and social doctrine seems to have been positive toward syncretism, if one can judge their traditional beliefs by their readiness to adopt aspects of the European system. As noted earlier, they often chose from the Europeans system what served their interests as laboring people, while at the same time maintaining the bulk of their native traditions. The issue for them was probably not assimilation as such but whether a particular element was of service. It was mainly political and economic elements which the Conoy were interested in integrating into their system. Many seem not to have been against religious assimilation, but this was secondary.

            The desire of the Conoy to politically assimilate Europeans into Maryland was frequently manifested in the mid-century period. The Conoy promoted the initial settlement at St. Mary's by offering housing, boats for transportation, cultivated fields, corn, and other supplies. They had economic reasons for encouraging the settlement, but in addition they seem to also have viewed the European community at St. Mary's as contributing to their political interest, which included self-defense and self-rule. Conoy sovereignty had been under siege in the early seventeenth century. The aggressors were the Powhatans and Europeans in Virginia to the southwest and the Iroquois-speaking Susquehannock who lived at the head of the Delmarva Peninsula in present-day Pennsylvania and Delaware.[32] The Susquehannock were allied to the Iroquois and Hurons in the Great Lakes and to New Sweden on the Delaware Bay between 1638 and 1655.[33] Conoy women and children were sometimes kidnapped and their goods were stolen by Susquehannock and Powhatan raiding parties.[34] Despite the siege, the Conoy and others such as the Chickahominies persisted in maintaining their independence. One of the Conoy strategies was apparently the 1634 European settlement at St. Mary's. It gave them a buffer between them and their aggressive neighbors in Virginia and Delaware.

            In addition to the outside encroachments, the Conoy had been reduced in number in the century prior to the European arrival because of disease.[35] The St. Mary's settlement helped them even the population balance between themselves and the Virginians and the Susquehannock. The Maryland proprietor was often willing to wage war against Susquehannock encroachment on Maryland's trading relations.[36] The Maryland assembly, which had to pay for the wars and do the fighting was less enthusiastic for war.[37] Nevertheless, the Europeans in Maryland when attacked did fight back in a limited way, as in 1642.[38]

            It is true that the Europeans, especially the proprietor and crown, sought to use the settlement to serve their own political interests, which were not the interests of the Conoy. The crown wanted to undermine Conoy sovereignty as part of a larger colonial relationship between Europe and North America. The Catholic priest, Andrew White, S.J. reflected the proprietor's wish to use Catholicism to pacify and keep the natives obedient to the proprietor:

We came to teach divine doctrine whereby to lead the Indians to heaven, and to enrich them with such ornaments of civil life as our community abounds withall, not doubting but this emperor being satisfied, the other [native] kings would be more peaceable.[39]

            However, despite the wishes of the proprietor and crown, the Conoy followed their own political and economic course. They were not characterized by servility. They had their own independent government system and leaders. Later in the century the proprietor sought to gain a veto over the election of the Conoy's top leader, but this was never given.[40] Typical of their independence was an alliance of friendship in 1644 with the Susquehannock who were then at war with the Maryland Europeans. The Conoy felt the Europeans had not been adequately serving as a buffer.[41] The assembly had been reluctant to wage war against the Susquehannock raiding parties that year.

            In terms of their political interests, the integration of the European community at St. Mary's was probably consistent with the Conoy's traditions. Similarly their assimilation of certain market aspects of the European system probably did not violate but was rather natural to their tradition. Both the local Conoy subgroup, the Yaocomacos, and the Conoys throughout Southern Maryland promoted the settlement at St. Mary's because it served their market as well as their political needs. The Yaocomacos lived in the area that included the St. Mary's settlement.[42] They gained a supply of trade goods in exchange for the housing and fields they traded to the Europeans.[43] As James Axtell, who has studied the settlement agreement puts it, the Yaocomacos "made out like bandits. For a trove of valuable trade goods, they gave up an old village that the previous year they had decided to abandon to escape the raids of the Susquehannocks."[44] Some Yaocomacos continued to live in the St. Mary's area but others moved across the Potomac River to live with their Onawmanient relatives.[45] This move as Axtell notes, had been decided upon prior to the English arrival in Maryland. The move was tied to Susquehannock aggression but also perhaps to the Conoy slash and burn agricultural technology. Once an area had been farmed for four or five years, it was permitted to lie fallow for about 20 years.[46] For Conoy purposes, much of the St. Mary's area was no longer useful.

            In addition to the gains for the local Yaocomacos, the other Conoy subgroups in Southern Maryland also promoted the St. Mary's settlement. It gave them both a closer source for European technology and a trade outlet for their surplus corn, tobacco, fish, oysters, fowl, and deer skins.[47] James Axtell comments on the value which Conoy tradition put on technology, "having been introduced to the cloth and metal trade goods of the Virginia traders, the natives welcomed the Marylanders as future and more reliable sources of the same."[48] The Patuxents had been trading with the Virginians since the 1620s.[49] The new technology, such as iron axes, knives, hatchets, hoes, needles, thread, and fish-hooks was viewed by the Conoy as an improvement on their traditional farming technology.[50] Cloth was warmer and lighter than animal skins. Andrew White, S.J. observed that the Conoy "exceedingly desired Christian apparel."[51] They continued to favor traditional clothing style, but they used English fabrics when they could. Women's aprons and men's breechclouts were made of blue or red cotton, with a matchcoat of Duffields for cold weather.[52] Leggings continued to be worn, but were made of cotton. When they wore English-style coats, the preference was for diverse colors.

            The nature of the market goods which the Conoy desired can be seen in the cargo of a typical supply ship such as one that landed at St. Mary's in 1634. It carried 1,000 yards of cloth, 35 dozen wooden combs, 17 dozen horn, 300 pounds of brass kettles, 600 axes, 30 dozen hoes, 40 dozen hawks' bells, 45 gross of sheffield knives.[53] European housing technology was also an area which at least some of the Conoy wished to assimilate.[54] That is, some preferred English timber frame cottages to the rectangular barrel-roofed Conoy construction. Most however maintained the traditional yi-hakans (later called wigwams or cabins) construction until well into the eighteenth century. However, their iron technology allowed them to improve upon it. Helen Rountree writes of the Conoy's neighbors across the river in Virginia.[55] Bark coverings became standard on most of their houses where before this had been available only to a few. The change was possible because everyone possessed iron hatchets, tools that reduced the time needed to cut through enough bark to cover a house. Because of the bark addition, houses were able to have windows left between slabs of bark, "Their windows are little holes left open for the passage of light, which in bad weather they stop with sheaths of the same bark, opening the leeward windows for air and light."[56]

            Just as in politics, so concerning the market, the Europeans had their own interests, which were not necessarily compatible with Conoy traditions. For example, the proprietor wanted but was unsuccessful in obtaining a market monopoly on the Conoy's deer skin, corn, and land. They traded with those licensed by the proprietor, such as Thomas Cornwallis and Mathew de Sousa. But they freely traded with other Maryland, Virginia, and Dutch Europeans who offered better prices.[57] And the Conoy continued to maintain the trade relations that had existed prior to the European settlement with the neighboring native American nations. It is of interest that the proprietor with the encouragement of the clergy, also sought a monopoly on the market relations of the European laboring people in Maryland, and that they no less than the Conoy rejected the monopoly.[58]

            Against the land monopoly desired by the European monopolists, the Conoy and the Maryland Europeans stood firm. The Conoy made grants of land to the proprietor but they also made grants at St. Mary's to individual planters, including the Jesuits in 1639, and the Maryland and Virginia laboring people in the 1640s.[59] The example of the unsuccessful effort of the landlord Giles Brent to become a land speculator is illustrative of the Conoy's defense of their market interests. The Conoy tradition was for offices of leadership to pass matrilineally. Brent secured an agreement with the Piscataway king to designate his (the king's) daughter to be his successor. Brent married the king's daughter, Mary Kittamaquund, believing this would make his children heir to political office and gain for himself a land monopoly.[60] This was the typical pattern by which the gentry in England enriched themselves. But when the king died, the Piscataway rejected the king's designation. They were not slaves of tradition, nor did they allow tradition to subvert the interests for which the tradition had been devised. Brent and his Piscataway wife ended up raising their family in Virginia.

            The traditional theory of Conoy land ownership was based on labor (usufruct), not on land speculation or profit from buying and selling land.[61] Deserted fields could be used by anyone who wanted to use them. As one authority puts it, "Indian title was originally one of aboriginal use and occupancy."[62] The Conoy system of holding land collectively was not unlike the legal institution of common land among the English laboring people.[63] In making the St. Mary's grant, the Conoy were probably consistent with their landholding tradition. The European laboring people farmed the land from the first months of settlement. They generally got it free from the proprietor in the form of head rights or, after a period of indentured service, as freedom dues. Because it could be obtained for free, there was little speculation in land. Later in the century, as the population because greater and free land less available, the Conoy adopted the European system of land patents and legal procedures to protect their land interests.[64]

            If the Conoy market tradition had emphasized independence and self-subsistence then their partial integration with the European market might have been inconsistent and perhaps destructive. But as was already pointed out, they had been engaged in a market economy with the other native people of North America prior to the European arrival. Subsistence and absolute independence had not been their ideal. They evidently found interdependent market relations to be beneficial. While they welcomed interdependence with the European market, they also continued their traditions as sedentary agrarians which included a degree of economic independence. It is true some of the Conoy youth, like some of the European youth were apprenticed to planters, such as Luke Gardiner.[65] Others worked as wage laborers and artisans among the Europeans, just as some Europeans lived and worked in the native villages.[66]

            For the most part, however, the Conoy were independent planters, as they had been prior to the European arrival. This did not exclude them from foraging like the Europeans for berries, fruits such as persimmon, and nuts such as hickory, walnuts, chestnuts, chinquapin, and beech. Both Europeans and natives also foraged for fiber for cordage, for roots and plants such as arrow drum and its tuckahoe root, and for wild greens in the meadows.[67] They raised their crops, assimilated iron technology, and sold their surplus, not unlike the European owner-operators. Between 1632 and 1638 the native village on Kent Island sold to their London trading partners some 2,843 bushels of maize worth £568 at 4s per bushel, 6,348 pounds of tobacco worth £106 at 4d per pound, and 7,488 pounds of beaver pelts worth £4,493 at 12s per pound.[68] Because of the warmer climate, the Maryland beaver pelts were not of high quality. It was the Susquehannocks to the North and their Iroquois trading partners on the Great Lakes who excelled in this. Beaver pelts were used to make felt hats. But the Conoy learned to cure deer skins which they traded to the Europeans.[69]

            The assimilation by the Conoy of certain elements of the European culture was minor compared to the European assimilation of the native system. The Europeans assimilated the native tobacco, corn, and pelt culture as the foundation of their society. Indentured Europeans habitually ran off from their masters to set up households in the native villages.[70] Gary Nash and T. H. Breen suggest that the Europeans frequently assimilated native culture not only in seventeenth-century Maryland but whenever and wherever the two cultures met.[71]

            The Conoy were enthusiastic about certain elements of the European political and economic system. It should not be surprising that they also found intellectual, cultural, and ethical aspects of European religion attractive. Many of the Conoy, like many European laboring people respected and enjoyed the Catholic clergy's learning, spirituality, and songs. The presence of the clergy at their marriages, funerals, feasts, and dances apparently added to the occasion.[72] They seem to have appreciated the clergy's baroque religious art: the silver and gold altar equipment, the vestments, liturgy, sermon, incense, and songs.[73] What Paul Seaver finds about the popular attraction of sermons and lectures in England was probably also true for Maryland:

In an age when printing was still the only means of mass communication, and a means often obstructed by censorship and illiteracy, preaching understandably had a potency that it has largely lost since. In an age, moreover, when theology still provided the basis not only for cosmology but also for politics, . . . preaching necessarily had political implications.[74]

            While many were attracted by the clergy's missionary work in their villages, some natives assimilated European religious ideas because they lived in close proximity to or worked for Europeans. These included the youth indentured to European artisans or agrarians and the adults who hired themselves out as wage laborers. They learned English and it was natural that some attended religious services and were baptized.[75] By 1642 there were several hundred native Catholics.[76]

            That conversion to Catholicism did not mean abandoning the substance of their tradition can be seen from Conoy Catholic doctrine. For example, when Andrew White, S.J. translated the Apostle's Creed into Eastern Algonquian it was the traditional Conoy nature force or god, manet in whom belief was expressed: nauzamo manet (I believe in God). The "Catholic church" was translated as poqwatz-akkawan manet, that is, manet's house.[77] The clergy from the earliest days reported that the Conoy beliefs did not significantly differ from those of the Catholics, "they acknowledge one God of heaven. . . They are readily swayed by reason, nor do they withhold their assent obstinately from the truth set forth in a credible manner."[78] The Conoy had a different language and so different names for their beliefs, but the substance was probably similar.[79] The crosses, pictures, rings, and rosaries distributed by the clergy were aimed at protecting fields, crops, fertility, and health. Such items supplemented the Conoy's traditional charms, herbs, stones, and other amulets and fetishes.[80] Natives who believed in multiple gods may not have had problems with Catholicism. In Guatemala the laboring natives paired the cult of Catholic saints with their traditional Quiché pantheon.[81] The Nahuatl natives of central Mexico decided to identify the gods of the indigenous ruling class with those of the devil, and took as their supernatural advocates those in the Christian pantheon. As one writer notes concerning the Nahuatl, "This religious syncretism in the sixteenth century implied moral criticism of secular wealth and power and expressed the aspirations of the common people."[82]

            The ten commandments which Andrew White, S.J. translated into Algonquian and the catechism which Roger Rigby, S.J. (d. 1647) translated were probably not an innovation for the Conoy but in large measure a morality which was part of their tradition as laboring people.[83] Most, for example, were faithful to their spouses, did not steal or kill, nor abuse alcohol.[84] John Lewger and Jerome Hawley wrote:

These people acknowledge a God, . . . wherewith their life is maintained. To him they sacrifice of the first fruits of their corn, and of that which they get by hunting and fishing. . . They hold the immortality of the soul, and there is a place of joy and another of torment after death. Those who kill, steal or lie shall go to the place of torment, but those which do no harm to the good place.[85]

            The Conoy traditions, like those in the Hebrew scriptures, allowed for more than one wife.[86] This does not seem to have been an obstacle to those who wished to become Catholics. Most only had one wife to begin with.[87] As noted earlier, the Conoy, unlike their Powhatan neighbors in Virginia were not for the most part a class-stratified society. Only the king and a few others could afford more than one wife. The king, when he became a Catholic, restricted himself to his chief wife.[88] Even if some continued to keep more than one wife, this would not have been a major obstacle. In Europe, polygamy was "solved" by the male merely marrying his head wife and keeping the others as concubines. The practice of extra-marital relations was well enough established among the European gentry that a body of law and social practice had grown up around it. This included laws for the legitimization of children born in this way.[89]

            Not only cosmology, family relations, and ethics, but traditional burial practices and beliefs about death were maintained by the Catholic Conoy. The English custom was to bury the dead in an extended position but the Conoy buried in a flexed position.[90] Once bones had become fleshless, they were buried in mass graves. In 1678 the Conoy could not attend a council meeting called by the Europeans because they were "very busy in getting their dead bones" in preparation for mass interment.[91] The Algonquians rejected the doctrine about retribution after death. Some constructed a heavenly realm for the Europeans that was different from their own.[92] Some of the laboring European Catholics also rejected the retribution doctrine. For example, Thomas White, a Catholic priest who identified with the laboring people in England and who was invited to minister in Maryland, taught that the doctrine of purgatory was merely a fund raising measure:

If I be thought the occasion of restraining the profuse abundance of alms in this particular, I shall withal have the satisfaction to have checked the daily increasing swarms of unworthy priests, who, like drones upon this flock, to the disgrace and contempt of their function, to the abuse of souls, and the common scandal both of those who live in and out of the church.[93]

            Not only concerning retribution but concerning most issues, the church of the laboring Europeans was made to serve their interests. Scholars have noted that the laboring Europeans migrated to Maryland to avoid the higher rents, smaller yields, lower wages, fewer chances, greater inequality, and being trapped in low-paying seasonal jobs that kept them close to the subsistence margin. They did not have much patience with the landlords in Maryland or with a church which worked to deny what they had come for.[94] Typical of the European laboring people in Maryland in making the church serve their needs was an assembly enactment in 1638 that required the Catholic clergy to serve as pastors to the congregations which the people were then establishing.[95] The clergy protested against the legislation. The clergy were generally from, and identified with, the gentry class. In England the gentry often monopolized their services by employing them as domestic chaplains and tutors.[96] The Catholic laboring people did not permit this to be repeated in Maryland.

            Syncretism had been characteristic of the European laboring people's religion since the sixth-century mission to Europe. In this tradition, the Protestant Europeans in Maryland frequently converted to Catholicism. For example, nearly all them who migrated in 1638 joined the Catholic congregations.[97] This may have been as many as 100 people. They joined because there were Catholic clergy present to minister and an absence of Anglican clergy. The growth was great enough that within the first decade of settlement three European Catholic congregations were established.[98] There was a similar readiness of Protestants to join Catholic congregations in England. In the first part of the seventeenth century between 1603 and 1641 the Catholic population in the north and west of England grew by one-half from 40,000 to 60,000.[99] The growth in Ireland was even greater.[100] This was because the Anglican parishes in these areas were large and poor and the established clergy were consequently non-residents or pluralists.[101] The Catholic clergy who were willing to serve in such areas had large congregations.[102]

            To sum up, this article has suggested that a positive view of political, economic, and religious assimilation was part of Conoy and European laboring tradition. To equate assimilation with the imposition of cultural-religious colonialism may be inaccurate.[103] In class-divided societies whether European or native the magnets were often characterized by a conservative social philosophy that opposed assimilation, especially change that served laboring people. The magnets wanted the church and culture to help legitimize the established order. But laboring people may not always have believed in a conservative social philosophy and the religious antiquarianism or fundamentalism that went along with it. Religion for them may have been used to serve their own interests. The religion of the Native Americans and the European laboring people may have had more in common than either the European or native magnates cared to acknowledge.

            Because a sector of the church had interests that ran contrary to the needs of laboring people did not mean that that sector was the church or that it always prevailed. For example, when the Roman establishment sought to advance sectarian measures in Maryland such as a prohibition on intermarriage with Protestants and oaths of loyalty to the government, the Catholics enacted a praemunire law which prohibited Roman authority in Maryland.[104] At another point they had one of their priests recalled to England because of his interference with an intereligious marriage.[105]

            For those who belong to the church of the magnates, the quincentennial is no doubt a time for repentance, although this is not usually one of their doctrines. For the church of the native and European laboring people, one of the focuses might be on the resourcefulness of their ancestors in looking after their needs.





[1]National Council of Churches, "A Faithful Response to the 500th Anniversary of the Arrival of Christopher Columbus" (May 17, 1990), quoted in New York Times (June 16, 1990), I, 26:5.

[2]Hugh Aveling, O.S.B., Northern Catholics: The Catholic Recusants of the North Riding, Yorkshire, 1558-1790 (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), pp. 205, 247, 322; William Shaw, A History of the English Church, 1640-1660 (New York: B. Franklin, [1900] 1974), vol. 1, pp. 91, 120-121, 225-227, vol. 2, p. 210; "Act for the Abolition of the Court of High Commission," (1641), 17 Car. 1, cap. 11, in Henry Gee (ed.), Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London: Macmillan, 1921), pp. 547-550; Christopher Hill, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (New York: Schocken Books, 1967), p. 343.

[3]Christian Feest, "Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes," Handbook of North American Indians, Northeast, ed. William Sturtevant and Bruce Trigger (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), vol. 15, p. 247.

[4]James Axtell, "White Legend: The Jesuit Mission in Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 81 (1986), 5; Frederick Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds, Anglo-Indian Interest Groups and their Development in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake," Colonial Chesapeake Society, ed. Lois Green Carr, Philip Morgan, and Jean Russo (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), p. 69; Feest, "Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes," p. 242. Raphael Semmes, "Aboriginal Maryland, 1608-1689," Maryland Historical Magazine, 24 (1929), 195-209.

[5]"Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1642) in Clayton Hall (ed.), Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, [1910], 1925), p. 136; Ives Goddard, Delaware Verbal Morphology: A Description and Comparative Study (New York: Garland Publishers, 1979), p. 2.

[6]Goddard, Delaware Verbal Morphology, p. 2. Algonquian dialects were spoken from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Pamlico River in present-day North Carolina by tribes such as the Eastern and Western Abnaki (also known as Penobscot), Micmac, Massachusett (also known as Natick), Narragansett, Mohegan-Pequot-Montauk, Connecticut-Unguachog-Shinnecock, Loup, Mahican, Delaware, Powhatan (also known as Chickahominy) and Carolina. The second largest language group on the East coast was the Iroquoian (Five Nations, plus the Cherokees and Tuscaroros in the South). The third largest group were the Muskogees (Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, Seminoles).

[7]Frederick Fausz, "Present at the `Creation': The Chesapeake World that Greeted the Maryland Colonists," Maryland Historical Magazine, 79 (Spring 1984), 13; N. Guidon and G. Delibrias, Nature (June 1986). Using genetic markers, some of the native Americans groups have been traced to the 20 races of East Asia, such as the Mongols, Han, Manchus, Yao, Chuan, Miao, and Tibetan.

[8]James Merrell, "Cultural Continuity Among the Piscataway," William and Mary Quarterly, 36 (1979), 552; Richard E. Stearns, "The Hughes Site: An Aboriginal Village Site on the Potomac River in Montgomery County, Md.," Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Maryland, no. 6 (Baltimore: 1940), 14-15. Mixed among the Maryland Algonquian were more recent arrivals, such as the Iroquoian-speaking Nacotchtanks from the Ohio River Valley. They established a village on the Potomac River about 1600.

[9]John Lewger and Jerome Hawley, A Relation of Maryland (1635) in Hall, Narratives, p. 84.

[10]Ibid., p. 85; "Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639), in Hall, Narratives, p. 125.

[11]Andrew White, S.J., A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland (1634), in Hall, Narratives, p. 44.

[12]Helen Rountree, Pocahontas's People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990), p. 5.

[13]Ibid.; Charles Hudson, "Why the Southeastern Indians Slaughtered Deer," Indians, Animals, and the Fur Trades: A Criticism of Keepers of the Game, ed. Shephard Krech (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1981), pp. 155-176.

[14]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 145.

[15]Ibid., p. 131; Accomac County, "Wills, Deeds, and Orders, 1678-1682," p. 284, describes Robert Atkinson, a native, who owned a weir.

[16]Merrell, "Cultural Continuity Among the Piscataway," pp. 550, 552. Douglas H. Ubelaker, Reconstruction of Demographic Profiles from Ossuary Skeletal Samples: A Case Study from the Tidewater Potomac, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, no. 18 (Washington, D.C.: 1975); Karl Schmitt, "Patawomeke: An Historic Algonkian Site," Archaeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin, 20 (1965), 20; William Graham, The Indians of Port Tobacco River and Their Burial Places (Washington, D.C.: 1935).

[17]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, pp. 10-11, 40. The Powhatans may have established their empire in the 1580s because they were under pressure from the Siouan-speaking Monacans and Pocoughtaonacks in Western Virginia and the marauding Iroquoians to the north.

[18]Ibid., p. 13; Stephen R. Potter, "European Effects on Virginia Algonquian Exchange and Tribute Systems in the Seventeenth Century: An Example from the Tidewater Potomac," Powhatan's Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southwest, ed. Peter Wood, Gregory Waselkov and Thomas Hatley (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), pp. 151-172.

[19]John Morris, S.J. (ed.), Troubles of our Forefathers (3 vols., London: Burns and Oates, 1877); Hugh Tootell, Dodd's Church History of England from Commencement of the Sixteenth Century to the Revolution in 1688 (5 vols., New York: AMS Press, [1839-1843] 1971), vol. 3, pp. 75-170; vol. 4, pp. 360-380.

[20]For the laboring nature of the English Catholic population see David Mosler, "Warwickshire Catholics in the Civil War," Recusant History, 15 (1980), 261; J. A. Hilton, "The Recusant Commons in the Northeast, 1570-1642," Northern Catholic History, no. 12 (Autumn 1980), 7; Leslie A. Clarkson, The Pre-Industrial Economy in England, 1500-1750 (New York: Schocken, 1972), p. 66; Hugh Aveling, O.S.B., Catholic Recusancy in the City of York, 1558-1791 (St. Albans, Hertfordshire, Eng.: Catholic Record Society, 1970), pp. 86-87; Keith Lindley, "The Lay Catholics of England in the Reign of Charles I," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 22 (1971), 203.

[21]The seventeenth-century population is to some degree reconstructed in the St. Mary's City Commission, "Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," (Annapolis: Hall of Records, 1989). The "Career Files" are an alphabetically arranged data base for each of the 5,000 seventeenth-century (1,955 up until 1660) Maryland residents known by name. Forty items from each of the "Career Files" have been entered into a personal computer (D-Base IV) program, A Biographical Dictionary of St. Mary's County Residents, 1634-1705 (1991). It is available from Historic St. Mary's City, C/O Lois Green Carr, 350 Rowe Boulevard, Hall of Records, Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Md. 21401. I am indebted to Dr. Lois Green Carr for making the "Career Files" and D-Base IV disks available for this article.

[22]The lowest English gentry rank was esquire. They averaged £450 per year in income. The highest incomes for a Maryland planter averaged £60 per year. See Thomas Cornwallis, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (Apr. 16, 1638), reproduced in Edwin Beitzell (ed), "Thomas Cornwallis, Plaintiff versus Richard Ingle, Defendant: Testimony of John Lewger and Cuthbert Fenwick, 1645-1646," in Chronicles of St. Mary's, 26 (no. 2, February 1978), 174, 176; Gregory King, Two Tracts, (a) Natural and Political Observations and Conclusions upon the State and Conditions of England, (b) of the Naval Trade of England, ed. George Barnett (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1936), p. 31; Lawrence Stone, "The Crisis of Aristocracy," Social Change and Revolution in England: 1540-1640 (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1965), p. 117; Edith Klotz, "Wealth of Royalist Peers and Baronets During the Puritan Revolution" in English Historical Review, 58 (1943), 119; F. M. Thompson, "The Social Distribution of Landlord Property in England since the Sixteenth Century," Economic History Review, 19 (1966), 509.

[23]Edward Papenfuse (ed.), A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), p. 15, lists those who were delegates to the Maryland assembly. They have been cross checked with the "Career Files."

[24]John Krugler, "Puritan and Papist: Politics and Religion in Massachusetts and Maryland before the Restoration of Charles II," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1971, p. 171.

[25]Sixth Assembly, "Tax Lists" (Aug. 1, 1642), Archives of Maryland [hereafter cited as Md. Arch.], ed. William H. Browne (72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), vol. 1, pp. 142-146; "Tax Lists" (Nov. 1, 1642), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 120-126; Russell Menard, Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland (New York: Garland Pub., [1975], 1985), pp. 66-67.

[26]Thomas Cornwallis, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 16, 1638), in "Calvert Papers," [cited hereafter as Calv. Pap.] Fund Publications (Baltimore: Historical Society, 1889), no. 28, p. 172.

[27]John Baptista was said to be a moor of Barbara. See Thomas Prichard, "Deposition" (June 17, 1661), Md. Arch., vol. 41, p. 499; Thomas Hughes S.J., History of the Society of Jesus in North America: Colonial and Federal (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917), text, vol. 1, p. 281.

[28]John Thornton, "The Development of an African Catholic Church in the Kingdom of the Kongo, 1491-1750," Journal of African History, 25 (1984), 148. Besides Pedro, many other African Sousas were prominent in the Kongo. See John Thornton, The Kingdom of Kongo: Civil War and Transition, 1641-1718 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), pp. 55, 90; Anne Wilson, "The Kongo Kingdom to the Mid-Seventeenth Century," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, 1977, p. 160.

[29]"Proposed Act Limiting the Time of Servants" (Mar. 19, 1639), Md. Arch., vol. 1, p. 80; "Act for the Liberties of the People" (Mar. 19, 1639), ibid., vol. 1, p. 41; 11th Assembly, "An Act Touching Indians" (Apr. 21, 1649), ibid., vol. 1, p. 250; 14th assembly, "Stealing of Indians" (Oct. 11, 1654), ibid., vol. 1, p. 346; Alan Watson, Slave Law in the Americas (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1989); Thomas Morris, "`Villeinage. . . as it existed in England, reflects but little on our Subject': The Problem of the Sources of Southern Slavery," American Journal of Legal History, 32 (1988), 107. Slavery was part of English statutory and common law in the institution of villeinage, which dated from Roman times. In remote parts of England it seems to have continued into the seventeenth century.

[30]T. H. Breen and Stephen Innis, "Myne Owne Ground": Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 5.

[31]Thomas Webber, Deep Like the Rivers: Education in the Slave Quarter Community: 1831-1865 (New York: Norton, 1978), p. 80, writes on the distinction between the church of the slaves and that of the slaveholders, "Perhaps the most pervasive religious theme of the quarter community centered upon the immortality of slavery and the necessity of distinguishing between the concepts of true Christianity and the falsehoods of the slaveholders' preaching." See also, Albert Raboteau, Slave Religion: The "Invisible Institution" in the Antebellum South (New York: 1978).

[32]Floyd Lounsbury, "Iroquoian Languages," Handbook of North American Indians, Northeast, ed. William Sturtevant and Bruce Trigger (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), vol. 15, pp. 335-336.

[33]Francis Jennings, "Indians and Frontiers in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," Early Maryland in a Wider World, ed. David Quinn (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982), pp. 220-222.

[34]Axtell, "White Legend: The Jesuit Mission in Maryland," p. 2. On the warfare conducted against the Conoy from the southwest, see Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds," pp. 57, 59; Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 81; H. R. McIlwaine (comp.), Minutes of the Council and General Court of Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670-1676 (2nd ed., Richmond, Va.: State Library, [1924], 1979), p. 482.

[35]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 5.

[36]Cecil Calvert, "Commission to Make War against northern Indians" (June 11, 1639), Md. Arch., vol. 3, pp. 87-88; Leonard Calvert, "Proclamation to Kill Susquehannock and Wkomeses" (Jan. 26, 1642), ibid., vol. 3, p. 129; Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds," pp. 65, 69; Feest, "Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes," p. 240.

[37]"Act for an Expedition against the Indians" (Sept. 13, 1642), Md. Arch., vol. 1, pp. 196-198.

[38]"Court Proceedings against Giles Brent" (Oct. 10 and 17, Dec. 1 and 3, 1642), ibid., vol. 4, pp. 126, 128-134, 155-156, 159-161.

[39]White, Brief Relation, pp. 40-41.

[40]W. Stitt Robinson, "Conflicting Views on Landholding: Lord Baltimore and the Experiences of Colonial Maryland with Native Americans," Maryland Historical Magazine, 83 (1988), 92; Merrell, "Cultural Continuity Among the Piscataway," p. 561; Md. Arch., vol. 3, pp. 150, 403; vol. 10, p. 295.

[41]Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds," p. 78; Leonard Calvert, "Proclamation against Susquehannock, Wicomeses, and Nantacoque Indians" (Sept. 13, 1642), Md. Arch., vol. 3, pp. 116-121; Giles Brent, "Commission to Henry Fleet" (June 18, 1644), ibid., 148-151, ibid., vol. 4, pp. 128-129, 136, 248; Edmund Plowden [Beauchamp Plantagenant], Description of New Albion in Peter Force (comp.), Historical Tracts and other Papers Relating Principally to the Origins, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies of North America from the Discovery of the Country to the Year 1776 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, [18138] 1963), vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 19, 24.

[42]The term Yaocomacos was derived from the name of the river on which they lived.

[43]Lewger and Hawley, A Relation of Maryland, 1635, in Hall, Narratives, pp. 73-74.

[44]Axtell, "White Legend," p. 2.

[45]The Onawmanients were known to the English as the Machodoc in the mid-seventeenth century. The name Machodoc resulted because the first English patents given by the natives in their territory were taken on a creek of that name. By the 1660s the Machodocs were listed as the Appomatux and later as the Nanzaticos. See Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 122; Fausz, "Patterns of Anglo-Indian Aggression and Accommodation Along the Mid-Atlantic Coast, 1584-1634," Cultures in Contact: The Impact of European Contacts on Native American Cultural Institutions, A.D. 1000-1800, ed. William Fitzhugh, (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1985), pp. 225-226.

[46]Lois Green Carr and Russell Menard, "Land, Labor, and Economies of Scale in Early Maryland: Some Limits to Growth in the Chesapeake System of Husbandry," Journal of Economic History, 19 (1989), 409.

[47]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, pp. 131, 132, 145, discusses native manufactured goods which appear in the European inventories: baskets, mats, ceramic pots and pipes, weirs, and dugout canoes.

[48]Axtell, "White Legend," p. 2.

[49]Fausz, "Present at the `Creation,'" p. 10.

[50]"Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1642), in Hall, Narratives, p. 137.

[51]White, Brief Relation, pp. 40, 42, 44; see also, Lewger and Hawley, Relation of Maryland, pp. 74, 88.

[52]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 147.

[53]Fausz, "Present at the `Creation,'" p. 16.

[54]Lewger and Hawley, Relation of Maryland, p. 88.

[55]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, pp. 146-147.

[56]Robert Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, ed. Louis Wright (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, [1705], 1947), p. 174.

[57]Andrew White, S.J., "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (Feb. 20, 1639), Calv. Pap., p. 204; Papenfuse, Dictionary, p. 235.

[58]Andrew White, S.J., "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (Feb. 20, 1639), Calv. Pap., p. 207.

[59]"Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639, 1640), in Foley, Records, vol. 3, p. 372. Thomas Hughes, S.J., Society of Jesus, text, vol. 2, p. 627, describes the Patuxent direct grant of a farm at Matapawien to the clergy. The Maryland assembly in "An Act Concerning Purchasing Land from the Indians" (Apr. 21, 1649), Md. Arch., vol. 1, p. 248, was apparently aimed at preventing the Virginia magnates from obtaining direct grants and speculating in Maryland land.

[60]Ibid., p. 5; Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, pp. 551-553; Robinson, "Conflicting Views on Landholding," p. 92.

[61]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 6.

[62]Kirke Kickingbird and Karen Ducheneaux, One Hundred Million Acres (New York: Macmillan, 1973), p. 1; Harold Fey and D'Arcy McNickle, Indians and Other Americans: Two Ways of Life Meet (rev. ed., New York: Harper and Row, 1970), p. 27, write that each nation knew their territorial bounds but nothing required that land be divided up and parceled out under a system of land titles. Tribal leaders and the people themselves negotiated rights of occupation and use.

[63]Thomas E. Scrutton, Commons and Common Fields or, The History and Policy of the Laws Relating to Commons and Enclosures in England (New York: Burt Franklin, [1887], 1970), pp. 18-23

[64]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, pp. 134-136.

[65]"Court Business" (Jan. 8, 1650), Md. Arch., vol. 10, p. 52.

[66]The practice of European servants running away from their masters to take refuge in native villages was frequent enough that the landlords in the Maryland assembly in 1639 unsuccessfully proposed an act to make it unlawful for Europeans to reside with Conoy who were not "christened." The masters believed that christened Conoy would be unwilling to allow runaways to live with them. See "Proposed Act for Authority of Justice of the Peace" (Mar. 19, 1639), Md. Arch., vol. 1, p. 53.

[67]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 5.

[68]Fausz, "Present at the `Creation,'" p. 13; Frederick Fausz, "`To Draw Thither the Trade of Beavers': The Strategic Significance of the English Fur Trade in the Chesapeake, 1620-1660," "Le Castor Fair Tout": Selected Papers of the Fifth North American Fur Trade Conference, 1985, ed. Bruce Trigger, Toby Morantz, and Louise Dechene (Montreal: Lake St. Louis Historical Society, 1987), pp. 42-71.

[69]Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds," p. 70.

[70]"Proposed Act for Authority of Justice of the Peace" (Mar. 19, 1639), Md. Arch., vol. 1, p. 53; Eugene J. McCormac, White Servitude in Maryland, 1634-1820 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1904), p. 48; Wesley Craven, The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century: 1607-1689 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1949), vol. 1, p. 215; Merrell, "Cultural Continuity Among the Piscataway," p. 553.

[71]T. H. Breen, "Creative Adaptations: Peoples and Cultures," Colonial British America: Essays in the New History of the Early Modern Era, ed. Jack Greene and J. R. Pole (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), pp. 195, 197-198; Gary B. Nash, Red, White, and Black (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1974), pp. 2-3.

[72]Lewger and Hawley, Relation of Maryland, p. 87; Axtell, "White Legend: The Jesuit Mission in Maryland," p. 3; "Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1640), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 131-132.

[73]Vincent Lapomarda, "The Jesuit Missions of Colonial New England," Essex Institute Historical Collections, 126 (April 1990), 104, discusses the similar attraction of the New England natives to baroque art.

[74]Paul Seaver, The Puritan Lectureship: The Politics of Religious Dissent, 1560-1662 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1970), p. 55.

[75]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, pp. 67, 137, discusses the similar assimilation of the Virginia natives to Anglicanism.

[76]"Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1642) in Hall, Narratives, p. 136, stated that there were 130 Patuxent Catholics.

[77]Andrew White's Algonquian translation of the Apostle's Creed, ten commandments, the "Hail Mary," and other prayers were written on the front cover of a 1616 sacramentary that came into the ownership of Henry Harrison, S.J. (1652-1700). The sacramentary is now at the Georgetown University archives. A linguistic discussion of the Algonquian prayers is contained in an unpublished (November 1974) paper by Ives Goddard in the Georgetown University archives. Nils G. Holmes, John Companius' Lutheran Catechism in the Delaware Language (Upsala: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1946), pp. 7, 32, discusses Algonquian cosmology. The Maryland clergy throughout the period like the Lutheran clergy in Delaware lacked an understanding of Algonquian grammar and possessed only a limited vocabulary. The language was complex and unrelated to European languages. This necessitated lengthy and awkward constructions. For example, the Europeans could not decline verbs, they used only the infinitive. The clergy's doctrinal teachings in Algonquian therefore would not have been understood in the normal native language. But there was a 40-year-old customary trade jargon or lingua franca. This was the language used by the clergy.

[78]"Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639), in Hall, Narratives, p. 130.

[79]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, pp. 153; Sam D. Gill, Native American Religions (Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth Pub., 1982); Ake Hultkrantz, The Religions of the American Indian (Los Angeles, Cal.: University of California Press, 1980); Ruth Underhill, Red Man's Religion: Beliefs and Practices of the Indian North of Mexico (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 127-141, discusses war ceremonies.

[80]"Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 127-128. Vincent Lapomarda, "The Jesuit Missions of Colonial New England," pp. 100, 104, discusses similar Catholic fetishes given to the New England natives by the French Jesuits.

[81]Adrian van Oss, Catholic Colonialism: A Parish History of Guatemala: 1524-1821 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 21.

[82]John Ingham, Mary, Michael, and Lucifer: Folk Catholicism in Central Mexico (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986), pp. 9-10.

[83]White, Brief Relation, pp. 41, 44. "Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1642), in Hall, Narratives, p. 137, mentions Roger Rigby's Conoy catechism. The Conoy, including their Catholic leader Kittamaquund, violated their laws, such as those against murder. But this does not mean such laws did not exist. Kittamaquund had murdered his older brother to obtain office. See ibid., pp. 125-127.

[84]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 151, finds that it was only in the 1680s that the Conoy's neighbor's in Virginia, the Powhatans, acquired a "new passtime - getting drunk on rum." She maintains that even then, it was "normally a carefully controlled escapism, a fine point that Europeans rarely appreciated."

[85]Lewger and Hawley, Relation of Maryland, p. 88.

[86]Axtell, "White Legend," p. 3; "Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 127-128.

[87]Lewger and Hawley, Relation of Maryland, p. 85.

[88]"Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639), in Hall, Narratives, p. 127.

[89]Thornton, "The Development of the African Catholic Church," p. 159. In addition to polygamy, there seems to have been a married Catholic priesthood in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Kongo. King Afonso I (1506-1543) wrote the pope for an official dispensation since celibacy was "impossible" in the Kongo. See ibid., p. 158.

[90]E. Ralston Goldborough, "The Aborigines of the Lower Potomac Valley," Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 8 (1937), 35-36.

[91]Md. Arch., vol. 15, p. 185; Ferguson, "Ossuary Near Piscataway Creek," American Antiquary, 6 (1940), 10-11; Merrell, "Cultural Continuity Among the Piscataway," p. 561.

[92]Ake Hultkrantz, Belief and Worship in Native North America (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981), p. 209.

[93]Thomas White, The Middle State of Souls from the hour of death to the day of judgment (London: n.p., 1659), pp. 205-206.

[94]John McCusker and Russell Menard, The Economy of British America: 1607-1785 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), p. 31. In the next century when land became more monopolized, many such laboring people, like many of the natives, migrated further west to get out from under the landlords and monopolists.

[95]Thomas Copley, S.J. "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (Apr. 3, 1638), in "Calvert Papers," pp. 162-165.

[96]John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd), 1975), pp. 211, 217, 227-228, 237; Christopher Haigh, "From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 31 (1981), 138, 145.

[97]Catholic Clergy, "Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1638), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 119, 122-123.

[98]Beitzell, Jesuit Missions, pp. 7-8, 11, 25-26; William Treacy, Old Catholic Maryland and Its Early Jesuit Missions (Swedenboro, N.J.: n.p., 1889), p. 59.

[99]Bossy, English Catholic Community, pp. 193.

[100]Hugh O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland: The History of his Vice-Royalty with an Account of his Trial (2 vols., Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, and Co., 1923), vol. 1, pp. 409, 433-434.

[101]Aveling, Northern Catholics, p. 252.

[102]Haigh, "From Monopoly to Minority," p. 145; Bossy, English Catholic Community, pp. 161, 234, 252-253, 261; Richard Challoner, Memoirs of Missionary Priests and Other Catholics of both Sexes, that have Suffered Death in England on Religious Accounts from the years 1577 to 1684, ed. John Pollen (London: Burns and Oates, [1803] 1924), pp. 232, 339; Henry Foley, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (3 vols., New York: Johnson Reprint Co., [1875], 1966), vol. 3, pp. 91, 101; vol. 7, pt. 2, pp. 1111-1112.

[103]Merrell, "Cultural Continuity Among the Piscataway," pp. 548-570, sums it up, when the Maryland Catholic Piscataway made accommodations with the English, it was on their terms and in their own time.

[104]Copley, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (Apr. 3, 1638), in "Calvert Papers," p. 165; Alfred Dennis, "Lord Baltimore's Struggle with the Jesuits, 1634-1649," Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1 (1900), 114.

[105]Edwin Beitzell, The Jesuit Missions of St. Mary's County Maryland (Abell, Md.: n.p., 1976), p. 28.