War, Violence, and the State Theme Analysis

Violence has been called the cornerstone of a successful state. The sociologist Max Weber went so far as to define the state as the institution that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. One of the most fascinating aspects of Of Plymouth Plantation is the way that Bradford depicts the relationship between violence—directed at Native Americans, neighboring colonies, and even Plymouth Plantation’s own people—and the brand new state that William Bradford and his peers built in New England. Within twenty-four hours of landing in New England, Captain Myles Standish leads a group of armed men to explore the surrounding area—a sign of the importance of military force even in a supposedly Christian society. Bradford’s book upholds Weber’s theories of the state by showing how violence underlies Plymouth society, providing both a system of organization for New England’s citizens and a means of seizing and protecting property.

First and foremost, violence is critical to the success of the Plymouth Plantation—and, arguably, of any state—because people need force to protect their property (whether it’s private, individual property or property in a more collective sense). The colonists aboard the Mayflower bring guns with them, and hire an experienced military commander, Captain Myles Standish, under the assumption that they’ll need to fight to protect their claim to land. They are then only able to protect their property and their land in the first thirty years of Plymouth Plantation’s history because of their military technology. At various points in the colony’s history, the Pilgrims use muskets to seize and protect their land surrounding the Connecticut River, first from Native American tribes and later from French and English settlers. Furthermore, the Pilgrims experience some of their most humiliating setbacks because of their inability to use force to defend their property. In 1635, for example, French forces seize the Pilgrims’ land, and the Pilgrims lack sufficient manpower and firepower to reclaim what was theirs (and which they, in turn, stole from the Native Americans!). In all, Bradford’s account of Plymouth’s early history emphasizes the importance of property: which, practically speaking, translates into enough food to feed the Pilgrim population, and enough land to grow corn and beans. He further emphasizes the inseparability of property and violence, essentially showing that, if you can’t defend your property, then you don’t truly own it at all.

But violence is more than just a means of protecting property; it’s a way of creating systems of organization and fostering order and cooperation in society. On one hand, the threat of violence is a powerful means of enforcing the law. In the 1630s, William Bradford organizes the first use of the death penalty in Plymouth, which, one can only assume, encourages the Pilgrims to obey the laws, pay their taxes, obey authority, and generally support the state. Just as importantly, however, violence fosters cooperation between different states. In the 1640s, for example, Plymouth enters into the United Council, an agreement between Plymouth, Massachusetts, and various other New England colonies, the primary purpose of which is to provide the resources for future military conflicts. Under the terms of the Council, each colony must support the other colonies in times of war, donating soldiers and resources and paying for all other expenses. The historian Gordon Wood argued that the formation of military alliances such as this anticipated and led to the formation of a strong, nationalized state—the United States of America—by giving social elites (i.e.. council members) more power over their people (i.e., the soldiers). Of Plymouth Plantation is the history of a pious Christian community—and yet even this community, it’s shown again and again, is structured around the use of force, seemingly confirming the idea that violence is the cornerstone of a powerful, well-organized state.