Conflict Between Rational And Conflict

King Philip’s War, from 1675-1676, also known as Metacom’s Rebellion, not only marked the last major effort by the Indians of southern New England to drive out the English settlers but also marked the bloodiest war in American History in terms of the ratio between causality and population. (Cowley and Parker 1996) Frustrated by their oppressors, “They [Native Americans] had become increasingly dependent on English goods, food, and weapons, and their bargaining power diminished as the fur trade dried up, tribal lands were sold, …leaders were forced by the colonists to recognize English sovereignty.” (1996) Native Americans’ unfavorable situation made one of their leaders, Matcom, to unite a large force of Indians with the purpose of driving the European settlers out of their land. Edward Randolph, in his report on the aftermath of King Philip’s War, wrote:

Our history books continue to present our country's story in conventional patriotic terms. America being settled by courageous, white colonists who tamed a wilderness and the savages in it. With very few exceptions our society depicts these people who actually first discovered America and without whose help the colonists would not have survived, as immoral, despicable savages who needed to be removed by killing and shipping out of the country into slavery. In her book, The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity, Jill Lepore tells us there was another side to the story of King Philip’s War. She goes beyond the actual effects

One of the bloodiest conflicts in U.S history that occurred in the 17th century was Metacom's war (also known as King Philip's War). In Proportion to the population, it is also recognized as the deadliest war in American history. By the end of the war, the English population of New England had declined by thirty percent and the Native Americans population declined more than twice the percent as the English. The dreadful war was a violent and destructive conflict, which was triggered by the devotion of maintaining cultural identity and preserving authority and power, both in religious and society capacities in which one believed to be his land. As a result, this crisis has impacted Americans and the culture of themselves for many years. This essay will analyze the history of Metacom's war chronology from June 1675-August 1676 informing the readers with knowledge about King Philip, the cause and effects of the conflict, and the impact it has made towards Americans.

The American Revolution was also known as the war of independence for the American colonies. Unpredictably, this war changed our world in more ways than we could imagine. Not only did this conflict over independence free the colonies from Britain, but also afforded freedom to many African Americans from the shackles of slavery. Pledged promises of freedom in exchange for military involvement by two military forces, encouraged blacks’ eagerness to participate, some, not only never mentioned, but were, in addition, sent back into slavery. In brief, Britain’s most formidable military force should not be reckoned with. Also, one could assume the colonies would be the sole beneficiaries of these loyalties from the African Americans, free and bound, but the fact is, many African Americans found themselves picking sides.

In 1823, Native Americans fired upon a group of American soldiers on the Missouri River. At the time the attack seemed random and unsolicited, but this isn’t true. Conflict over trade between the British and the Native Americans in the wake of the American Revolution manifested itself in the Native Americans’ hostility through the British trade of weapons and alcohol, and American Secretary of War John Calhoun’s willful ignorance to preserve plausible deniability. The introduction of trading houses in U.S. territory by a British company provoked the federal government to send an unofficial military group consisting of irresponsible men to reestablish trade with the Arikara Indians in an attempt to drive the British off their land. Alternatively,

The development of an American military tradition, predates the American Revolution, and is rooted in England’s Colonial Wars that dated between 1689 to 1763. The four colonial wars that occurred during this period were the following: War of the League of Augsburg (1689 – 1697), War of the Spanish Succession (1701 - 1713), War of the Austrian Succession (1744 - 1748), Great War for the Empire (1567 - 1763). Each of the four Colonial Wars had a North American Theater, which pitched Spanish, French, and British Colonies against each other with the Native Americans acting as the constant ‘x’ factor. The Native Americans were always flip flopping seeking the side with the best advantages; the leadership of some tribes would unite and spark raids

The conflict that eventually grew into King William’s War would provide one of the first opportunities for fighters from different colonies to cooperate in a larger military conflict on behalf of the English Empire, and also to develop a sense of resentment toward the Crown for its perceived failure to defend the colonies adequately (Williams, pp. 23-24). The colonists had inherited their ancestors’ distrust of a standing army, primarily since they saw such an army as a tool for the repression of liberty (Flashnick, Week 1). After the failure of the English army to assist the colonial fighters to any meaningful degree during King William’s War, this distrust was confirmed and amplified. Two long-term effects of the conflict were that it reinforced the American preference for the citizen soldier and, by virtue of forcing cooperation between the colonies, it paved the way for what would eventually become a united continental army.

The beginning of the history in America was a time of both learning and chaos. England is beginning to colonize the eastern part of the present day United States of America. The native people in the region at this time are in the way of the colonists achieving this goal. There was constant struggle between the groups. Thus, “New England's indigenous population fell from 140,000 to 10,000, while the English population grew to 50,000.”1 What this shows is that the native people were dying and the English were invading. The English were the provokers in terms of conflict and the war. However, the war was named after a native man and this is misleading. It should have been named after the English as they were the people who played the biggest role in starting it. Overall, the act of taking land, people, and rights from each other led to a war, with an inaccurate name, known as King Philip's War.

King Philip’s War (1675-76) is an event that has been largely ignored by the American public and popular historians. However, the almost two-year conflict between the colonists and the Native Americans in New England stands as perhaps the most devastating war in this country’s history. One in ten soldiers on both sides were wounded or killed. At its height, hostilities threatened to push the recently arrived English colonists back to the coast. And, it took years for towns and urban centers to recover from the carnage and property damage.

Much like the rest of the world, wars in the United States began before it was even considered a country. The revolutionary war was a brave and noble war fought by America’s earliest ancestors in the 1770s in the hopes of creating a better country for their prosperity. However, because it was not declared by an esteemed government, some would argue that it was not actually considered “just”. With the American Civil War, there were so many factors involved that the argument could be made both ways (2). Today, it has been decreed that the Civil War was fought entirely as an opposition to slavery in the South; however, at the time of the war, many more questions could be made as to the official reason. Because those battles were fought so long ago, theorists may only use the little information left behind to determine the justification of warfare.

War is easily explained through the lens of social conflict theory, a sociological theory that suggests society tends toward conflict because it is made up of groups with competing interests and unequal resources. The theory proposes that a

All through American history, diverse sorts of warfare from different landmasses have settled in this country. By the seventeenth century, the measure of English pioneers had expanded hugely, while the Indian pilgrims who were Indian boss, Powhatan, had diminished from 14,000 to 600. More than 95 percent of Powhatan's pioneers was eliminated because of the diminishing in populace of the Indian pilgrims. The creator of this section clarifies how, because of the differing qualities, the measure of tribes and pioneers that got away and were annihilated was high and it had a negative effect on them.

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

No nation is ever merely able to act at its people’s whim; a system of alliances and treaties has formed over the course of history, and breaking any of those agreements can mean anything from a small conflict to a large-scale war. One such

Political Violence has been affiliated with governments and nations since the beginning of political history and plays a huge role in the causes of Wars around the world. What causes leaders to declare war? Many philosophers have based their studies and theories on this question; many have different perspectives. One philosopher, John Stoessinger, has expressed his theories on the causes of war through what he calls his “misperception framework.” Stoessinger shows great interests in the personalities of world leaders; he is less impressed with the roles of abstract forces such as nationalism, militarism, economic factors, or alliance systems as the causes of