All Is Fair in … War?

Details

By Professor Victoria Sutton

December 08, 2025

Guest Opinion. The first official execution in Connecticut was that of a Native American in 1639. The man, Nepaupuck of the Quinnipiac Tribe, was executed for the murder of a colonist during the Pequot War.

Fortunately, a summary of the trial’s procedure and substance was recorded in official government documents. Although the original source is not cited, a verbatim account appears in History of the Colony of New Haven to Its Absorption into Connecticut.

Please support our year-end campaign. CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

Nepaupuck had evaded capture for nearly two years before he was betrayed by members of his own community. During the trial, he first denied the killing, but after two fellow tribesmen testified against him, he confessed. He ultimately agreed that he should die and said he preferred to be beheaded. That preference may explain why, for the next century or more, non-Indian executions in Connecticut were typically hangings, while Indian executions were beheadings.

Excerpts from the trial record:

“October 26th 1639. The civil affairs of the plantation being settled as before, by the providence of God an Indian called Messutunck, alias Nepaupuck, who had been formerly accused to have murderously shed the blood of some of the English, of his own accord, with a deer’s head upon his back, came to Mr. Eaton’s, where by warrant the marshal apprehended and pinioned him; yet notwithstanding, by the subtlety and treachery of another Indian his companion, he had almost made an escape; but by the same providence he was again taken and delivered into the magistrates power and by his order safely kept in the stocks till he might be brought to a due trial. And the Indian who had attempted his escape was whipped by the marshal’s deputy.

“All the other Indians withdrawing, Nepaupuck was brought in and examined. He confessed that Nepaupuck was guilty according to the tenure of the former charge, but denied that he was Nepaupuck. Mewhebato being brought in, after some signs of sorrow, charged him to his face that he had assisted the Pequots in murdering the English. This somewhat abated his spirit and boldness; but Wattoone, the son of Carroughood, a councillor to the Quinnipiac Indian sagamore, coming in, charged him more particularly that he had killed Abraham Finch, an Englishman, at Wethersfield, and that he himself, the said Wattoone, stood upon the island at Wethersfield and beheld him, the said Nepaupuck, now present, acting the said murder.

“Lastly, the Quinnipiac sagamore and the rest of the Indians being called in, to his face affirmed that he was Nepaupuck, and that he had murdered one or more of the English as before.

“Nepaupuck being by the concurrence of testimony convinced, confessed he was the man, namely Nepaupuck, and boasted he was a great captain, had murdered Abraham Finch, and had his hands in other English blood. He said he knew he must die, and was not afraid of it; but laid his neck to the mantel-tree of the chimney, desiring that his head might be cut off, or that he might die in any other manner the English should appoint; only, he said, fire was God and God was angry with him; therefore he would not fall into his hands. After this he was returned to the stocks, and, as before, a watch appointed for his safe custody.

“Then the said Nepaupuck being asked if he would not confess that he deserved to die, he answered, ‘It is weregin’ [translated as ‘it is good’].

“The Court having had such pregnant proof, proceeded to pass sentence upon him according to the nature of the fact and the rule in that case, ‘He that sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.’ Accordingly his head was cut off the next day and pitched upon a pole in the market place.”

If you are wondering why this criminal defendant was not represented by an attorney, as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment, that would be a reasonable reaction. But this case took place long before the Constitution or Bill of Rights existed. Connecticut had just adopted the Fundamental Orders—seen by many as the first written constitution in what would become the United States—only the day before this trial, and it included no protections for due process. A regional court already existed for Windsor, Wethersfield, and Hartford, but whether it had jurisdiction over this matter was unclear.

The crime was murder. But the killing took place during the Pequot War, while Nepaupuck was fighting alongside the Pequots. Killing an enemy in wartime has traditionally not been considered murder. So how did the colonists justify this execution?

Their argument was that Indians did not fight “fairly.” Capt. John Underhill—who led the brutal massacre at Mystic—claimed that “the Indians’ fight far differs from the Christian practice.” In his view, colonial norms of warfare did not shield Indian combatants from individual responsibility for killings committed in battle, particularly when they involved surprise attacks on unarmed colonists.

Ironically, decades later Americans would fight the British using similar tactics: taking cover behind trees, wearing buckskin to blend into the forest, and shooting from hidden positions. The British, in bright red coats and strict formations, accused Americans of being uncivilized in their methods.

Final thoughts

This execution marked the beginning of a long history of government-sanctioned executions of Native Americans, often carried out by military tribunals during centuries of U.S. warfare against Indigenous nations. Even after the so-called end of the Indian Wars around 1878, military rules allowed the execution of Native people without presidential approval.

This case also reflects how justice for murder could, at times, resemble tribal restorative justice, in which the death of a relative might be answered with the death of the perpetrator. Nepaupuck accepted his fate. Yet tribal justice systems traditionally focus on restoration rather than punishment—a difference that still shapes the divergence between tribal and state criminal justice today.

Nicole Eustace’s Pulitzer Prize–winning book Covered with Night: A Story of Murder and Indigenous Justice in Early America describes a 1722 Pennsylvania trial in which the killing of a Seneca man exposed deep differences between Indigenous and colonial approaches to justice. Those differences continue today in tribal courts, state courts, and cases involving shared jurisdiction. Some states now partner with tribal courts to use restorative justice practices in criminal cases, rather than relying solely on punitive systems.

It only took a few hundred years.

To read more articles by Professor Sutton go to:  https://profvictoria.substack.com/ 

Professor Victoria Sutton (Lumbee) is a law professor on the faculty of Texas Tech University. In 2005, Sutton became a founding member of the National Congress of American Indians, Policy Advisory Board to the NCAI Policy Center, positioning the Native American community to act and lead on policy issues affecting Indigenous communities in the United States.