In 1861, according to John Milton Earle, there were some 1146 Wampanoag Indians in Massachusetts. Excluding their non-Native spouses, 1146 Wampanoags were enumerated in Earle’s Report. Nowhere in the Earle Report are they labeled Wampanoag but, rather, appear in the Earle document as Chappequidick, Christiantown, Edgartown, Mashpee, Middleborough, Fall River, Pembroke, Yarmouth, Herring Pond, Dartmouth or other designations associated with white townships in the Commonwealth. Below, these Wampanoags appear here in alphabetical listing.

Through a legislative Act of 1859, John Milton Earle, Worcester politician and newspaper publisher, was appointed to investigate the social condition of Massachusetts Indians and advance recommendations whether they should be placed on the same legal footing as other residents of the Commonwealth. Specifically, Earle was named Commissioner "to examine into the condition of all Indians and the descendants of Indians domiciled in this Commonwealth, and make report to the governor, for the information of the general court," dealing with four issues:

• [a] "The number of all such persons, their place of abode, their distribution…"
• [b] "The social and political condition of all such persons…"
• [c] "The economic state of all such persons;" and,
• [d] "All such facts in the personal or social condition of the Indians of the Commonwealth, as may enable the general court to judge whether they can, compatibly with their own good and that of the other inhabitants of the State, be placed immediately and completely, or only gradually and partially, on the same legal footing as the other inhabitants of the Commonwealth."

The actual document, submitted by Earle in 1861, consists of three sections: a 132 page report; a proposed act to enfranchise Bay State Indians; and an appendix of 78 pages, listing Native families, his so-called "census."

His labors in producing the work are recorded in the extensive John Milton Earle Papers at the American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Mass. Statewide, Earle enumerated 1,126 individuals, in 291 families for whom the Commonwealth was guardian. Earle also tallied 322 individuals in eighty-seven families as "Miscellaneous Indians" whose heritage was not apparent to him. Aggregate totals in the EARLE REPORT were 378 families comprising 1448 Indians, excluding 162 non-Indian spouses. Including Natives and non-Native spouses, the total number of persons enumerated is 1,610 in the appendix which lacks an index.

For Massachusetts of 1861, Earle enumerated 1,126 individuals, [excluding 115 non-Native spouses], in 291 families he identified as "Plantation Tribes" including Indians from Chappequiddick [Martha’s Vineyard], Christiantown [Martha’s Vineyard], Gay Head [Martha’s Vineyard], Mashpee, Herring Pond [New Bedford], Natick, Punkapoag [Canton], Fall River, Hassanamisco [Grafton] and Dudley [Webster] communities. Additionally, he identified 322 individuals in eighty-seven families part of six other Native communities or "Miscellaneous Indians" whose heritage was not apparent to him. Earle’s aggregate totals were 378 families comprising 1448 Indians [excluding 162 non-Indian spouses.] All of this is detailed in Earle Report, lxxviii, summary recapitulation.

In many ways, the Earle Report is related to other Massachusetts efforts to enumerate Bay State Indians.

In 1848, the Massachusetts Senate’s Joint Committee on Claims was instructed "to report the number and condition of the several tribes of Indians that receive aid from the Commonwealth, and also to consider, and report, what further legislation is necessary for their protection and welfare." A report by Senator George Denny, enumerated 782 Indians supported by the Commonwealth including: thirty-three persons identified as Troy or Fall River Indians, fifty-one identified as Dudley; two identified as Grafton; one hundred at Chappaquiddick and Christiantown on Martha’s Vineyard; 250 as Gay Head, also from Martha’s Vineyard; four as Punkapoag [Canton]; thirty as Herring Pond or New Bedford; and, 312 as Mashpee Indians. Denny’s report went on to explain that "of the whole number, very few are Indians, as that term is generally understood and their condition is not what it should be." In the committee’s opinion, "Probably no subject is so little understood by the legislation as that of the Massachusetts Indians; and, without proper knowledge of their condition, wants, and qualifications for becoming free men, there is great danger of doing them injustice." [Senate, No. 135, MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATIVE REPORTS OF 1848 (Boston: Wright & Potter, 1849)]

Partly in response to the Denny’s report, in 1848, the state’s governor was authorized through Senate action to appoint three "suitable persons" to be commissioners: "whose duty shall be to visit the several tribes and parts of tribes of Indians remaining within this Commonwealth, to examine into their condition and circumstances, and report to the next legislature, what legislation, in their opinion, is necessary, in order best to promote the improvement and interests of said Indians."

In February 1849, Commissioners F. W. Bird, Whiting Griswold and Cyrus Weeks provided to Massachusetts Governor George N. Briggs a document frequently called the Briggs Report; excluding Natives associated with Natick, the Briggs report tallied 847 Bay State Indians. The report claimed there were five or six "Indians, of pure blood, in the State…the rest are of mixed blood; mostly of Indian and African" and "the admixture of African blood, usually predominating, in amount, over the Indian, is the only one common to all different tribes." There were forty-eight Indians part of the "Dudley Tribe" at Webster and twenty-six Indians part of the "Grafton Tribe," according to the Briggs Report. [F. W. Bird, W. Griswold and C. Weekes, "Indians," House Report # 46, in MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATIVE REPORTS OF 1849, (Boston: Wright & Potter,) 4-6]

The authors of the Briggs Report of 1849 had accepted a task "for more laborious than was supposed," but at the same time purported "in all cases, [to have] taken all who belong to each tribe, respectively, and supposed to belong, who may, if they should return, be entitled to whatever privileges and immunities belong to this people." As they explained: "We have visited all the tribes and parts of tribes of Indians in the Commonwealth, except, perhaps, a few scattered over the State, and who are, practically, merged in the general community. We have seen them in their dwellings and on their farms, in their school-houses and meeting-houses, have partaken of their hospitalities of bed and board, have become familiar with their private griefs and public grievances, have congratulated them upon their privileges, and consulted them on their disabilities."[BRIGGS REPORT, 4-5, 6]

The tallies of the Briggs Report, in contrast with the enumeration of John Earle some twelve years later, are less than a complete representation of Indians in the Commonwealth at that time. Likewise, Earle affirmed that that "had the inquiries been confined to the Indians and descendants of Indians who are residents of the reservations," his labor "would have been comparatively trifling; but even to obtain fully and accurately the facts and statistics in relation to these, is no small work."

In Earle’s opinion, "the temptations to a race naturally inclined to a roving and unsettled life, are too great to be resisted" and Indian people "frequently remove from place to place, keeping up no correspondence or communication with those they have left; till at last their place of residence ceases to be known to their friends, and all trace of them is lost." The difficulty of "tracing them," for Earle, was "much increased by their humble social position and obscure station in life, known only to a few directly about them, and those mostly persons whose position in the community is similar to their own," so he concedes a "deficiency" in his report, Natives "frequently…not recognized as Indians, by the people among whom they dwell."

Both the Briggs Report and the Earle Report are primarily concerned with "wards of the Commonwealth" or heirs-at-law entitled to benefits through connection to tribal corporate lands or reservations. The Earle Report appendix is not a "census" of Massachusetts Indians alive in 1861, and should not be read as such. Also, in many instances, Earle has less than complete listings of families he enumerated. The Earle Report, if used appropriately, is nonetheless an important source for historical and genealogical information of Massachusetts Indians of the last century.

The document provided here is an alphabetical roster of Wampanoag individuals listed in Earle’s appendix. Name, age, place of residence and tribal associations are reproduced. A companion file lists Wampanoags in the Earle Report by tribal group. To find all Indian individuals of 1861 by tribal group, one should consult Earle Report by Tribal Group or the alphabetical arrangement of the full Earle Report. Some of the limitations of Earle’s work are discussed in "Unseen Neighbors: Native Americans of Central Massachusetts, A People Who Had ‘Vanished." Additionally, an alphabetical roster of Wampanoags listed in the state's report of 1849 and a listing of Wampanoags of 1849 by tribal group or tribal community are available for review.

We’d welcome any response or comments you might have this posting. For more information on John Milton Earle and other materials on New England Indian history, contact Thomas L. Doughton or Nipmucnet.