Love and Hate in Jamestown

by David A. Price

  Much confusion has arisen from the fact that this census was taken “in the begininge of March 1619” (ibid., p. 168). The operation of the “old style” Julian calendar, which has its new year on March 25, is completely counterintuitive in some respects. This is one of them: March 24, 1619, is the last day of 1619, and March 25, 1619, is the first day of 1619. In other words, March 24, 1619, actually falls a year (minus a day) after March 25, 1619. Thus, “the begininge of March 1619”—right up to March 24—corresponds to 1620 in the modern calendar. (The confusing nature of this conversion is the reason I have converted old-style dates to the familiar January 1 new year throughout this book.) Extrinsic historical evidence that confirms the 1620 dating of the census is set out in McCartney (1999).

  “Council of State,” power of veto, “imitate and followe the policy”: Treasurer [Sir Edwin Sandys] and Company, An Ordinance and Constitution for Council and Assembly in Virginia (July 24, 1621), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, pp. 483–84. A half dozen men: Smith (1624), p. 266. First session: J. Pory, A Reporte of the Manner of Proceeding in the General Assembly Convened at James City (1619), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, pp. 153–54. Small timber church: McCartney (2000), vol. 1, p. 47. Notorious drunk: Carlton (1972), pp. 98 n., 145, 150, 241 n., 246 n.; Chamberlain (1965), p. 219 and n.

  The meeting: J. Pory, A Reporte of the Manner of Proceeding in the General AssemblyConvened at James City (1619), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 155. Complaint against John Martin: Ibid., pp. 157, 163.

  Driven the Kecoughtans: See p. 141. Appomattocs: Percy, A True Relation (1612?), reprinted in Narratives, p. 511; Hamor, A True Discourse (1615), reprinted in Narratives, p. 826. “Very willingly selling it”: Rolfe, A True Relation of the State of Virginia (1617), reprinted in Narratives, p. 870.

  The General Assembly voted on July 31 to ask the council in London to “change the savage name of Kiccowtan.” J. Pory, A Reporte of the Manner of Proceeding in the General Assembly Convened at James City (1619), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 161. It was renamed Elizabeth City in honor of King James’s daughter. See Hatch (1957), p. 97.

  Based on minutes of a July 17, 1622, meeting of the Virginia Company council in London, it has been suggested that the company regarded the natives as “having no right to the land” in Virginia at all. Rountree (1990), p. 72. I believe these minutes are reasonably clear in indicating that the discussion dealt instead with the internal division of powers within the company—that is, whether the governor in Virginia could assign rights to land on his own accord, or whether he could only carry out grants of land authorized by the council in London. The council opted for the latter course. Va. Co. Recs., vol. 2, p. 94.

  The specific land grant that was disputed at the meeting had been made by Sir George Yeardley to Sir Edward Barkham, Lord Mayor of London, “upon condition that he compounded for the same with Opachankano”; this in itself indicates that the English assumed native ownership of lands, unless the colonists had validly acquired them (by way of abandonment, purchase, or just conquest). The notion of valid acquisition, of course, would have been radically different for the two peoples. The English did not, however, consider themselves to have free rein at this stage over all native territory regardless of the natives’ wishes. See also the Reverend Patrick Copland’s sermon to the Virginia Company in 1622: Copland held that it was “a work of wonder” for the Lord to have moved the natives “to sell to the English and their Governor Sir George Yeardley the right and title they had to their possessions.” Copland (1622), pp. 25–26.

  Named a committee: J. Pory, A Reporte of the Manner of Proceeding in the General Assembly Convened at James City (1619), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 159. Eighteen provisions: Ibid., pp. 164–69. Violence between Chickahominies and English: Smith (1624), pp. 257, 264.

  “Extream heat” and the illnesses: J. Pory, A Reporte of the Manner of Proceeding in the General Assembly Convened at James City (1619), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, pp. 170, 176. Shelley: Ibid., p. 162. Around three hundred: Hatch (1975), p. 21. Typhoid, dysentery, or salt poisoning: Earle (1979), p. 116. Fifty-foot-by-twenty-foot church: McCartney (2000), vol. 1, p. 47. Their lasting effect: Bancroft (1834), vol. 1, p. 120.

  The White Lion: Letter of John Rolfe to Sir Edwin Sandys (Jan. 1620), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 243; letter of John Pory (Sept. 30, 1619), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 219; Smith (1624), p. 267. Dutch man-of-war commanded by a Captain Jope: High Court of Admiralty examination of Reinold Booth, HCA 1/48 (1620). Booth was a crewman on the Treasurer. His testimony is abstracted in Coldham (1984), p. 182. São João Bautista background: Sluiter (1997). “Mett with an Angola shippe”: High Court of Admiralty examination of John Martyn in Warwick v. Brewster, HCA 13/44 (1623–24). It is clear from his testimony that John Martyn is a different man from John Martin, the 1607 colonist. Martyn left London on the Neptune in 1618 as an attendant to Thomas West, Lord De La Warr, who intended to return to Virginia; Lord De La Warr died en route. Martyn’s testimony is abstracted in Coldham (1984), pp. 12–13. Estimated overall death rate: McCartney (2000), vol. 1, p. 49. “Some wet and blowing weather”: Quoted in Kolchin (1993), p. 21.

  t has been argued that the census “taken in the begininge of March 1619” demonstrates that Africans were present in the colony before the arrival of the Dutch man-of-war in August 1619. See Thorndale (1995). As explained in note 5 above, however, the date of this census falls after August 1619, and corresponds to early 1620 in the modern calendar. Researchers of Jamestown history are indebted to Mr. Thorndale for highlighting this census and providing extensive historical context.

  Treasurer arrived: Letter of John Rolfe to Sir Edwin Sandys (Jan. 1620), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 243; minutes of Virginia Company meeting of May 7, 1623, reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 2, p. 402; McCartney (2000), vol. 1, p. 49. Crewmen of the Treasurer: Examination of Reinold Booth (see note 11 above). Passenger John Martyn makes no mention of such a threat from the White Lion. Ndongo and Imbangala background: Thornton (1998). “A quasi-religious cult”: Ibid., p. 426. Luanda, thirty-six slave ships: Ibid., p. 431. Divided between men and women: See below. Tobacco harvest season: Morgan (1998), pp. 166–68. “It is a culture”: Jefferson (1787), p. 166. Africans’ status: For a sampling of the positions taken by scholars over the years, compare Hatch (1957), p. 25 (servants), and Vaughan (1972), pp. 470–71 (some were servants, but probably held longer than whites), with Morgan (1998), p. 8 (slaves), and Berlin (1998), pp. 29, 386 n. 2 (holding the evidence to be inconclusive). Until the 1640s: Morgan (1975), p. 154 n. 69. John Smith denounced: Smith (1616), p. 352. John Pory wrote: Letter of John Pory to the Earl of Southampton (Jan. 13, 1623), reprinted in James (1963), p. 11. Disappeared from England: Bancroft (1834), vol. 1, p. 134. Census of 1620: Thorndale (1995), p. 168. Won their freedom: Vaughan (1989), pp. 328–30. John Gowen: Heinegg (2001), vol. 1, pp. 1, 410. Anthony Johnson: Heinegg (2001), vol. 2, pp. 533–34; Berlin (1998), pp. 29–30.

  The census of March 1620 records thirty-two Africans in the colony—fifteen men and seventeen women. This number could imply the presence of Africans before those who arrived in August 1619. It seems unlikely, however. The arrival of Africans on the Dutch man-of-war elicited comment from two correspondents (John Rolfe and John Pory); any earlier arrival would probably also have elicited comment in one or more of the extant accounts. The apparent discrepancy between the thirty-two of the census and the number arriving in late August (the “20 and odd” bought from Jope) and early September (the one or more left by the Treasurer) might simply be the product of the ambiguous reporting of the August and September arrivals. Alternatively, it could reflect the (unrecorded) appearance of another privateering ship bringing a few Africans between September and early March.

  Regarding the sailing history of the Treasurer, see Vaughan (1972), p. 474 n. 17.

  “Mislike me not”: The Merchant of Venice, act 2, scene 1. No recorded effort to convert:
Jordan (1968), pp. 21–22. Exposed to Christianity: Thornton (1998), p. 434. Notions of black racial inferiority: Vaughan (1989), pp. 339, 349 n. 118; Jordan (1968), chapter 1. Analysis of rosters of 1624 and 1625: Vaughan (1972). The rosters are published as appendices to McCartney (2000), vol. 1.

  Alexander Whitaker himself was no longer in a position to attend to the religious instruction of the Africans, having drowned in March 1617. The Reverend Richard Buck was still on hand, however. Another minister, Thomas White, joined the colony in 1621. See Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, pp. 503, 583.

  14: MARCH 22, 1622: SKYFALL

  May 17, 1620, company meeting: Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, pp. 348, 357. Meeting with King James: Woodnoth (1651), pp. 7–8. Wriothesley elected: Craven (1964), pp. 144–45.

  Opitchapam was soon displaced: Rountree (1990), p. 66. Various writers have argued that Opechancanough was not a brother of Powhatan and Opitchapam, but the contemporaneous sources are consistent in holding that they were indeed brothers. Ibid., pp. 18–19. Opechancanough assured: Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 584; Smith (1624), p. 287. “That the best meanes”: Instructions to the Governor and Council of State in Virginia (July 24, 1621), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 470.

  10,000 acres of land: Instructions to George Yeardley (Nov. 18, 1618), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 102. “Dust and Ashes”: Minutes of Va. Co. meeting of Jan. 30, 1621, reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 1, pp. 585–86. Who arrived in May 1620: Gethyn-Jones (1982), pp. 138–39. Thorpe was officially: Minutes of Va. Co. meeting of April 3, 1620, reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 1, p. 332; Smith (1624), p. 294. “A violent mispersuasion”: Letter of George Thorpe to Sir Edwin Sandys (May 15–16, 1621), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 446.

  Georgius Thorp: Gethyn-Jones (1982), pp. 55–60. Free to enter: Waterhouse, A Declaration (1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 550. Disciplining any subordinates, dogs killed through hanging: Waterhouse, op. cit., p. 552; Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 118; Smith (1624), p. 395. “He thought nothing too deare”: Waterhouse, op. cit., p. 552. Stockham: Master Stockham’s Relation (May 28, 1621), reprinted in Smith (1624), p. 286. To embrace Thorpe’s policy: Waterhouse, op. cit., p. 550; Beverly (1705), p. 50. English-style house: Waterhouse, op. cit., p. 552; Purchas (1625), vol. 19, pp. 153, 160. By the summer: Letter of George Thorpe to Sir Edwin Sandys (June 27, 1621), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 462.

  Powhatan leader dropped hints: Letter from Council in Virginia to Va. Co. of London (Jan. 1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 584. See also Smith (1624), p. 287; Waterhouse, A Declaration (1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 552. New names: Letter from Council in Virginia to Va. Co. of London, op. cit. In the Powhatan tradition: Gleach (1997), p. 146; Kupperman (2000), p. 186; Rountree (1990), p. 73; Rountree (1989), p. 80.

  Accomac background: Rountree (1989), p. 141. Hallucinogen, of unknown origin: Percy, A True Relation (1612?), reprinted in Narratives, p. 515; letter of the Reverend Alexander Whitaker to the Reverend William Crashaw (Aug. 9, 1611), reprinted in Narratives, pp. 549–50. Dotted both sides of the James: Waterhouse, A Declaration (1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 554; Hatch (1957), pp. 32–33. Forty-two shiploads: Purchas (1625), vol. 19, p. 149. Requested from the Accomac chief: Waterhouse, A Declaration (1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 556; Smith (1624), p. 298. Cicuta maculata: Rountree (1990), p. 302 n. 41. See also Lampe and McCann (1985), p. 56. Yeardley himself went: Letter from Council in Virginia to Va. Co. of London (Jan. 20, 1623), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 4, p. 10. Sir Francis Wyatt: Instructions to the Governor and Council of State in Virginia (July 24, 1621), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 471; Smith (1624), pp. 284, 286–87. Presents and a message: Letter from Council in Virginia to Va. Co. of London (Jan. 1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 584.

  Nemattanew background: Smith (1624), p. 293; Percy, A True Relation (1612?), reprinted in Narratives, p. 517. Nemattanew incident: Smith, op. cit.; Waterhouse, A Declaration (1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 550; letter from Council in Virginia to Va. Co. of London (Jan. 20, 1623), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 4, p. 11. “The sky should sooner fall”: Smith (1624), p. 294; letter from Council in Virginia to Va. Co. of London, op. cit.; Waterhouse, op. cit.; Purchas (1625), vol. 19, p. 158.

  The several accounts are inconsistent as to the timing of Nemattanew’s shooting. John Smith, reprinting a relation from a gentleman known only by his surname of Wimp, puts it at the second week of March 1622. Edward Waterhouse similarly puts it at “about the middle of March.” Yet the 1623 letter from the council states that it occurred during the regime of Sir George Yeardley—that is, before November 18, 1621.

  The Smith and Waterhouse dating deserves precedence, and I have used it here. Although the council letter was signed by both Yeardley and Francis Wyatt, among others, the Smith and Waterhouse accounts in combination are likely more reliable about the time frame. Waterhouse had the benefit of relations from a number of colonists whose words have not otherwise survived, as well as other letters from the governor and council. The shooting of Nemattanew would have been notorious within the colony, and so it seems persuasive that the March time frame was reflected in the reports received by Smith and Waterhouse. The issue was a comparatively small point in the 1623 council letter, which was written some nine months after the fact.

  On the other hand, with regard to a conflict between Smith and the council letter on the diplomatic communications between the colony and Opechancanough, the council is more reliable, given that it would have had superior knowledge of their contents. Smith (but not the council) has Opechancanough making threats of revenge, and receiving “terrible answers” from the English. Here, Smith’s correspondent seems to be straining to explain the events of March 22 as a reaction to the Nemattanew incident, when it is clear that Opechancanough had been planning a decisive action against the English long before then.

  March 22 events: Waterhouse, A Declaration (1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, pp. 550–55; Pace, Petition to the Governor and Council in Virginia (n.d.), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 682; Letter from Council in Virginia to Va. Co. of London (April 4, 1623), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 4, p. 98; Smith (1624), pp. 294–98, 303; Beverly (1705), p. 51; Johnson (1960); Johnson (1963); Chamberlain (1965), pp. 225–26. Sixteen plantations: In the order listed by Waterhouse, they are Berkeley Plantation, Sheffield’s Plantation, Pierce’s Plantation, “other plantations next adjoining” Charles City, Berkeley Hundred, Francis West’s Plantation, John West’s Plantation, Gibbs’ Dividend, Macock’s Dividend, Flowerdew Hundred, Weyanoke, Powell-brooke, Southampton Hundred, Martin’s Brandon, Martin’s Hundred, and Bennett’s Plantation. “Not being content”: Waterhouse, op. cit., p. 551. Martin’s Hundred: Ibid., p. 570; Johnson (1963), p. 408; Smith (1624), p. 296.

  College lands: Waterhouse, A Declaration (1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 566. Ironworks: Beverly (1705), pp. 54–55. Thorpe: Ibid., pp. 552–53, 567. Wife, eight-year-old daughter: Gethyn-Jones (1982), p. 56. At least 347 English: Initial reports from the colony put the toll at 329. Johnson (1963), p. 408; Johnson (1960), p. 108. Later enumerations of the dead increased the figure to 347. Waterhouse, op. cit., p. 571; Smith (1624), p. 302. Some colonists put the figure at 400 dead. Va. Co. Recs., vol. 4, pp. 234, 524; see also Bradford (1952), p. 110. Colony’s population: Va. Co. Recs., vol. 4, p. 158. “I thinke the last massacre”: Letter of William Capps to Dr. Thomas Wynston (1623), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 4, p. 38.

  Copland delivered a sermon: Copland (1622). Raised money: Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, pp. 531, 537–40. Company’s invitation: Minutes of Va. Co. meeting of April 10, 1622, reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 1, pp. 628–29. “Blessed be God”: Copland (1622), pp. 9–10. Sea-flower: Waterhouse, A Declaration (1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 554; Davis (1955), p. 127; Chamberlain (1965), p. 225. Donne’s sermon: Merchant (1972), p. 452. See also Lim (1998), pp. 73–74. />
  Gentleman investors, members of Parliament, and divines alike: The former two categories overlapped substantially; one in seven members of Parliament was an investor in the Virginia Company. Rabb (1967), p. 128. Morninge Virginia: Merchant (1972), p. 441. Next to appear, in August: Brooke (1622), p. 259. Its former secretary: Powell (1958), p. 47. “These beasts”: Waterhouse, A Declaration (1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 551. “Because our hands”: Ibid., pp. 556–57.

  Praised the mastery: Waterhouse, A Declaration (1622), reprinted in Va. Co. Recs., vol. 3, p. 558. “And for certaine howres”: Brooke (1622), p. 274. “Those bestiall soules”: Ibid., p. 275. “Securitie, the Heaven that holds a Hell”: Ibid., pp. 279–80.

  Waterhouse predicted that the destruction of the Powhatans would not only benefit English agriculture, but also boost the abundance of wild game. “The deere and other beasts will be in safety, and infinitly increase” with the end of the natives’ intense hunting. “There will also be a great increase of wild turkies, and other waighty fowl, for the Indians never put difference of destroying the hen, but kill them whether in season or not, whether in breeding time, or sitting on their egges, or having newly hatched, it is all one to them.” Waterhouse, op. cit., p. 557.