JOIN  |   eSTORE  |   LOGIN  |   SITEMAP  |   LINKS
 SEARCH 
HomeAboutMembershipProgramsPublicationsNews & EventsLegislationHomeAboutMembershipProgramsPublicationsNews & EventsLegislation


Army Magazine >> Army Magazine Archive >> ARMY Magazine - May 2007 >> HISTORICALLY SPEAKING Email this... Email    Print this Print


HISTORICALLY SPEAKING
05/01/2007

Jamestown at 400

By Brig. Gen. John S. Brown, U.S. Army retired

May 13 marks the 400th anniversary of the arrival of about a hundred English settlers at Jamestown, a site they initially called “James Cittie” in honor of King James I.

As we commemorate their establishment of the first permanent English-speaking settlement in the New World, we should also be mindful of the extent to which theirs was a military enterprise, the success of which depended on the success of its soldiers and of military precedents from that period that remain with us today.

The site chosen for Jamestown itself reflected military considerations. Fifty miles up the James River, it was far enough from the open ocean to afford early warning should the Spanish, French or pirates attempt to raid it or destroy it by sea. The small peninsula was defensible, and its relief allowed grazing shots across the water at a point where ship-borne guns would have found it awkward to engage. The Virginia Company, sponsors of the colony, took threats of attack into account. Their initial instructions directed the colonists to divide into three groups upon landing: one to erect fortifications, one to plant crops while serving as an exterior guard and one to explore. Within three weeks the fortified perimeter was complete, a “bulwarke” mounting a battery of artillery pieces at each corner. For the next several years the Virginia settlement would, by and large, be coterminous with these fortifications.

Actual attacks on the colonists came by land rather than by sea. On their first day in Virginia two were wounded by Native American arrows, and within a month several had been killed. The Virginia Company had envisioned and enjoined friendly relations with the Indians, admonishing the settlers to “Have Great Care not to Offend the naturals.” Given the priority sponsors placed upon trade—reports had it that the Indians gathered diamonds along the seashore and had chamber pots of gold—and finding a waterborne route to the Orient, amicable relations made sense. Unfortunately, along the frontier neither culture overcame its suspicion and fear of the other. Relations careened between violent hostility and apparently friendly trading, depending in part on which particular individuals were in contact with each other at the time. The most powerful of the local chiefs, Powhatan, was willing enough to coexist and trade, and on several occasions food provided by the Indians enabled the struggling colonists to survive. Losses to hunger and disease considerably exceeded losses to Indian attack.

Relative peace did not long survive the passing of Powhatan and his daughter Pocahontas, who married an Englishman. Some of the Indians had remained implacably hostile, and their numbers increased as the arrival of more settlers—especially marriageable young women—made the colony appear less and less like a trading station and more and more like an encroaching agricultural community. Indian anxiety increased when tobacco began turning a profit for the colonists and settler interest shifted to bringing further acreage under cultivation. The new Native American warlord, Opechancanough, decided on a decisive strike. In a surprise attack launched on Good Friday of 1622, his warriors massacred 347 settlers. Whatever prospects there had been for peaceful coexistence vanished overnight, and the colonists plunged into a war for their own survival.

In this crisis, the colonists were well served by a militia tradition extending back through Alfred the Great to the Anglo-Saxon fyrds, able-bodied freemen who were expected to serve as part-time soldiers. Over the years, statutes and edicts had accumulated, governing organization, training, equipment and use. The threat of Spanish invasion during the Elizabethan Era dramatically strengthened English militia capabilities, and the Jamestown settlers deployed in the warm afterglow of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. Many had military experience, and some of their leaders—such as Capt. John Smith or Gov. Sir Thomas Dale—were accomplished soldiers. Perhaps most important, the colonists proved amenable to the social discipline that crisis and universal military service imposed. Laws passed by the nascent Virginia legislature reinforced a sense of duty to which the settlers were already inclined.

Fighting continued on and off for a generation. The governor assumed responsibilities as commander in chief and appointed district commanders to conduct operations locally. Officers drilled their subordinates, secured gunpowder supplies and public weapons, and supervised fortification. Militiamen adapted to wilderness warfare, brought down game to sustain themselves and adopted Indian tactics when these gave them an advantage. In this they were occasionally assisted by Indian allies and kin, reflecting the socio-political complexities of early Virginia. With fortifications, artillery and control of the sea, the colonists could secure bases and food supplies, whereas the Indians could not. Attrition, starvation and European-introduced diseases ravaged the Indians, who dwindled down to a tiny fraction of their former numbers before the century was complete. No great battle decided the issue, but the ability of the colonists to sustain operations year after year did.

The Jamestown venture set unfortunate precedents for relationships between settlers and Native Americans, but it also witnessed military developments that have served our country well. The militia tradition survives in our National Guard, our Reserve and our general acceptance of conscription during times of crisis. The adoption of Indian tactics was but the first of many occasions wherein American soldiers demonstrated the initiative to adapt to challenging combat environments. The integration of engineering, artillery and sea control into essentially infantry campaigns indicates an early appreciation of combined arms and services. Civilian control of the military was apparent from the outset. The commander in chief—the governor—was essentially a civilian official. His role was complemented and balanced by the role of the legislature in providing guidance and resources. When the time came to flog a draft evader, the General Court passed the sentence. Thus the balance among executive, legislature and judiciary that governs us today had early roots: we can see much of our present in this past. Jamestown was America’s first sustained success for English-speaking settlers. It was also America’s first sustained success for English-speaking soldiers.

Recommended Reading:

Ferling, John E. A Wilderness of Miseries: War and Warriors in Early America (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980)

Leach, Douglas E. Arms for Empire: A Military History of the British Colonies in North America (New York: Macmillan, 1973)

Robinson, W. Stitt. The Southern Colonial Frontier, 1607-1763 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1979)



BRIG. GEN. JOHN S. BROWN, USA Ret., was chief of military history at the U.S. Army Center of Military History from December 1998 to October 2005. He commanded the 2nd Battalion, 66th Armor, in Iraq and Kuwait during the Gulf War and returned to Kuwait as commander of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, in 1995. He has a doctorate in history from Indiana University.


JOIN  |   eSTORE  |   LOGIN  |   SITEMAP  |   LINKS