Talk:History of Jamestown, Virginia (1607–1699)

Sentence needs editing

\

"The settlers who came over on the initial three ships were not well-shot for the life they found in Jamestown. In addition to the "gentlemen", who were not accustomed to manual or skilled labor, they consisted mainly of English farmers and "Eight Dutchmen and Poles" hired in Royal Prussia." See the web site History of Jamestown. Second Supply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah1607 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally remembered about this and got around to fixing it.Sarah1607 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

= Illegal aliens

no talk about these being first ILLEGAL aliens? the natives did not want english on their land75.163.193.178 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments

The article seems to downplay the roles of the original governing council for John Smith. Also, some of this seems to be very similar writing to a couple published works.

Proposed Merger with Jamestown Settlement page

I think the Jamestown Settlement page should be merged with this one, as they appear to essentially duplicate each other. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that this should be part of the main Jamestown article. It is essential to the article and does not need to be a seperate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.242.63 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Perhaps the solution is to change the name of this page from "History of the Jamestown Settlement" to "History of Jamestown".

Parts of this article seem more focused on the history of Virginia in general when it's supposed to be solely on Jamestown

86.176.85.95 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The page has likely become a history of Virginia as it was under the Jamestown years, as Jamestown served as the center of colonial growth. The question is as to what the focus of this page should be - indeed it may be ideal to include elsewhere, as that was having major effects on what was going on in Jamestown.Morgan Riley (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Jamestown Settlement is a creation, actually a type of museum and exhibit pavilion, of the Commonwealth of Virginia and has no direct relationship with Historical Jamestown or what went on there. They should be differentiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcsolb (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Jamestown Settlement" may also refer to the town and its surrounds, used such to distinguish it from the modern town nearby. Indeed, "Historic Jamestowne" is also creation. However, History of Jamestown, Virginia (1607-1699), might be more appropriate for the Article.Morgan Riley (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The parts of the article about the history should be merged, but this page should remain

I think merging the history aspects of the settlement from the Jamestown Settlement page with the History of Jamestown Settlement page is a good idea. However, I also think the Jamestown Settlement page should remain since that is the name of state run facility that does the living history that is near the actual site, Historic Jamestowne. In other words, I think the Jamestown Settlement page would be best if it just focused on the state run living history museum since there is a page that is just about Historic Jamestowne, the NPS site of the actual settlement location. Sarah1607 (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis

Rather than a general overview of the topic, as is common, the introduction to this article covers the establishment of Jamestown. I recommend that the introduction become the first section and that a new synopsis be written to replace it. Allknowingfrog (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur, as it provides little idea of scope of the article and its contents, rather is an article "in media res". Action thus taken.Morgan Riley (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming Proposal

It has been proposed by others in this page to rename the, as there is an ongoing disambiguation problem among several page: "Jamestown, Virginia", "Jamestown Settlement", and "Historic Jamestowne", along with the current page. Repeated comments on several of these pages suggest that "Jamestown Settlement" should refer exclusively to the museum operating under that name, rather than the settlement at Jamestown. It has further been suggested that this page be moved/renamed to reflect this, ergo, suggestions are needed as to what to rename the page to. Note that the article covers both the history of settlements on Jamestown Island, and the broader Virginia Colony in Tidewater. Morgan Riley (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest either History of Jamestown, Virginia (1607-1699) , History of the Virginia Colony (1607-1699) By including date ranges, it is clear that it does not refer to the history of the settlement location to the present (see Jamestown, Virginia), merely the colonial fort and city. Equally, it could be History of Jamestown, Virginia, with a hatnote to the modern history. Morgan Riley (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

One more - History of Jamestown (1607-1699), where the date range itself implicates the geographic location. Morgan Riley (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On cannibalism and executions at Jamestown

Over at the History.com is a video titled Death at Jamestown which can be seen here. As most know, History.com is a considerably reliable source when it comes to actual history and not reality programming. There are two interesting "facts" that the narrator says.

1. At about 0:23 he says, "... in the first three winters they starved, they died, they ate each other."
2. At about 0:30 he says, "John Smith finally took over the colony, imposed martial law and executed people who wouldn't work."

As for #1, this cannibalism is a known fact. My feeling is that this definitely should be documented in the article, no matter how repulsive it may be. Another reliable source is this article written by Washington Post's Michael E. Ruane in the Seattle Times.

Now about #2 and to be fair, I cannot find another reference which lays claim to Smith's ordered executions. This doesn't mean that other sources do not exist. My feeling is that if the claim is true (and not a stretch or twist of the fact that Smith ordered those not working to not eat), it most definitely needs to be documented in the article. I also feel a second source is in order since it appears to be so rare.

Any thoughts on the subject? Is one source enough for the Smith order?

MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 19:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Contact the makers of the video and ask them if they have evidence for the claim that Smith ordered executions. Underdoor (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixing Thomas Forrest In the section on First Women Settlers

In the section on First Women Settlers, "an editor wrote "The origins of Thomas Forrest and his wife have not been established. A Thomas Forest was listed as a shareholder in the Second Charter of Virginia, granted by James I to the London Company of Virginia on May 23 1609.[9] It has been suggested that Thomas Forest (the shareholder) might be the same person as Thomas Forest (the colonist). However, Thomas Forrest the colonist is described as "Gentleman", while the shareholder is listed as plain Thomas Forest. This suggests they were probably two different individuals.' ' Sir Anthony Forrest of Morborne, Huntingdonshire,[10] was also an investor in the Virginia Company. It has been suggested that Thomas Forrest, the gentleman colonist, might also have been from the Morborne family. This speculation has not been proved or disproved..''"

In fact this suggestion that "Forest" and "Forrest" are two different persons is based on an inadequate review of the records.

The original source document is on film record at the University of Virginia:

At the very bottom of the page, the name is entered at Tho^s forrest spelled with two "r"s just as the ship's manifest. Later Internet transcriptions (that the editor seems to be relying on) seemed to have dropped to one "r", but in the original source document, it is quite apparent that the shareholder's name is spelled the same as the 1608 colonist. At this moment, I am unable to find the original of the Second Supply list, but note that the Internet version spells his name Forest and his wife's name Forrest. Are we to suppose that Mistress Forrest (2 "r"s) came over alone, and coincidentally a "different individual", not married to her - a gentleman by the name of Thomas Forest (one "r") was on the same boat? It is more likely that this was a matter of spelling, not of fact. In the 17th century, spelling was not consistent... even in the 21st it is not, as can be seen where the Internet transcription did not match the penned original.

Further, the absence of Esq in the Company records does not imply two different people. Indeed there may be a much simpler explanation - the name came at the end of the page, and there was no more room for Esq. Or, it could be that Thomas did not care. As a younger son at Morbourne, he had little opportunity as landed gentry, and as there was a power shift going on from the old aristocracy to the new merchant class, it is possible that he was jumping ship, as it were, seeking adventure over status. In any case, the absence of the title Esq in the stockholder's papers is insufficient to support speculation that Thos Forrest the stockholder and Thos Forrest the colonist "were probably two different individuals"

Fact: Forrest and his 2nd wife Margaret came over on the Second Supply.
Fact. Margaret died shortly after arriving. Her remains were found in 1997 and forensic evidence suggests she died shortly after arrival (before the European food was depleted).
Fact. In December 1608, Capt Newport returns with his ship to England.
Speculation: Margaret probably died before the ship left for England.
Fact: Thomas Forrest was born May 1572 in Morborne, Huntingdonshire, England (church records)
Fact: Thomas married Elizabeth Dancastle, born Sept 16. 1570 (church records) and in 1601, they had a son, Peter, born in Morborne, Huntingdonshire, England (church records)
Speculation: Dancastle died after Peter was born in 1601, but before Thomas remarried in 1605. Very possibly Dancastle died in childbirth, a common cause of death.
Fact: Thomas married Margaret Foxe August 16, 1605 in St. Giles in the Fields, London, England. Foxe was born in 1576 in St. Giles, London, England. (church records)
Speculation: Thomas left his 7 year old son by his first marriage in England when he set out for America. This would not be an unreasonable speculation.
Fact: Thomas was listed as a shareholder on the The Second Charter of Virginia; May 23, 1609, but not on the first.
Speculation: Thomas, a gentleman and a widower shortly after arrival, did not remain in Virginia, but sailed back with Captain Newport, which is why he was listed in the 1609 English document - he was back in England.
To be verified: Thomas died in St. Mary's County, Maryland. The records suggest he came back prior to 1650, as did his son.
To be verified: Peter married Elizabeth Ironmonger in England in 1623 and Elizabeth died in Charles County, Maryland in 1660. This suggests that the Forrests returned to America after 1619, and not to Virginia but to Maryland.
Fact: Peter died in Maryland in 1665 (church records)

The facts suggest that as a lesser son (who would not inherit his father's estate) in an exciting historic period, Thomas sought to throw his lot in with the London speculators. He was adventurous and made the ocean trip with his second wife - bold in itself, as she and her maid were the first two English women to attempt such a journey in the 17th Century. When they got there, they discovered life was hard. Margaret died - according to forensic evidence her diet was English food, meaning she died before it ran out. Why would a son of landed gentry hang around? A resourceful fellow with a son back in England, on the next boat home (in December... when it was getting very cold in Virginia) he would have gone back to England, resumed his life as a London gentleman, and not come back to America until it was more civilized... i.e. settled by more Virginia Company colonists. It is known from church records that his son married in England, but then moved to America, and by the time of Thomas' grandson, the family was established in Maryland at Forrest Lodge in St. George Hundred. The lesser son became landed gentry in a new land. There also is some historic evidence that some of the founding families were not excited about Virginia, which is why they chose Maryland instead. Whatever the reason, it seems likely that the Forrests decided the more tolerant Maryland was more hospitable than Virginia.

What makes this story more interesting is that Thomas's grandmother was Catherine Beville. Her family is documented in the 700 years of Beville Family, going back to Le Sire de Beville, who came over with his knights from France with William the Conqueror to fight at the Battle of Hastings, which founded modern England. Thus, we have a family that played their part in the founding of two nations.

The conclusion that there were two Thomas Forrests, one an investor, but not a gentleman, and the other a colonist who was a gentleman, is a most unlikely interpretation. It is not that common a name, especially spelled with two "r"s, as the record now shows as fact. The editor's interpretations are less likely than the more reasonable one that Thos Forrest was one and the same person; that he was a gentleman (meaning he was of the Morbourne Forrests) and that he came to America in 1608, went back to England, but eventually he (or his son) made the move to America permanently.

The relationship between Sir Anthony Forrest of Morborne, Huntingdonshire and Thomas Forrest, brother of Anthony's father, Miles Forrest is documented in the church records of Morborne as well as in many genealogical lists. Sir Anthony was Thomas' nephew. He was the first born of Thomas' elder brother who inherited the manor. Sir Anthony was knighted in 1604. Sir Anthony was the great grandson of the first Miles Forrest, who married well in marrying Catherine Beville, but Sir Anthony's business dealings were not as sharp as his great-grandfather. (As British History online explains it: His son Miles settled the manor, with view of frankpledge, and the advowson of Morborne, in 1611, on the marriage of his son, Sir Anthony, who was knighted in 1604, with Rebecca Hampson. Sir Anthony Forrest incurred heavy debts and mortgaged the manor in 1620 to Sir Robert Beville of Chesterton (q.v.), a transaction which resulted in much litigation.). Thus, the manor Sir Anthony's great grandfather won was lost to the family of Sir Anthony's great-grandmother, the Bevilles.

For this reason, I shall correct the record. ClassicalScholar 05:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

"untreated water"

The article says "Many settlers died from drinking untreated water." This makes the silly assumption that they should have used a Water Treatment Plant like sensible folks did elsewhere. This statement might make sense if it were talking about a colony in 2013, but was anyone in the world drinking "treated water" in 1607? Any King or Pope? Any rich person or scientist? I suggest that instead of "untreated water" it read "contaminated water." Thoughts? Edison (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to assume people had been treating water, i.e. boiling it, for many centuries before Jamestown, even if they didn't necessarily understand germs, such as dysentery, until much later. Aristotle wrote about desalinating water, so I'd think people would have at least known about it for producing drinking water and the English began desalinating water on ships during that century. Considering London didn't stamp out dysentery until the last century, you are certainly correct that there was no large-scale water treatment going on anywhere in the world at that time. No longer drinking waste water likely helped too. I changed the last two sentences so they did not confuse salt and diseases. Mdlawmba (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Second Supply "Dutch-men" "Dutch-men"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jamestown,_Virginia_(1607%E2%80%9399)#Second_Supply

I am confused by this sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the "Second Supply" section:

'Among these additional settlers were eight "Dutch-men" (consisting of unnamed craftsmen and three who were probably the wood-mill-men — Adam, Franz and Samuel) "Dutch-men" (probably meaning German or German-speakers) and Polish craftsmen...'.

Removing the parentheses gives this:

'Among these additional settlers were eight "Dutch-men" "Dutch-men" and Polish craftsmen...'.

I'm pretty sure that's not good English. JMtB03 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

On page 151 of The generall historie of Virginia, New England & the Summer Isles, together with The true travels, adventures and observations, and A sea grammar - Volume 1, Captain John Smith lists the names of 55 persons, including two women, in the "Second Supply" group. He added "eight Dutch men and Poles, with some others, to the number of seaventie persons." The "some others" must have been seven in number. Perhaps something is said about the eight, and the other seven, later in the volume but this page shows nothing more. Smith's identification and enumeration is clear. No mention is made of any names in connection with this list. Any further detail comes from later in the book or from other sources. The sentence does appear to need a little editing. It seems to me that changing the parentheses to commas would be a helpful start. Donner60 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

House of Burgesses

I think the recent edits to this section have many problems, including removal of relevant material and the inclusion of material that is not significant enough for a short summary. Among the specific problems is that the British Crown could not have overturned any legislation of the House of Burgesses on July 21, 1619 since the House did not hold its first meeting until July 30, 1619, as a previous version of the section stated. Even if the Crown had done something with respect to the House on July 21, 1619, and I see nothing pertinent in the cited source, word could not have reached Virginia by July 30, 1619. So it could not have affected, much less overturned the actions of, the first meeting. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The number of survivors after The Starving Time

After reading this article, the number of survivors after The Starving Time changes from 60 to "fewer than 100" to 90. Is there a definitive answer to this? If not, then the article definitely needs reworded to reflect this. DrkBlueXG (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)