COLONIALA Study of Virginia Indians and Jamestown: The First Century

CHAPTER 6:
A Brief Survey of Anglo-Indian Interactions in Virginia during the Seventeenth Century

Edward Ragan

The first century of Anglo-Indian interaction in Virginia can be understood as a prolonged period of adjustment for both the Native inhabitants and the European settlers. The dominant histories of Jamestown have long told of the challenges faced by the English in the permanent settlement of their "New World." Those histories have frequently overlooked the "New World" realities faced by Tidewater Algonquian communities. Structurally, the seventeenth century marked a dramatic declension in, but not a disappearance of, Native communities as they adjusted to the English presence. Decimated by disease, outnumbered Algonquian warriors were defeated militarily. Once beaten, tribal communities were subjugated politically under the English crown and categorized racially under Virginia law. The focus of this essay is that period of adjustment—physical and social—to English settlement.

Physical Adjustments

Whatever its source, death was the inescapable certainty of the Anglo-Indian encounter in the Chesapeake Tidewater. Old World diseases preyed upon Algonquian communities for at least the first century of English settlement. Infection, along with warfare, murder, and dispossession at the hands of English settlers caused Native populations to decline by about ninety percent across the seventeenth century. Sickness traveled to Native communities with the first English traders to begin the assault, and virgin soil epidemics, such as smallpox, influenza, measles, and tuberculosis, erased entire communities.¹ These contagions tended to hit hardest those between the ages of fifteen and forty: providers, protectors, and perpetuators of their communities. For the very young, these diseases were almost always lethal, if not from infection then from neglect by parents too ill to care for their own. To make matters worse, native treatments, while effective for pre-contact ailments, tended to make virgin soil epidemics more lethal. European disease did not respond to the Algonquian's customary sweatlodge and cold bath treatment, and Natives had no concept of quarantine for the sick.² It would take an entire century for Indians to incorporate the "Old World" and its dangers and almost as long for Englishmen to acclimate to the "New."

¹Thoms Hariot, A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia (London, 1590; reprint, New York: Dover, 1972), 28.

²Alfred Crosby, "Virgin Soil Epidemics as a Factor in the Aboriginal Depopulation in America," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 33 (April 1976): 292, 294-95, 296-97; James Merrell, "The Indians New World: The Catawba Experience," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 41 (October 1984): 542-46.

Newcomers to Virginia, required a "seasoning" to their new environment, and still, it was fatal for most, "not one of five escaped the first year."³ They fell victim to a host of deadly prey: "cruell diseases, ... Swellings, Flixes, Burning fevers, ... Warres [with Indians], and some departed suddenly, but for the most part they died of meere famine."⁴ Starvation, disease, and warfare threatened the immigrant daily. Unseasoned immigrants who arrived from England in the summer, when it was "very unhealthy" died "during these months, like cats and dogs, whence they call it the sickly season."⁵ One way to improve the immigrants' survival was to import them during the winter when Indian corn had been harvested and was more plentiful for trade, and the cooler climate could ease non-Natives' adjustment to Virginia.

³William W. Hening, ed. The Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature, 13 vols. (Richmond: Samuel Pleasants, Jr., 1809-23), 2:515.

⁴Alexander Brown, Genesis of the United States (Boston: Russell and Russell, 1890), 1:167; Carl Bridenbaugh, Jamestown 1544-1699 (New York: Oxford, 1980), 45.

⁵David Pietersen de Vries, New-York Historical Society, Collections, 2d ser., 3:7, 75, 77, quoted in Bridenbaugh, Jamestown, 46-47.

The First Expansion of English Settlement and the First Anglo-Powhatan War

Another solution was to get as many people out of Jamestown as possible. In 1609, John Smith was still the president of the colony, and he devised a plan to extend English settlement from the falls of the James River to its mouth on the Chesapeake Bay. This was a practical solution to feed his starving colonists. The nearby Native communities at Paspahegh and at Kecoughtan refused to sell any more corn to the starving English settlers. By moving the bulk of the population out of Jamestown, Smith hoped to take advantage of Indians further away, the Nansemond who lived downriver from Jamestown and the Powhatan (the ancestral village of the paramount chief with the same name) at the falls. For Smith, this decision was also a military opportunity to gain control of the James River valley.⁶

⁶For Smith's attempt to limit the disasterous effects of disease at Jamestown, see Carville Earle, "Environment, Mortality, and Disease in Early Virginia," in Thad W, Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, 96-125 (Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press, 1979), 107-8. For Smith's "politico-military motives," see Helen C. Rountree, Pocahontas's People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Pklahoma Press, 1990), 52&n.156.

The English sought to establish new settlements along the James River even though they had not treated the Nansemond or the Powhatan any better than they had the Kecoughtan or the Paspahegh. At Nansemond, fighting broke out when Captain John Martin and his men tried to occupy by force an island where the Nansemond had a village. After repeated attacks upon Martin's men by Nansemond warriors, the English abandoned the island and fled to Kecoughtan. Later, when Martin returned to the island to search for survivors, he found the corpses of several of his men, their mouths stuffed with bread. A clear sign of the Nansemond's contempt for Englishman who asked for too much and gave too little in return.⁷

⁷Ibid., 51-52.

At the falls of the James, the English fared little better. There, Francis West and John Smith tried to make the Indians there pay a tribute to the English in exchange for protection. "To defend him [Powhatan] against the Monacans," West insisted that the paramount chief Powhatan sell to the English the Powhatan tribal "fort and houses and all that countrie for a proportion of copper." In exchange, Powhatan's people would become tributaries of the English crown with the following conditions: "that all stealing offenders should bee sent him [to West], there to receive their punishment: that every house as a custome should pay him [West] a bushell of corne for an inch square of copper, and a proportion of Pocones as a yearly tribute to King James, for their protection as a dutie."⁸ Powhatan rejected this bold offer by the English, and his warriors continued to raid the English settlement. By late fall, West gave up and returned to Jamestown.⁹

⁸John John Smith, A Map of Virginia , in The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580-1631), vol. 1, ed. Philip Barbour, 119-289 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 270.

⁹Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 52.

By the winter of 1609/10, the English had been at Jamestown for two-and-a-half years, and still they starved. They had yet to grow crops to feed themselves, relying instead on Indians' corn. There were plenty of deer and turkey in the forests, but they did not hunt them, partially due to the Powhatan siege of James fort. Instead, they scavenged the woods for roots, nuts and berries, and they ate all manner of living animals in the fort — horses, dogs, cats, rats, mice, and snakes.¹⁰ Some even resorted to cannibalism. One man chopped up and salted down his wife, and in another case, some settlers exhumed a dead Indian to eat of his corpse.¹¹ In May 1610, at the end of the "starving time," the new interim governor, Lieutenant General Sir Thomas Gates, sailed up the James River to find "three score persons [at Jamestown] therein, and those scarce able to goe [it] alone, of welnigh six hundred, not full ten months before."¹²

¹⁰Smith, Map of Virginia, 263-64.

¹¹George Percy, "A Trewe Relacyon," Tyler's Quarterly 3 (1912), 266-69; Edmund Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom (New York: W.W. Norton, 1975), 72-73; Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 53, & n.170; Earle, "Environment," 110.

¹²Ralph Hamor, A True Discourse of the Present State of Virginia (London, 1615; facsimile reprint, 1957), 16; Bridenbaugh, Jamestown, 45; William Strachey, "A True Reportory of the Wracke and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, Knight," in Samuel Purchas, Hakluytus Postumus or Purchas His Pilgrims, [1625], 20 vols. (New York, 1905-7), 19:69; Samuel Purchas, Hakluytus Postumus or Purchas His Pilgrims, [1613] (London, 1613), 632-33.

Gates arrived with instructions to reform the colony, but when he saw its miserable state, he decided instead to abandon Jamestown. He could hardly contain the relieved settlers whom he had to restrain from burning down the fort upon their departure. It was a good thing, too. On their second day under sail, Gates's four pinnaces encountered an English relief convoy loaded with supplies, 300 soldiers, and a new governor, Thomas West, Lord de la Warr. Gates' rag-tag convoy reversed its course and returned to Jamestown. Together, Gates and de la Warr set about to reform the colony and defeat the Indians who constantly harassed the settlers along the James River.¹³

¹³Percy, "Trewe Relation," 269; Richard Morton, Colonial Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960), 26-27; Michael Leroy Oberg, Dominion and Civility: English Imperialism & Native America, 1585-1685 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 60-61; Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 54.

Gates's reforms also included a shift in Indian policy.¹⁴ The Virginia Company instructed Gates to convert the Algonquians of Tsenacomoco (Powhatan's territory) to tributaries of the English crown. This process involved English sovereignty in the land, the education of Indian children as a means to break the "superstitious" influence of Native priests, and conversion to the English mercantile economy.¹⁵ The first component of this plan involved gaining title to Indian land; the remainder were cultural objectives that sought to remake the Powhatans socially and economically.

¹⁴Wesley Craven, "Indian Policy in Early Virginia," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 1 (January 1944): 65-82. For Sir Thomas Gates's instructions (1609) on reducing Indians to tributary status, see Susan M. Kingsbury, Records of the Virginia Company, 4 vols. (Washington D.C.: Library of Congress, 1906-35), 3:12-24.

¹⁵Helen Rountree, "The Powhatans and the English: A Case of Multiple Conflicting Agendas," in Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500-1722, ed., Helen Rountree (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993), 188.

In reality, the plan was ambitious and the settlers at Jamestown, who struggled for survival themselves, could do little to entice Indians to join them. In the "necessity" that "Civil peace" could not be restored through conversion, the Virginia Company pronounced to Gates that it was "not crueltie nor [a] breach of Charity to deale more sharpely with them and to p[ro]ceede even to dache with these murtherers of Soules and sacrificers of gods images to the Divill."¹⁶ Throughout, the English failed to realize that Indians who were dispossessed of their land would be militant against Christianity, English social customs, and English presence in Tsenacomoco.¹⁷ These conflicting goals are apparent in English attitudes about how the Indians ought to be treated as humans and converts to English civilization. The Virginia Company gave the Virginia executive full "discrecion" as to which option he would choose to convert Indians.¹⁸

¹⁶Kingsbury, Records of the Virginia Company, 3:14-15.

¹⁷Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 54, 68-69.

¹⁸Kingsbury, Records of the Virginia Company, 3:14-15.

Late in summer of 1610, as the corn that would feed the Englishmen that fall ripened in the fields of Kecoughtan, Paspahegh, and Chickahominy, Gates and de la Warr made their decision. They ordered attacks on these towns to encourage Powhatan's submission to the English crown and church.¹⁹ In August, Gates sailed down the James River to Kecoughtan where he ordered his musician "to play and dawnse thereby to Allure the Indyans to come unto him." When the Kecoughtan heard the music and came down to the river's edge, Gates's men "fell in upon them put fyve to the sworde wownded many others some of them being fownde in the woods wth Sutche extreordinary Lardge and mortall wownds that itt seamed strange they Cold flye so far." The rest of the Kecoughtan scattered. Their abandoned town became English property.²⁰

¹⁹Frederick J. Fausz, "An 'Abundance of Blood Shed on Both Sides': England's First Indian War, 1609-1614," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 98 (1990): 3-56.

²⁰Percy, "Trewe Relacyon," 270; Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 54-55.

Meanwhile, De la Warr had been negotiating with Powhatan about runaway English servants. De la Warr did not like that Powhatan's acted so "prowde and disdaynefull," so De la Warr sent George Percy and Captain James Davis to attack the two tribes closest to Jamestown, the Paspahegh and the Chickahominy. Percy went to Paspahegh, where his men burned the Paspahegh's entire town, cut down their nearly ripe corn, killed fifteen townspeople, and captured the weroansqua and her children. As Percy left Paspahegh, his men grumbled that he had spared "the quene and her Children," so Percy threw the children overboard into the James River, "shooteinge owtt their Braynes in the water." Meanwhile, Captain Davis burned a Chickahominy town and its corn fields. When Percy and Davis returned to Jamestown, De la Warr was angry that Percy allowed the Paspahegh weroansqua to live. De la Warr wanted to burn her alive, but Percy had "seene so mutche Bloodshedd that day," that he requested she instead be taken into the woods and stabbed, which she was. The Paspahegh did not recover. Their survivors left to join chiefdoms nearby. As at Kecoughtan, the English now claimed Paspahegh.²¹

²¹Percy, "A Trewe Relacyon," 271-73; Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 55; Oberg, Dominion and Civility, 62-63.

It seems irrational that the settlers at Jamestown, who could not and would not feed themselves, went so far out of their way to kill Indians who willingly grew corn for the English. The winter of 1610 was not as harsh as the year before, but the English still had to rely on Indian corn to survive. De la Warr continued to prosecute his war up the James River against Algonquian communities until his health—he suffered from dysentery, gout, and scurvy—forced his retreat, first to Jamestown, and then, in March 1610/11, to England.²²

²²Ibid.

In May, 1611, the colony's new governor, Sir Thomas Dale, arrived at Jamestown with 300 soldiers to find that no corn had been planted that year and that the people were at "their daily and usuall workes, bowling in the streets."²³ Dale set about to repair Jamestown, reform the colony, and defeat Powhatan. Under martial law, Dale forced the settlers to grow and stockpile corn. When Indians attacked the English, Sir Thomas Dale ordered that "by divers and sundry executions, in killing, cutting downe, and takeinge away their corne, burning their houses, and spoiling weares, etc."²⁴ After three years of attacks and counterattacks by both Indian and Englishman, a truce was reached when Powhatan's daughter Pocahontas married the English tobacco entrepreneur, John Rolfe.²⁵

²³Ralph Hamor, True Discourse, 26.

²⁴Kingsbury, Records of the Virginia Company, 3:270.

²⁵Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 59-64.

Improved relations lessened the fear of attacks at Jamestown and at Indian villages along the James River. Most settlers moved away from Jamestown to abandoned Indian towns upriver.²⁶ This relocation helped Englishmen to escape the disease and infestation that remained at Jamestown, but it placed a new pressure on Native communities that suddenly had to turn to the English for food. In 1615, John Rolfe noted that the Indians harvest was so poor that "som of their petty Kings have borrowed this last yeare, 4. or 500, bushelles of wheat [corne], for payment whereof this harvest, they have mortgaged their whole Countries."²⁷ This began the process whereby Indians traded their homelands for corn and goods that increasingly became necessary for their survival.

²⁶Earle, "Environment," 112; Morgan, American Slavery, 82.

²⁷John Rolfe, A True Relation of the State of Virginia Lefte by Sir Thomas Dale Knight in May Last 1616 (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1971), 6.

The Tobacco Boom and the Second Anglo-Powhatan War

The Englishmen's survival in Virginia seemed more certain by 1615. John Rolfe had just sent his first sample of tobacco to London. It was the first marketable commodity produced in Virginia so far, and immediately, the colonists set to planting tobacco wherever they could find cleared land. To assist, the Virginia Company approved a plan to provide planters with fifty acre grants of land for every immigrant they transported into the colony.

From the outset of Virginia's land grant program there was fraud and scandal that threatened to upset the slender margin by which the colony survived. There were no surveyors in the colony at this time, so most of the patents were inaccurate. Another problem was the tendency for the grantee to add zeros to his grant to increase his share. One claim, for example, was made by a Captain Martin for five hundred, not fifty, acres per share. Martin's claim was contested for years to come. The combined effect of liberal land grants and a tobacco boom placed a new burden on Indian lands where ambitious men could write their own ticket. By 1618, as tobacco prices soared, the English coveted Indians' land more than ever.²⁸

²⁸Wesley Frank Craven (The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century [Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1949]) notes that due to incomplete records, much of Virginia's early land policy must be reconstructed from later action, (121, 122-130); idem., Dissolution of the Virgnia Company (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932), 88.

At the same time, the situation worsened for the Algonquian communities along the lower peninsula. An epidemic hit Virginia in the summer of 1617. Samuel Argall wrote that "a great mortality among us, far greater among the Indians and a morrain [plague] amongst the deer" as well. All life suffered in the Chesapeake that year. The "Indians [were] so poor [they] cant pay their debts & tribute."²⁹ Argall had just arrived as the colony's new governor to discover that most settlers had abandoned their corn fields that flourished under Dale's martial law. Now, they planted the poisonous, profitable sot-weed tobacco instead of life-sustaining corn. Consequently, the English were set to starve come winter.

²⁹Kingsbury, Records of the Virginia Company, 3:92.

The next year was no better. In 1618, there was a severe drought that burnt most of the corn. What little corn survived was then battered by a hailstorm before it ripened. Indian and Englishman alike were in danger of starvation. The bad weather had delayed the relief ship from England until August, but even that ship brought little relief as another epidemic swept Virginia the following year.³⁰

³⁰John Smith, The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles, 1624 . In The Complete Works of John Smith (1580-1631), vol. 2, ed. Philip L. Barbour, 25-488 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 263; Rountree, Pocahontas's People ; Morgan, American Slavery .

Amid these near continuous waves of disease and drought, the Virginia Company devised a new plan to sustain its colony, to feed its starved population, and gain firm control of the James River valley. In their "Instructions to Governor Yeardly," dated November 18, 1618, the Company laid the foundation for a more stable colony.³¹ First, it clarified the colony's land policy. Immigrants who paid for their own passage received a fifty acre grant as a headright upon arrival in Virginia. If they paid for others' passage, then grantees could claim those headrights as well. The headright became the essential element of colonial Virginia's land policy. The promise of fifty acres and the opportunity to possess more stimulated ambitious immigrants to Virginia and pushed settlement farther and farther West, to the fall line of the Chesapeake Tidewater and beyond.³²

³¹Kingsbury, Records of the Virginia Company, 3:98-109.

³²Craven, Dissolution 87-89; Morgan, American Slavery, 97-98; Oberg, Dominion and Civility, 68-69.

The Company also established a new government to administer its envisioned expansion. They created a representative government to be centered at Jamestown that consisted of "the Governor, the Counsell of Estate, and two Burgesses elected out of eache Incorporation, & ['Particular'] Plantation."³³ Four boroughs were created along the James River to establish representation and to concentrate settlement for trade and defense. From the falls of the James River to its mouth, the boroughs were Henrico, Charles City, James City, and Kecoughtan (renamed Elizabeth City).³⁴ Each borough sent two burgesses to the assembly. The "particular plantations"—"Capt. John Martins Plantn," "Smythes Hundred," "Martins Hundred," "Argalls guisse," "Flower dieu Hundred," Captaines Lawnes Plantation," and "Captain Wardes Plantation"—also sent two burgesses each.³⁵ These plantations were the largest in the colony. For example, Smith's Hundred included over 80,000 acres along the James River. It was organized in 1617 by Virginia Company adventurers Sir Thomas Smith and Edward Sandys, the Earl of Southampton.³⁶

³³H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 13 vols. (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1905-1915), 1:7, 10.

³⁴It should be noted that these boroughs did not function as county organizations in any independent administrative sense.

³⁵McIlwaine, Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1:7.

³⁶Craven, Southern Colonies, 122-29.

When the Virginia Assembly convened in July 1619, one of its first objectives was to encourage "some of the better disposed of the Indians to converse wth our people & to live & labor among them." The assembly instructed planters to employ Indians "in killing of Deere, Fishing, beatting Corne, & other workes" that reflected traditional roles performed by Algonquian men and women in their Native communities. The assembly encouraged Indians to move into the English settlements, although the assembly advised planters that Indians should be housed "apart by themselves, and lone inhabitants by no meanes to entertaine them" and "that a good guard in the night be kept upon them for generally (though some amongst many may proove good) they are a most trecherous people."³⁷ Thus, the central disjunction between Anglo and Indian communities was set. The Virginia Company in London and the new colonial assembly at Jamestown wanted to depend on Indians' labor to feed and support the colony, and it also wanted to segregate Indians from English society to avoid the indiscriminate killing of each by the other.

³⁷McIlwaine, Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1:9-10.

Reverend George Thorpe, who was sent to Virginia by the London Company in 1620, maintained that Indians were human beings worthy of being brought into English society.³⁸ Most, in the colonies and in London, remained generally ambivalent about how to deal with the Natives.

We pray you also to have especial care that no injurie or oppression be wrought by the English against any of the natives of that country, whereby the present peace may be disturbed and ancient quarrels (now buried) might be revived. Provided nevertheless that the honor of our nation and safety of our people be still preserved and all manner of insolence committed by the natives be severely and sharply punished.³⁹

³⁸Kingsbury, Records of the Virginia Company, 2:94-95; 3:469, 487; Helen Rountree, "The Powhatans and the English," 188-89.

³⁹Thorpe quoted in ibid..

On the ground, settlers had little use for Indians, and the idea that "the only good Indian was a dead Indian" became a reality. Thorpe summarized the real attitude of Virginians when he said, "There is scarce any man amongst us that doth soe much affoord them a good thought in his hart and most men with theire mouthes give them nothinge but maledictions and better execrations."⁴⁰ Thorpe was a specific target of the Indians due to his efforts to Christianize their children. In this instance, Thorpe vocalized the frustration of trying to effect Indian policy in the face of conflicting ideologies.

⁴⁰Kingsbury, Records of the Virginia Company, 3:346; Christian F. Feest, "Seventeenth Century Algonquian Population Estimates," The Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 28:66-79; Rountree, Powhatan Indians, 15.

In this setting, Tidewater Algonquians felt little need to acquiesce to English demands. They did not send their children to live among the English, and likewise, Native peoples successfully resisted English culture. But the English appropriated Indian land, and they segregated Indians from white settlement. From the Indians' perspective, the English had been bad neighbors. In response, on March 22, 1622, Opechancanough led a surprise attack to slow the spread of English settlement up the James River valley and to remind the English of their dependence on the Natives. The Pamunkey war chief and his bowmen struck the English colony and killed 347 colonists of the colony's roughly 1,200 residents.

In response to the attack on English settlement, the English declared "perpetual enmity" against Indians.⁴¹ The colonial militia launched annual attacks and seized Indian corn. In fact, for the rest of the 1620s, the colony survived on seized Indian corn. In 1632, a severe drought left little corn for the English to confiscate, and it probably helped end the second Anglo-Powhatan war.⁴² When peace and rain returned, settlers focused their agricultural endeavors, once again, on their precious tobacco.

⁴¹H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670-1676 (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1924), 184-85; Hening, Statutes, 1:140, 141, 153; Craven, "Indian Policy," 73.

⁴²Martha W. McCartney, "Seventeenth Century Apartheid: The Suppression and Containment of Indians in Tidewater Virginia," Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 1 (1985):56.

To protect the colonists's dispersed plantations and their undefended fields from future Indian attacks, Harvey extended a line of English settlement across the lower peninsula. In 1632, the Assembly offered fifty acres to any man who would settled along this defensive line. When completed in 1633, a six mile palisade stretched from the James River to the York River and enclosed the lower peninsula. This "pale" formalized a pattern of Indian segregation from white settlement that would become a hallmark of the Virginia frontier.⁴³

⁴³Hening, Statutes of Virginia, 1:139-40, 199, 208; Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 8 (1900):157-58; Craven, "Indian Policy," 74; Oberg, Dominion and Civility, 177-79. Williamsburg, at this time, marked the half-way point between the two rivers, hence its name, Middle Plantation.

For as long as the English had been in Virginia, the Natives had dominated the power relationship. In 1608, Captain John Smith counted 2,400 Powhatan warriors, or 13,000-15,000 total inhabitants. By 1624, the Algonquian population may have declined to as low as 5,000.⁴⁴ Likewise, from December 1606, when the first ships departed England, to February 1624, 6,040 out of 7,289, or six out seven, immigrants to Virginia had died. Between 1621 and 1623 alone, the Virginia Company estimated that over 2,500 colonists' had died from scarcity and disease, while fewer than 350 had been killed in the Opechancanough's attack in 1622.⁴⁵ The peace of 1633 helped the English to recover their health and their numbers. However, peace did not stop the spread of infectious diseases and noxious Englishmen into Native communities.

⁴⁴Rountree (Pocahontas's People ) estimates the number of Powhatans in 1624 at 5,000, (78-79). Clearly the first two decades of English settlement devastated Indian populations.

⁴⁵Bridenbaugh, Jamestown, 48-49. John Camden Hotten, The Original List of Persons of Quality ... and Others Who Went from Great Britain to the American Plantation, 1600-1700 (London, 1874), 201-65; Wesley Craven, Red, White, and Black: The Seventeenth-Century Virginian (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1971), 3.

The Third Wave: English Settlement and Anglo-Indian War

The Virginia colony had been at peace with the Powhatan chiefdom since 1633. Sir John Harvey, the governor and captain general of Virginia who crafted the delicate peace, understood the need to expand the Virginia frontier and secure it from those Natives whose homes the Virginians had destroyed. In this mix of frontier expansion and defense, divisions arose between provincial authority and local government. At the top, the governor sat as the crown's representative. The colony's leading men were the governor's council. They were principals in the administrative, political, and financial success of the colony. Beneath them was the House of Burgesses, a body of leading men elected by the freeholders of the colony. The burgesses came from the counties most influential families, and they confirmed the governor's appointees to the local courts. The county court system was designed "to do justice in the redressing of all small and petty matters."⁴⁶

⁴⁶"A Brief Description, etc.," Colonial Records of Virginia, (State Senate Doct. Extra, 1874), 81, quoted in Philip A. Bruce, Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, 2 vols. (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1910), 1:485.

In 1634, in response to rapid population growth and territorial expansion, Governor Sir John Harvey expanded the local court system to provide additional local administrative and political authority. He created eight counties along the lower peninsula (between the York and James rivers) and south of the James River.⁴⁷ Harvey designated the region between the Rappahannock and Potomac rivers as the Chicacoan district. Harvey hoped to keep the district free of English settlers and avoid another Indian uprising like the one that devastated the James in 1622. For the next fifty years, the county government influenced the local planter more immediately than did the provincial government at Jamestown.⁴⁸ This frequently pitted the governor against the county courts, where the Burgesses mediated. Yet the governor was so opposed by the councilors, who, in 1635, "thrust out" Governor Harvey because his conservative, orderly vision of expansion did not correspond to the territorial aggrandizement expected by leading and powerful councilmen, burgesses, and local landowners.⁴⁹

⁴⁷Hening, Statutes, 1:223; Craven, Southern Colonies, 169. East from the falls of the James River, the counties were Henrico, Charles City, James City, Warwick River, Charles River (York), Warrosquyoake, and Elizabeth City. The eighth county, Accomac, was on the Eastern Shore.

⁴⁸Warren M. Billings, "The Causes of Bacon's Rebellion: Some Suggestions," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 78 (October 1970), 411; Oberg, Dominion and Civility, 187.

⁴⁹For Harvey's "thrusting-out," see J. Mills Thorton, III, "The Thrusting-Out of Governor Harvey: A Seventeenth Century Rebellion," VMHB 76 (1968); Oberg, Dominion and Civility, 176-79. For a thorough discussion of Virginia's governmental structure in the seventeenth century, see Bruce, Institutional History, 1: 463-646 (County Courts); 2: 374-390 (Council), 403-521 (House of Burgesses). Craven, Southern Colonies .

Sir Francis Wyatt returned as interim governor, on January 12, 1640/1. His return signaled a renewed expansion of English plantations as the Grand Assembly of Virginia voted to open the Rappahannock River for settlement the following year.⁵⁰ The assembly set the entry price high enough to prevent excessive settlement. Each patentee had to purchase at least 200 headrights with at least six "able tithable persons in every family that there sit down."⁵¹ At fifty acres per headright, each patentee would be required to seat 10,000 acres, and before that could be done, the patentee had to demonstrate that he had entered into a formal "Compound with the Native Indians whereby they [both Indian and Englishman] may live more securely."⁵² By 1642, when the measure took effect, Sir William Berkeley, Virginia's new governor and captain-general, had arrived. At the June assembly, Berkeley tried to undo this act entirely. He failed outright to stop new patents but succeeded to keep unseated those new patents in the Rappahannock valley. The assembly reserved that "it should and might be lawfull for all persons to assume grants for land there [north of the Rappahannock River]," provided that the land be seated only with the assembly's approval. To encourage rampant speculation on the Rappahannock River, the assembly allowed that, unlike the rest of the colony, patents along the Rappahannock could be made "without exact survey."⁵³

⁵⁰Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 9:53.

⁵¹Ibid.

⁵²Ibid.

⁵³Hening, Statutes, 1:274, marks the re-enactment of the legislation in March 1642/43.

Within two months, John Carter made the first land patents along the Rappahannock River. On August 15, 1642, Carter patented 1,300 acres near the mouth of the Rappahannock River along its north bank near its junction with the Corrotoman River. Carter was a burgess from Upper Norfolk County who lived on the Nansemond River south of the James River.⁵⁴ On November 4, 1642, his Nansemond neighbors, councilman Richard Bennett, William Durand, and Captain Daniel Gookin patented a 4,200 acres, thirty-five miles up the Rappahannock River.⁵⁵ The Bennett and Durand patents were on the south side of the river. Durand's patent included the Indian town Neincoucs, which was perhaps a former Opiscopank town. Gookin's patent was on the north side, directly across river from Bennett and Durand and very near the Moraughtacund capital town on Morratico Creek.⁵⁶ None of these patents were seated, but each patentee anticipated that the Indians would soon abandon their towns as they had done on the lower peninsula and south of the James. The English coveted Indian towns the most because abandoned villages meant cleared home sites for English settlement, open fields for English crops, and clear paths to the next Indian town.

⁵⁴Nell Marion Nugent, Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia's Land Patents 4 vols. (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1934-1979), 1:132.

⁵⁵Ibid., 1:138-39. Bennett patented 2,000 acres, Durand patented 800, and Gookin patented 1,400.

⁵⁶Thomas Warner, History of Old Rappahannock County Virginia 1656-1692 (Tappahannock: printed privately, 1965), 14. The Bennett-Durand property line later became the boundary between Old Rappahannock (1656) and Middlesex Counties (1669).

Continued tension between Indian and Englishmen in the lower Tidewater caused Opechancanough, in 1644, to lead a second attack to check English expansion up the lower peninsula, beyond the Middle Plantation line.⁵⁷ Opechancanough's confederates killed nearly 400 colonists. The Virginians struck back against all Indians for they assumed that all were guilty. In June 1644, the Council began to plan their northern neck campaign against the Indians. Without real consideration that the tribes there may not have joined in Opechancanough's attack, the Council voiced strong support for action, except for councilor William Claiborne, whose "opinion [was] different from others in relation to the propriety of War upon the indians between the Rappahannock and Potomac."⁵⁸ The pitch for revenge was so great that Claiborne's dissent was noted only in passing. The Council went ahead with their war plans, and on September 3, 1644, voted to attack the Rappahannock's corn.⁵⁹ No record exists of the attack, and it is likely that Claiborne's "opinion" gained favor over the winter as the Council realized the advantage it could gain by cultivating good relations with Algonquian communities along the Rappahannock River while making war plans against Opechancanough.

⁵⁷Oberg, Dominion and Civility, 180-81; Frederic W. Gleach, Powhatan's World and Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Culture (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 73-84.

⁵⁸McIlwaine, Minutes of the Council and General Court, 501.

⁵⁹Ibid., 502.

Accordingly, on February 26, 1644/5, as the Council prepared for another march against Pamunkey, it also sought "the service of some Indians either of Achomack [eastern shore] or Rappahannock [to] be treated with and entertained for further discovery of the enemie."⁶⁰ To secure a Rappahannock alliance, the Council commissioned Captain Claiborne to "treat with the Rappahannocks or any other Indians not in amity with Opechancanough, concerning serving the county against the Pamunkeys"⁶¹ Guided by these Native scouts for the next two years, the English struck with a vengeance at the heart of the Pamunkey's Algonquian alliance. They attacked the Powhatan towns, seized their crops, burned their towns, and dislodged them from the James and York river valleys. The defeated Powhatan chiefdom concluded a general peace with Virginia and its governor, Sir William Berkeley.⁶² The defeat of this paramount chiefdom meant the degradation of all Virginia's Native people.

⁶⁰Hening, Statutes, 1:293. This is a clear indication that the Rappahannock were not part of Opechancanough's paramount chiefdom and did not take part in the uprising.

⁶¹McIlwaine, Minutes of the Council and General Court, 563.

⁶²Hening, Statutes, 1:323-26.

In 1646, the Englishmen in Virginia succeeded in their four-decade effort to reduce the Algonquian chiefdoms of Tsenacomoco to tributary status.⁶³ The articles of peace dated October 5, 1646, asserted English rights of conquest over all Virginia Indians.⁶⁴ Defeated, the paramount chief, Necotowance, now held his dominions as a vassal of the English king. He acknowledged the sovereignty of the English crown and agreed to pay an annual tribute of twenty beaver skins.⁶⁵ While not a substantial tribute, it was an annual recognition of the crown's dominion, and it was an annual reminder of the responsibilities and rights that tributary status conveyed. Among the responsibilities, the tributaries were required to gain English approval for tribal leaders. More importantly, all Indians were required to vacate the region between the James and York Rivers from Kecoughtan (the tip of the lower peninsula, or, modern day Hampton, Virginia) northwest to the fall line.⁶⁶

⁶³The Indians in Virginia were called "tributaries" after they were defeated militarily and required by English law to pay an annual tribute to the crown

⁶⁴Rountree (Pocahontas's People, especially Chapter Five, "A Declining Minority," 89-127) asserts that 1646 marks the beginning of Powhatan decline. For Virginia Indian policy through 1662, see Craven, "Indian Policy," 65-82. For the legal status of Virginia Indians, see W. Stitt Robinson, "The Legal Status of the Indians in Colonial Virginia," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 61 (July 1953):247-59. Robinson traces three classes of Indians—tributary, foreign, and individuals living as freemen in the colony without tribal ties—for Virginia's entire colonial period. A subsequent article by Robinson ("Tributary Indians in Colonial Virginia," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 67 [January 1959]:49-64) examines tributaries exclusively but concludes that the "mutual benefit evident in the tributary system in Virginia modifies, if it does not refute completely, the glib generalization—in which even scholars occasionally indulge—that for the English the only good Indian was a dead Indian," (64).

⁶⁵Later tributary treaties changed the specific tribute due—animal pelts, arrows, fish, deer, and fowl—but importantly, a tribute is still paid to the governor every Thanksgiving.

⁶⁶Hening, Statutes, 1:323-24.

The English were now the sole occupants of the lower peninsula. No Indian could "repaire to or make any abode upon the said tract of land, upon paine of death, and that it shall be lawfull for any person to kill any such Indian,"⁶⁷ Points of entry were established at Fort Royall (for the north side—Pamunkey River) and Fort Henry (for the south side—Appomattox River), and Indian messengers had to obtain a permit and a striped coat, which verified the authority of the permit, to travel within this region. In effect, only authorized Indians could enter the area of English settlement. This treaty expanded the cultural and legal segregation of Indian from English, which contradicted the Anglo-Virginians stated desires to remake Indians as Englishmen.

⁶⁷Ibid.

Necotowance was to encourage the Indians to send their children, "not above twelve yeares old," to live with the English.⁶⁸ Tributary children, especially, were desired as servants. This demonstrates the extent to which the English would go to obtain free labor. By assimilating the children and keeping captive Indians as slaves, Virginians hoped to break traditional Algonquian social influences—of family and religion—and thus, remake Indians in English ways.⁶⁹

⁶⁸Ibid., 326.

⁶⁹For the earliest plan to convert Indians, see "Instructions Orders and Constitucons to Sr Thomas Gates Knight Governor of Virginia, May 1609," Kingsbury, Records of the Virginia Company, 3:14-16.

Of course these responsibilities were not without rights. The tributaries were guaranteed military support against their enemies, and it is in this sense that this relationship is viewed as an alliance. The proximity between white and Indian settlement meant that it was in the colony's interests to defend the tributaries from attacks by "foreign" Indians. The principal right given to the tributaries was the freedom to inhabit the north side of the York River without interference from the English, excepting those parts that were already settled, from Poropatanke downward, or, the southern tip of the middle peninsula, that is, Gloucester County. The 1646 treaty outlined the pattern of expanding white settlement and demonstrated English desires to ensure that settlement continue in a peaceable manner. Given peace with the Algonquians, immigration to Virginia increased, the English population grew, and the 1646 treaty facilitated settlement among tributary Indians.⁷⁰

⁷⁰The best account of this demographic shift is Morgan, American Slavery, 133-57. For greater use of quantitative data, see Richard S. Dunn, "Servants and Slaves: The Recruitment and Employment of Labor," in Colonial British America: Essays in the New History of the Early Modern Era, 157-94, eds., Jack P. Greene and J. R. Pole (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984). Craven, "Indian Policy," 76-77.

Indians were left to inhabit lands north of the York River, where the English were prohibited from going except to recover their property (i.e, runaway servants). The treaty with Necotowance was Act I of the 1646 legislative session. Act VI, presumably passed not too much later—hours or days—opened settlement north of the York River.⁷¹ Certainly this raises questions as to the Assembly's sincerity in protecting Indian's land. The Assembly's efforts were never intended to defend Indians for long against ambitious settlers. Thus, the pattern was confirmed. Military defeat gave way to greater expropriation of Indian land by Virginians who were not content to remain south of the York River, or for that matter, south of the Rappahannock River.⁷²

⁷¹Hening, Statutes, 1:323-26, 329; Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 87.

⁷²Despite continued English encroachment north, there was relatively little movement west. This is due to at least two factors. First, the Indians that lived west of the fall line were notably more hostile. Their warring ability explains, in part, why Powhatan had not extended his empire beyond the fall line. The English had yet to secure all of Tidewater Virginia. By contrast, northern expansion was facilitated by numerous rivers and creeks.

Shortly after the York River was opened for settlement, the rich farmland there was patented. In every instance, the protection of Indian land was subsumed to white demands for land. Plantations were established in the Rappahannock and Potomac basins, which were still legally off-limits to Englishmen. Eager to gain huge tracts of riverside land, rapacious Virginians paid little attention to the law. In an attempt to reduce the hostility between Indians and Englishmen, the Virginia Assembly was forced to protect Native rights to their land. In 1652, the Assembly passed an act stating that there would "be no grants of land to any Englishman whatsoever de futuro until the Indians be first served with the proportion of fiftie acres of land for each bowman."⁷³ The measure demonstrates the attempt by provincial authorities to codify and regulate Indian land rights. At the same time, that codification was defined in English terms: fifty acres was the headright received by importers for each indentured servant that entered the colony.⁷⁴ By apportioning land at the same rate for Indians and Englishmen, the Assembly created an "Indian headright" and actuated a plan to remake the tributary Indians as subsistence farmers. Thus, control of land and the drastic reduction of Indian territory became a primary means through which Indian identity was altered.

⁷³For successive patents see Nugent, Cavaliers and Pioneers, 1:324,353, 362, 407, 457, 505. For legislation that guaranteed fifty acres for each bowman see Hening, ed., Statutes of Virginia, 1:382, 456-7.

⁷⁴Anyone who settled in Virginia received a headright of fifty acres. In the case of indentured servants, that headright was conveyed to the person who funded their passage. See Kingsbury, ed., Records of the Virginia Company, 3:100-1, 107; Morgan, American Slavery, 94. For the 1660 to 1705 period, see ibid., 328-37. Morgan lays out the legal status of Virginia Indians to illustrate their role in Virginia's labor system as servants and slaves. My interpretation differs from Morgan, in that, I connect the legal status of Indians to English efforts to create a biracial society.

An Act for Civilizing Indians

On March 10, 1655/6 the Virginia Council passed another plan for civilizing Indians. A central component of this act was the introduction of Indian severalty, or separate property, to the tributaries. First, to combat the wolves that threatened settlers and livestock alike, the Assembly granted to the tributaries one cow for every eight wolf heads delivered to county officials. It was asserted that "this will be a step to civilizing them and making them Christians."⁷⁵ The connection between cattle and Christianity is clear in that animal husbandry was a component of settled agriculture, which (by English standards) was necessary for both Christianity and civilization to take root.⁷⁶ Implicit here were metropolitan desires to reconstruct the Algonquian economy along English lines.

⁷⁵The following year (March 1657/8), the colony-funded wolves for cows plan was scrapped in favor of a county-funded wolves for tobacco plan. See Hening, ed., Statutes of Virginia, 1:456.

⁷⁶Nicholas Canny, "Ideology of American Colonization: From Ireland to America," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd. ser., 30 (October 1973): 585-6.

While colonial officials were content to influence adult Indians through economic means, they sought to remove Indian children from their native environment and educate them as Englishmen. The second part of this plan restated the education policy laid out by the provisions of 1646 tributary treaty. The Assembly maintained that if "the Indians shall bring in any children as gages of their good and quiet intentions to us and amity with us, then the parents of such children shall choose the person to whom the care of such children shall be intrusted and the country by us their representatives do engage that we will not use them as slaves, but do their best to bring them up in Christianity, civility and the knowledge of necessary trades."⁷⁷ In effect, these children were hostages ("gages of their good and quiet intentions") designed to ensure the tributaries good behavior. The daily reality was that children were servants, a source of labor.

⁷⁷Hening, ed., Statutes of Virginia, 1:396. This measure was written into 1646 treaty and had been restated in March 1654/5, see ibid., 410.

The Protection of Indian Lands

Concurrently, the colonial legislature enacted measures to ensure some form of protection for Indians against unscrupulous land deals. All sales of Indian land had to be approved by the Assembly.⁷⁸ This measure did little else than ease the tensions of the present situation. It did nothing to address English land practices, and by 1658, the Assembly had to reaffirm the 1652 provision guaranteeing fifty acres for each bowmen.⁷⁹ This guarantee of land—a de facto reservation—while formally acknowledged by the Council, did not last for long. English encroachment continued despite repeated rulings to secure Indian land rights.

⁷⁸Ibid., 396.

⁷⁹Ibid., 456-7.

Anglo-Virginians never doubted the eventual demise of Indian land titles, and they believed that fair legislation both ensured the peaceful transfer of land and kept tributaries within Virginia's settled boundaries—a defensive measure that was necessary for the Virginia plantation to survive. Remember, that according to the 1646 tributary treaty, the Algonquian chiefdoms and the English had a military alliance, and despite English efforts to segregate Indians from whites, the tributaries, reduced numbers notwithstanding, remained an essential defensive component of frontier settlement. In truth, Algonquian decline was real, and by 1669 the tribal populations had fallen by over 60 percent.⁸⁰ These losses were due to epidemic disease and warfare and resulted in weakened Algonquian communities. Increasingly, the English perceived the tributaries as less "savage" and more dependent—objects to be pitied, not feared.

⁸⁰In 1669, the colony counted 725 Powhatan warriors. This translates into rough population of 4,000. See Hening, ed., Statutes, 1:274-75.

A Changing Native Culture

As tributaries, the Powhatan's began to lose the "savage" personae that Englishmen felt typified the Indian. The tributary Indians continued to pose a danger to Virginia settlement, but Indian attacks during this time were directed at specific individuals, not on the colony as a whole. The Algonquian threat, when compared to non-tributary, "foreign" Indians, had been greatly reduced.⁸¹ Evidence of this decline is apparent in the language of a 1663 act addressed to "Northerne Indians." This specific measure was aimed at the Potomacs, but the message was clear for Doeg, Piscattaway, and Susquehannock, all of whom lived north of the Potomac River, continually raided English plantations, and threatened expansion on the Northern Neck.⁸² The language in this measure was harsh and precise:

[D]eliver such hostages of their children or others as shall be required; and if they or any of them shall refuse to deliver such hostages as shall be required, that the nation to be declared as an enemy and proceeded against accordingly ... . And as we have endeavoured for the future to provide for the safety of the country that such hostages be delivered as shall be required, soe it is also enacted that the hostages to be delivered shall be civilly used and treated by the English to whose charge they shall be delivered, and that they be brought up in the English literature (soe far as they are capable).⁸³

⁸¹This owed both to a reduced Indian population and a tremendous increase among Anglo-Virginians. The numbers are telling: In 1640, Virginia's population was 8,000; by 1650 it had nearly doubled to 15,000; ten years later it approached 40,000.

⁸²The Northern Neck is the peninsula that lies between the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers.

⁸³Ibid., 2:193-4.

Contrast this with the language used for the tributaries in 1656 where Indian children were "gages" of their parents' "good and quiet intentions."⁸⁴ The images are similar in that children were seen as the means through which Indian society must be recreated. The differences arise in how each was conveyed. For the tributaries, children were "gages"; for hostile Indians, children were "hostages" who would be educated "soe far as they are capable."

⁸⁴Ibid., 1:396.

Despite this apparent distinction in degrees of perceived savagery, colonial legislators agreed that Indians were to have equal justice with whites.⁸⁵ This demonstrates, in some sense, that the English understood that civilizing Indians was a process. Indians were afforded legal rights equivalent to whites because, at this time, Virginians conceived of Indians more in ethnic-class terms than in racial ones.⁸⁶ In that, Indians had equal access to the law, especially those who converted to English ways.

⁸⁵Ibid., 2:194.

⁸⁶Edmund Morgan (American Slavery ) argues that white racism toward blacks grew out of white hatred of Indians. He writes that by 1676 the whites "were doubtless prejudiced against blacks as well and perhaps prejudiced in a somewhat greater degree than they were against Irishmen, Spaniards, Frenchmen, and other foreigners. The Englishmen who came to Virginia, of whatever class, learned their first lessons in racial hatred by putting down the Indians," (328).

Detribalized Indians

The English wished to detribalize the Virginia tributary Indians.⁸⁷ For most of the seventeenth century it was possible for a detribalized Indian to enter the lower or lower-middle levels of white English society. For this period, however, there is only one extant record of a detribalized Indian participating in white society.⁸⁸ In 1665, Edward Gunstocker, or "Indian Ned," of Nanzatico patented 150 acres on the north side of the Rappahannock River. His patent was approved by Governor Berkeley but only after he had paid headright for three Englishmen to come to Virginia.⁸⁹ Apparently, Indian Ned developed an equitable relationship with local Virginians and for a time tried to mediate Indian-Anglo disputes in the lower Rappahannock basin.⁹⁰ By March 1666, however, opposition from his own tribe necessitated that he be put under English protection.⁹¹ During Bacon's Rebellion, Gunstocker joined the English in their war on the Indians. He made a will leaving everything to his wife Mary, whose ethnic identity is unknown.⁹² Again, this is the only extant record of a detribalized Indian in the seventeenth century, and it suggests both reluctance on the part of Indians to leave their cultural roots and tribal identity and establish themselves in English culture and an unwillingness on the part colonists to accept such Indians in white society.

⁸⁷Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 135.

⁸⁸In all likelihood there were several Indians who detribalized. The problem here is that records from the counties with the largest concentration of Indians (namely New Kent) were destroyed by fire during the Civil War.

⁸⁹Nugent, 1:566; Conway Robinson, "Notes from the Council and General Court Records, 1641-1682," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 8:64-73, 162-70, 236-44, 407-12 237.

⁹⁰Old Rappahannock County, Deeds, 2:201-202 (printed in William and Mary Quarterly, 2d ser., 18:297-98); "Stafford County Records, 1664-1668, 1689-1693," Virginia Magazine of History Biography 44:192; Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 95).

⁹¹Old Rappahannock County, Deeds, 3:257-8 (printed in William and Mary Quarterly, 2d ser., 16:590).

⁹²Old Rappahannock County, Deeds, 6:76 (printed in William and Mary Quarterly, 2d ser., 16:593).

Tributary Indians

Just as Virginians moved to secure the legal rights of detribalized Indians, they reinforced their dominion over the tributaries. In October 1665, the Virginia Assembly passed a series of measures designed to further regulate tributary actions. It appointed Indian commissioners for each county to oversee Indian affairs. The assemby also restricted tributary sovereignty and eliminated each group's power "to elect or constitute their owne Werowance or chief commander."⁹³ This differed from the 1646 provision: in the earlier instance, the tribe retained the power to nominate leaders who were then approved, or rejected, by the governor of Virginia. The 1665 measure arbitrarily transferred the power of appointment to the governors-general who "shall constitute and authorize such person in whose fidelity they may finde greatest cause to repose a confidence to be the commander of the respective townes."⁹⁴ In this manner, the English continued their attack on Indian sovereignty.

⁹³Hening, Statutes, 2:219.

⁹⁴Ibid.

"Lives and Liberties"

Joined to this act was a proviso that stated if an Englishman was murdered, "the next towne shalbe answerable for it with their lives or liberties to the use of the publique."⁹⁵ This pointed the way to a pattern of increased dominance whereby Indians were made answerable "to the use of the public." In real terms, this policy justified the wholesale removal of Indians from their land, and the sale of those Indians into involuntary servitude, if not outright slavery. This raises the specter of Indian servitude and slavery.

⁹⁵Ibid.

It had been the policy of the Virginia Assembly to extend servitude to Indians as a means of bringing them to English civility. At the same time, chattel slavery increased as Virginia's labor needs grew beyond what the servant headright system could incorporate. This was particularly true after 1660. While the new slaves were predominantly black, there were a considerable number of Indian slaves — imported from the Carolinas — living in Virginia.⁹⁶ To regulate Indian slaves' interaction with white-Virginia, the colony passed laws designed to regulate the personal aspects of Indian life. While frequently directed at "servant" Indians, these laws were applied generally to all Indians.

⁹⁶It is important to understand the premium that Virginians placed on labor. To exploit resources in Virginia, settlers depended heavily upon imported labor. Initially they relied upon indentured servants. High mortality rates and an expanding economy made social mobility a real possibility. By mid-century a drop in tobacco prices combined with increased production and decreased mortality rates resulted in a large class of restless men who kept Virginia in a constant state of turmoil. This unrest culminated in Bacon's Rebellion, which, in addition to addressing real political grievances, was centered on issues of race and class.

In 1670 the Assembly considered the status of Indian laborers. After debating whether Indians sold in Virginia by other Indians (who captured them in tribal wars) should be slaves for life or for a term of years. At the time it was decided that servants who were not Christians and who were brought into the colony by land (Indians from other regions) should serve for twelve years or (if children) until thirty years of age. The same act stated that non-Christian servants brought in "by shipping" (Negroes) were to be slaves for life. Thus Africans purchased from traders were assumed slaves but Indians were not. In 1682 the Assembly eliminated the difference, making slaves of all imported non-Christian servants.⁹⁷

⁹⁷Long quote from Morgan (American Slavery, 329) is based on Hening, ed., Statutes, 2 :283, 490-92.

Model Virginians

In 1670, Governor Berkeley reported that there were 6,000 indentured servants and 2,000 slaves in Virginia. The question remains, then, what happened between 1670 and 1682 that precipitated the shift from white indentured servants to non-white chattel slavery and, in the process, so hardened attitudes toward Indians? The answer is Bacon's Rebellion, an event that signaled the demise of English efforts to remake tributary Indians as Englishmen and inaugurated a series of laws that further isolated Indians socially and categorized them racially as non-white. This divergence is best realized by tracing the lives of Baconian partisans, with a particular emphasis on William Byrd I. Byrd was a supporter, first of Bacon, and, then, of those royalist forces who crushed the rebellion, sacked the inept and inefficient Berkeley oligarchy, and paved the way for a royalist resurgence in Virginia. Byrd is exemplary here because he survived the events of 1676 and by the end of the century was the most powerful planter in Virginia—a model of imperial acculturation.

William Byrd, the Elder

William Byrd I arrived in Virginia in 1669 at the age of seventeen. This son of a London goldsmith was the apprentice and sole heir to his maternal uncle Colonel Thomas Stegge, Jr.⁹⁸ Stegge, who had been the colony's auditor-general since 1664, was the son of Thomas Stegge, Sr., a commissioner to the county court of Charles City and a member of the Virginia Council from 1642 until his death in 1652.⁹⁹ The younger Stegge died in 1670, and his widow, Sarah, married Lt. Colonel Thomas Grendon, also a commissioner to the county court of Charles City.¹⁰⁰ The establishment of this lineage is significant for it lays out the potential for antipathy that existed between Byrd and Berkeley in that the elder Stegge supported the Commonwealth government against the royalist Berkeley and that the younger Stegge's widow was one of the most vocal anti-Berkeleyans.

⁹⁸The First Gentlemen of Virginia: Intellectual Qualities of the Early Colonial Ruling Class (San Marino: Huntington Library, 1940), Chapter 11, "The Byrds' Progress from Trade to Genteel Elegance," 312-47. Considerably more has been written about Byrds' son and grandson, William Byrd II and III.

⁹⁹Craven, Southern Colonies, 268 n16. The elder Stegge was lost at sea in 1652 while returning from England as a commissioner to the Commonwealth government. He was carrying orders "for the reduction of the Virginia colony," (259) and the removal of Berkeley. Needless to say, Berkeley was not endeared to the Stegge family.

¹⁰⁰Sarah's opposition to Berkeley was well known throughout the colony. See Stephen Saunders Webb, 1676: The End of American Independence (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984; reprint, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995), 5, 6, 20-21, 106, 157.

From Stegge, Byrd inherited a plantation in Henrico County complete with a storehouse of goods for trade with the Indians. Stegge, along with Edward Bland and Abraham Wood had extended trade relations to the south and west, first through the Occaneechee and later with the Cherokee across the Appalachians. When Byrd arrived, Wood maintained the trade monopoly, but Byrd quickly established himself as a master of Indian affairs and was "regarded as a future successor of Colonel Wood."¹⁰¹

¹⁰¹Pierre Marambaud, "A Young Virginia Planter in the 1670s," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 133.

Nathaniel Bacon, the Younger

In 1674, Nathaniel Bacon, the younger, arrived in Virginia with equally favorable connections to gentility but more favorably received by Berkeley than Byrd had been. Bacon was described as

about four or five and thirty years of age, indifferent tall but slender, black haired of an ominous, pensive, melancholy Aspect, of a pestilent & prevalent Logical discourse tending to atheisme in most companyes, not given to much talke, or to make suddain replyes, of a most imperious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arogant.¹⁰²

¹⁰²"The Royal Commissioners' 'Narrative of Bacon's Rebellion," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 4 (October 1896): 122. This description of Bacon was given after the rebellion, and they adjectives used to describe him are probably tainted by his actions. Regardless, this excerpt provides valuable insight into Bacon's character as a shrewd and ambitious. Bacon's impatience with neighbors was no doubt indicative of his feelings toward the antiquated Berkeley and his oligarchical cohort.

Bacon's ambitions and pride were not satisfied in Virginia despite being elevated to the Council soon after his arrival. In keeping with Berkeleyan tradition, he was afforded this opportunity as he was cousin to both Lady Berkeley and the councilor Nathaniel Bacon, Sr. He quickly staked out land for himself in Henrico County not too far from Byrd. Both plantations were at the outer edge of the frontier, and Bacon developed a keen interest in the lucrative Indian trade. In September 1675, Byrd and Bacon offered to purchase the Indian trade monopoly held by Wood from Berkeley but were rebuffed.¹⁰³

¹⁰³Wilcomb Washburn, The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957), 17-19.

"A War against All Indians"

Earlier that summer (July 1675) on the Northern Neck, a dispute arose between Thomas Mathew and a band of Doeg Indians living in Maryland. The Doeg claimed that Mathews had cheated them in trade. As retaliation, they raided Mathews' plantation and took some of his hogs.¹⁰⁴ In response, Mathew gathered several of his neighbors and pursued the Indians. He caught up with them, beat some and killed others, and reclaimed his hogs. Again, the Doeg retaliated, this time killing two of Mathew's servants and Mathew's son.

¹⁰⁴Virginians, then as now, take their pork very seriously.

Following this, the Northern Neck militia under Giles Brent and George Mason set off in pursuit of the murdering Doeg. In their search, Brent came across a Doeg village, he questioned the weroance, who denied any knowledge of the event, and when the weroance tried to run away, Brent shot him. A firefight ensued and another ten Indians were killed. Mason, who in the meantime had split off from Brent's forces and surrounded some Indians in their cabin, heard the gunfire. The Indians inside the cabin heard the engagement as well and when they rushed out, Mason's militiamen opened fire killing fourteen Indians. Mason realized that the Indians he had killed were Susquehannocks, a nation who maintained peaceful relations and a lucrative trade with Virginia.¹⁰⁵

¹⁰⁵"Mathew's Narrative," in Charles M. Andrews, ed., Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915), 17.

In the confusion that followed, Berkeley sent John Washington and Isaac Allerton to investigate.¹⁰⁶ Unable to locate the Doeg, who by this time had dispersed into the backcountry, Washington and Allerton rendezvoused (in late September) at the Maryland fortress occupied by the Susquehannock. There, they met the Maryland militia under Thomas Truman, and it was decided that they would lay siege to the Susquehannock fort. During the siege, five Susquehannock sachems came out to negotiate with the Virginians and the Marylanders, but the English "caused the [Indian] Commissioners braines to be knock'd out."¹⁰⁷ The siege continued, and in mid-October the Susquehannock (some 1,000 strong) crept out of their fort while the English slept.

¹⁰⁶Westmoreland County Records, Deeds and Wills, fol. 232, printed in William and Mary Quarterly, 1st ser., 4 (1895-1896), 86.

¹⁰⁷"The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion," in Andrews, ed., Narratives, 47-48, quoted in Oberg, "Dominion and Civility," 424.

The Susquehannock crossed the Potomac resolving "to imploy there liberty in avenging there Commissioners [sachems] blood, which they speedily effected in the death of sixty inossescent souls."¹⁰⁸ Afterwards, the Susquehannocks, displaced from their land base in Maryland, "moved over the heads of Rappahannock and York Rivers, killing whom they found on the upmost Plantations until they came to the head of the James River, where ... they slew Mr. Bacon's Overseer whom He much Loved, and of his Servants, whose Blood Hee Vowed to Revenge if possible."¹⁰⁹ According to Berkeley, "that barbarous Nation kild about six and thirty men, women and children in the freshes of the Rappahannock River, and since that they kild two men at Mr. Bird's House."¹¹⁰ Both Byrd and Bacon suffered the depredations of Indian warfare on the frontier. It mattered little to them or their fellow frontiersmen that the murder of white Virginians was caused by the impetuosity of their white neighbors on the Northern Neck.

¹⁰⁸"Cotton's Narrative," in Peter Force, ed., Tracts and Other Papers Relating Principally to the Origin, Settlement, and Progress of Colonies in North America, 4 vols. (Washington D.C.: Peter Force, 1835), 1: no., 9, 3, quoted in Oberg, "Dominion and Civility," 424.

¹⁰⁹"Mathew's Narrative," in Andrews, ed., Narratives, 19-20.

¹¹⁰Governor Sir William Berkeley to Thomas Ludwell, April 1, 1676, Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 20 (July 1912): 248.

Not long after, Byrd and Bacon gathered with other Henrico planters to discuss their frontier predicament.

Now this man being in Company with one [James] Crews, Isham and Bird, who growing to a highth of Drinking and making the Sadness of the times their discourse, and the ffear they all lived in, because of the Susquehannocks who had settled a little above the Falls of the James River, and comitted many murders upon them; among whom Bacon's overseer happen'd to be one, Crews and the rest persuaded Mr. Bacon to goe over and see the Soldiers on the other side of the James river and to take a quantity of Rum with them to give the men to drinke, which they did, and (As Crews &c. had before laid the plot with the Soldiers) they all at once in field shouted and cry'd out, a Bacon! a Bacon! a Bacon! which taking Fire with his ambition and Spirit of ffaction & Popularity, easily prevail'd on him to Resolve to head them, His Friends endeavouring to fix him the ffaster to his Resolves by telling him that they would also go along with him to take Revenge upon the Indians, and drink Damnation to their Soules to be true to him, and if hee could not obtain a Commission they would assist him as well and as much as if he had one; to which Bacon agreed.¹¹¹

¹¹¹Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 4 (October 1896): 122-5.

It made little difference that immediately after the Susquehannock had exacted their revenge for the murder of their chiefs, they appealed to Berkeley to conclude a peace.

The governor first rejected the Susquehannock overtures and called out the militia to march against the murdering Indians. Then, Berkeley countermanded his order and disbanded the militia.¹¹² As late as spring 1676, Berkeley had not acted, and the frontier counties, namely Henrico, New Kent, and Surry, were on the verge of revolt. The frontiersmen wanted the authority to appoint Bacon as their commanders and pursue the Susquehannock, but Berkeley refused.

¹¹²British Public Records Office, Colonial Office, 5/1371, 189, in Oberg, "Dominion and Civility," 425.

Ignoring the governor's demands, Bacon proceeded, with the encouragement of Byrd, to make preparations and gather men to attack the Indians. Baconians were comprised largely of propertied men with land and power and freemen with neither.¹¹³ Both groups lived on the frontier and were faced with the revenge of "foreign" Indians for injuries done them by frontier militias and the arbitrary acquisition of their lands by colonists. The Baconians rise to power was precipitated by their demands for a war "against all Indians in general for that they were all Enemies."¹¹⁴ Additionally, Baconians were united by a general feeling that Virginia's antiquated oligarchy, with Berkeley at the helm, was unconcerned with their needs and unresponsive to their calls for a war against all Indians.¹¹⁵ In short, Bacon wanted to eliminate the northern tribes who had been ravaging the frontier in response to increased white encroachment; to eliminate those tribes within the settled regions of Virginia in order to gain access to their rich lands that could be used for agricultural production; and to eliminate the Occaneechee as a way of destroying Berkeley's control of frontier Indian trade to the West and the South.

¹¹³Several interpretations of Bacon's Rebellion have prevailed. For its race and class connections, see Morgan, American Slavery, 250-70. T. J. Wertenbaker (Torchbearer of the Revolution Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940]) offers a pro-Bacon perspective while Washburn (Governor and Rebel ) favors Governor Sir William Berkeley. For the rebellion's imperial implications, see Webb, 1676, 3-165, 409-16.

¹¹⁴"This," Bacon reported, "I have alwayes said and doe maintain." See Nathaniel Bacon to William Berkeley, Coventry Papers, 67:3, quoted in Morgan, American Slavery, 255.

¹¹⁵Webb, 1676, 21-25.

The political dimension of Bacon's actions was centered around Berkeleyan social and political control. There was resistance by "substantial planters to the privileges and policies of the inner provincial clique led by Berkeley and composed of those directly dependent on his patronage... . Their discontent stemmed to a large extent from their own exclusion from privileges they sought."¹¹⁶ The principal objective in attacking the Indians, aside from the belief that the only good Indian is a dead one, was to lash out at Berkeleyan elites. The two principal recipients of Baconian revenge were the Occaneechee (Berkeley's primary trading partners) and the Pamunkey (Berkeley's principal tributary tribe and historic leader of the Powhatan paramount chiefdom).

¹¹⁶Bernard Bailyn, "Politics and Social Structure in Virginia," in Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development, Stanley Katz, et al., 4th ed (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993), 29.

The English crown responded to Berkeley's ineptitude and Bacon's rebellious acts (whose political antics must wait for a fuller description) with royal commissioners and a royal military presence. Charles II appointed Colonel Herbert Jeffreys, Captain Sir John Berry, and Colonel Francis Moryson to investigate the causes of the rebellion. Berry's naval squadron (with Moryson on board) arrived in Virginia on January 29, 1676/7; Jeffrys, who sailed aboard the royal frigate Rose, arrived on February 11. The autonomous Berkeley resented the intrusion into "his" Virginia by royal representatives. In this, Berkeley proved to be just as obstinate as the Baconians. At every turn he endeavored to thwart Jeffrys investigation, and he persisted in exacting revenge against the Baconians despite a general royal pardon. However, Berkeley was able to continue his revenge only for a short time. In May 1677 he was deposed by Jeffrys and returned to England where died in July before facing the charges that had been leveled against him.¹¹⁷

¹¹⁷Webb, 1676, 163.

Pro-Bacon rebels ascended to power after the after 1676 by joining the royalist resurgence in Virginia. Byrd, who fought with Bacon against the Occaneechee in May 1676, was, after Bacon's death on October 26, still part of those Baconian rebels who actively sought to overthrow Berkeley's government. Byrd had established his headquarters at Tindall's Point (Gloucester). "There Captain William Byrd's Baconian quarters were at the plantation of Colonel Augustine Warner." On January 9, 1676/7, "Bacon's first follower, Captain William Byrd of Henrico, redeemed his rebellion."¹¹⁸ He joined the Berkeleyan Admiral Robert Morris less than three weeks before the royal commissioners arrived in Virginia.

¹¹⁸Ibid., 84, 98.

In the end, the Baconians despised the pre-1676 status quo in Virginia more than they opposed royal oversight. Or differently put, Baconians used the royal officers to undermine William Berkeley and his "Green Spring Faction" and enter the positions of power that Berkeley had denied them. In this sense, Bacon's Rebellion heralded the arrival of a new ruling elite. Jeffrys utilized the now-repentant Baconians, such as Byrd, who cooperated with a resurgent royalism in return for a pardon previously issued, to perpetuate the new royal government of Virginia. In October 1677, Byrd was elected to the House of Burgesses (from Henrico County) for the first time. He replaced the rebel Bacon who had been elected at the outset of the rebellion.

Jeffrys promised "imperial action and internal reform" to the complaints made against Berkeley.¹¹⁹ He accomplished this objective in three ways. First, the crown's officers imposed royal rule in the form of military and political presence. Second, the royal pardon was extended throughout Virginia as a way to eliminate the rebels hesitation in cooperating with the crown. "Finally, by their collection of both county and individual grievances against the old regime and by their systematic cultivation of revolutionary leaders (and of others outside the Berkeleyan clique), the king's men had built political bases for imperial rule both in public opinion and in a new class of rulers, responsive to royal orders."¹²⁰ Thus, in the aftermath of the rebellion, "royal officials recognized the aspirant newcomers to Virginia, the leaders of the revolution, as part of the province's new ruling class."¹²¹

¹¹⁹Marambaud, "A Young Virginia Planter in the 1670s," 141.

¹²⁰Webb, 1676, 162.

¹²¹Ibid., 154.

This is really the critical turning point around which this period hinges. The upshot of all this is that these anti-Indian, anti-Berkeleyan forces were elevated to power by a royalist resurgence that sought to check the excessive independence of Berkeley and his Green Spring faction. In the process, those who ascended to power did so with a tradition of anti-Indian sentiment gained from their experiences on the frontier and in the administration of county affairs. Individuals attuned to closer oversight and now faced with eliminating factional identities in Virginia began to conceive of a biracial system where all whites, regardless of class, were placed in league against all non-whites, regardless of ethnic diversity. These individuals, who had been unable to effect the annihilation of all Indians during the rebellion seized this opportunity to enact legislation that eliminated Indians as threat by categorizing them with other non-whites in an increasingly biracial Virginia.

In the end, the Baconians despised the pre-1676 status quo in Virginia more than they opposed royal oversight. Thus, Bacon's Rebellion heralded the arrival of a new ruling elite.¹²² With the Baconians defeated and Berkeley recalled to London, the crown forged a peace with the Indians. In 1677, the treaty of Middle Plantation reaffirmed the Indians' tributary status and recounted their rights and responsibilities. The most significant aspect of this treaty was a three mile boundary that was established around all Indian towns across which no Englishman was to settle.¹²³ In reality, this, like all previous measures designed to protect the Indians' right to occupy the land, was disregarded by settlers and unenforced by colonial officials. The English moved closer to Indian communities both to oversee Indian activities and to gain legal title to unused Indian land.

¹²²Bailyn, "Social Structure in Virginia."

¹²³"Treaty of Middle Plantation," reprinted in Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 14 (1906): 289-96. For secondary interpretations, see Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 100-1; Martha W. McCartney, "Cockacoeske, Queen of Pamunkey: Diplomat and Suzeraine," in Powhatan's Mantle: Indians of the Colonial Southeast, eds., Peter H. Wood, et al (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989).

A Watchful Eye

Increasingly, tributaries were required to submit to the watchful eye of their white neighbors. In April 1679, to ensure that friendly Indians were not mistakenly killed, the Assembly passed a measure

that all and every Indian towne have speedy notice, that if at any tyme any of them ... shall happen to meet with any of our soldiers ranging in the woods, or shall come neare any our plantations or people in any place or places whatsoever, that they must not flye, hide themselves or make any opposition, and that if they doe, they may be proceeded against with all manner of hostility as enemies; but if they shall stand peaceably and discourse the English, and give true accompt who and what they are, and upon approach lay down their armes, that then they shalbe civilly treated and noe harme shalbe offered or be done to them.¹²⁴

¹²⁴Hening, Statutes, 2:438-39.

Thus, all Indians were subject to white approval of their comings and goings. While the increase in the number slaves—both red and black—over indentured servants resulted in more legislative action with respect to race, Virginia legislators began to categorize free Negroes, mulattos, and Indians as distinct from both slaves and whites. As slavery became more entrenched, and Virginia's society more polarized racially, the tendency was to move toward a biracial classification of white and non-white society.

Biracial Virginia

In November 1682, the Assembly readdressed the status of Indian laborers. In a reversal of the 1670, Virginians eliminated the difference between non-Christian Indian servants and non-Christian Negro slaves by making "slaves of all imported non-Christian servants."¹²⁵ This act set the further development of slavery on a squarely racial foundation. Indians and Negroes were henceforth lumped together in Virginia legislation, and white Virginians treated black, red, and intermediate shades of brown as interchangeable. Even the offspring of a mixed Indian and white couple were defined as mulattos... . But Indian blood was evidently considered less potent than that of blacks, since not only a black parent but even a black grandparent or great-grandparent was enough to make a person qualify as mulatto."¹²⁶

¹²⁵Indian slaves were never used in such numbers to constitute a significant portion of the slave labor force, but successive acts (1670 and 1682) opened the market to Indian slavery. Edmund Morgan has explored the issue of Indian slavery as part of his research on black slavery in colonial Virginia. While Morgan does not offer exact numbers, he concludes that "at the time when Virginians were beginning to buy Negro slaves in large numbers, they were also buying Indians. Indians were thus seen within the settlements more commonly than they ever had before, and they were seen as slaves," (American Slavery, 330). This paper does not attempt to address the issue of Indian slavery, only to demonstrate the hardening of racial attitudes that were associated with increased slavery and their effect on the legal status of tributary Indians. See ibid., 328-33; Hening, Statutes, 2:490-92.

¹²⁶Morgan, American Slavery, 329, 329 n44.

The leaders of "white" Virginia wanted to keep it that way, and the admixture of African blood came to symbolize that which was non-white. Act II declared that Indian women tithables and ordered "to pay levies in like manner as negroe women brought into this country doe, and ought to pay."¹²⁷ This is significant because Indian women were linked to African women in terms of their value as laborers. Both were tithable because they were viewed primarily as field labor. By contrast, white women were generally indentured as domestics, and, in that, they were not tithable.¹²⁸ Again, these acts serve to illustrate the intolerance that was made explicit after Bacon's Rebellion, but they also point to the direction of future Indian law. The legal statues continued to erode Indian identity, first as warriors, then as sovereigns. Virginians expropriated Indian land, then moved on Indian labor. The progressive intrusion of English law into the Indian world further segregated Indians from white society and increasingly categorized all non-whites universally.

¹²⁷Hening, Statutes, 2:492.

¹²⁸A few white women were indentured for agricultural purposes; this status was generally reserved for women with tarnished reputations.

Here, the Virginia colony made clear its intent to create a biracial society. In April 1691, Virginia passed its first anti-miscegenation law, "An Act for Suppressing Outlying Slaves." The Assembly banned intermarriage between a free "white man or woman ... [and] any negroe, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free." Those violating this act would be" banished and removed from this dominion forever."¹²⁹ A secondary component of this act, which as its title suggests dealt with a variety of slave issues, laid out the penalty for English women who had bastard children "by any negro or mulatto." Interestingly, there was no penalty assessed for having the bastard child of an Indian. This association of Indians with negroes and mulattos in the first instance and the separation from negroes and mulattos in the second suggests the ambivalence that still existed over Indians, there place in society, the propriety of illicit relations with but illegality of marriage to, and their future significance within the colony.

¹²⁹Ibid., 3:87.

In 1705, the Assembly passed a series of laws, known collectively as the "Black Codes" directed toward the non-white inhabitants of Virginia. Of particular significance, no "negro, mulatto, or Indian" could vote, hold office, or testify in court proceedings.¹³⁰ Until 1705, Indians in Virginia had access to English law, although they did not have the status of Englishmen in courts.¹³¹ After 1705, Indian status was markedly altered and reduced to that of other non-whites. The effect was that these "handicaps, together with penalties for miscegenation, successfully dissociated them [Indians] from whites, however poor."¹³² Thus, 1705 was a watershed for Virginia-Indian relations. It marked the culmination of sixty years in which the colonial authority tried to remake the Indian, first in English ways, and then, as part of a larger category of non-white other that was systematically segregated from white Virginia.

¹³⁰Ibid., 3:250-51.

¹³¹Rountree, Pocahontas's People, 101.

¹³²Morgan, American Slavery, 337.

Conclusion

This tragic history is one of English settlers who endeavored to incorporate Tidewater Algonquian communities into an emergent Anglo-Virginia. That conversion to English ways included remaking Indian peoples religiously as Christians and socially as servile labor. There were unintended adjustments as well. It took generations of Algonquian children to develop immunity to English pathogens. In addition, conflict and removal from ancestral communities further reduced families already weakened by disease. By the early eighteenth century, the Tidewater Algonquian solution was clear. Slowly, Algonquian communities withdrew and isolated themselves along the sparsely populated peninsular ridgelines. Paradoxically, the place that Tidewater Algonquians found for themselves in Virginia's eighteenth-century was on the margins of the dominant society.

Bibliography

Andrews, Charles M., ed.
1915 Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Bailyn, Bernard
1993 "Politics and Social Structure in Virginia." In Stanley Katz, et al., eds. Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berkeley, Governor Sir William to [Thomas] Ludwell, April 1, 1676
1912 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 20:248.

Billings, Warren.
1970 "The Causes of Bacon's Rebellion: Some Suggestions," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 78:409-35.

Bridenbaugh, Carl
1980 Jamestown 1544-1699. New York: Oxford.

Brown, Alexander
1890 Genesis of the United States. Boston: Russell and Russell.

Bruce, Philip A.
1910 Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. 2 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

Canny, Nicholas
1973 "Ideology of American Colonization: From Ireland to America." The William and Mary Quarterly. 3rd. ser. 30: 575-98.

Craven, Wesley Frank
1932 Dissolution of the Virginia Company. New York: Oxford University Press.

Craven, Wesley Frank
1944 "Indian Policy in Early Virginia." The William and Mary Quarterly. 3d ser. 1:65-82.

Craven, Wesley Frank
1949 The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Craven, Wesley Frank
1971 Red, White, and Black: The Seventeenth-Century Virginian. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Crosby, Alfred
1976 "Virgin Soil Epidemics as a Factor in the Aboriginal Depopulation in America." The William and Mary Quarterly. 3d ser. 33:289-99.

Dunn, Richard S.
1984 "Servants and Slaves: The Recruitment and Employment of Labor." In Jack P. Greene and J. R. Pole, eds. Colonial British America: Essays in the New History of the Early Modern Era. 157-94. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Earle, Carville
1979 "Environment, Mortality, and Disease in Early Virginia." In Thad W, Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. 96-125. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press.

Fausz, Frederick J.
1990 "An 'Abundance of Blood Shed on Both Sides': England's First Indian War, 1609-1614." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 98:3-56.

Feest, Christian F.
1973 "Seventeenth Century Algonquian Population Estimates." The Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 28:66-79.

Force Peter, ed.
1835 Tracts and Other Papers Relating Principally to the Origin, Settlement, and Progress of Colonies in North America. 4 Vols. Washington D.C.: Peter Force.

Gleach, Frederic W.
1997 Powhatan's World and Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Culture. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Hamor, Ralph
1957 [1615] A True Discourse of the Present State of Virginia London, 1615; facsimile reprint, 1957.

Hariot, Thomas
1972 [1590] A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia. London, 1590; reprint, New York: Dover.

Hening, William W., ed.
1809-1823 The Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature. 13 Vols. Richmond: Samuel Pleasants, Jr.

Hotten, John Camden
1874 The Original List of Persons of Quality ... and Others Who Went from Great Britain to the American Plantation, 1600-1700. London.

Kingsbury, Susan M.
1906-1935 Records of the Virginia Company. 4 Vols. Washington D.C.: Library of Congress.

McCartney, Martha W.
1985 "Seventeenth Century Apartheid: The Suppression and Containment of Indians in Tidewater Virginia," Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 1:51-80.

McCartney, Martha W.
1989 "Cockacoeske, Queen of Pamunkey: Diplomat and Suzeraine." In Peter H. Wood, et al, eds. Powhatan's Mantle: Indians of the Colonial Southeast. 173-95. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

McIlwaine, H. R., ed.
1905-1915 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia. 13 Vols. Richmond: Virginia State Library.

McIlwaine, H. R., ed.
1924 Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670-1676. Richmond: Virginia State Library.

Merrell, James
1984 "The Indians New World: The Catawba Experience." The William and Mary Quarterly. 3d ser. 41: 537-65.

Morgan, Edmund
1975 American Slavery, American Freedom (New York: W.W. Norton.

Morton, Richard
1960 Colonial Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Nugent, Nell Marion
1934 Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia's Land Patents. Vol. 1. Richmond: Virginia State Library.

Oberg, Michael Leroy
1999 Dominion and Civility: English Imperialism & Native America, 1585-1685. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

[Old] Rappahannock County, County Records. Tappahannock, Virginia.

Percy, George
1921-1922[1612] "A Trewe Relacyon, [1612]" Tyler's Quarterly 3:259-82.

Purchas, Samuel
1613 Hakluytus Postumus or Purchas His Pilgrims. London.

Robinson, Conway
1990 "Notes from the Council and General Court Records, 1641-1682," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 8:64-73, 162-70, 236-44, 407-12.

Robinson, W. Stitt
1953 "The Legal Status of the Indians in Colonial Virginia." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 61: 247-59.

Robinson, W. Stitt
1959 ("Tributary Indians in Colonial Virginia." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 67:49-64.

Rolfe, John
1971 A True Relation of the State of Virginia Lefte by Sir Thomas Dale Knight in May Last 1616. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Rountree, Helen C.
1990 Pocahontas's People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Rountree, Helen C.
1993 "The Powhatans and the English: A Case of Multiple Conflicting Agendas," in Helen Rountree, ed. Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500-1722. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Smith, John
1986 A Map of Virginia. In Philip Barbour, ed., The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580-1631). Vol. 1. 119-289. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Smith, John
1986 The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles, 1624. In Philip L. Barbour, ed. The Complete Works of John Smith (1580-1631). Vol. 2. 25-488. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Strachey, William.
1905-1907 "A True Reportory of the Wracke and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, Knight." In Samuel Purchas, Hakluytus Postumus or Purchas His Pilgrims [1625], 20 Vols. New York.

Thorton, J. Mills, III
1968 "The Thrusting-Out of Governor Harvey: A Seventeenth Century Rebellion," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 76: 11-26.

"Treaty of Middle Plantation
1906 [1682] " Reprinted in Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 14: 289-96.

Warner, Thomas
1965 History of Old Rappahannock County Virginia 1656-1692. Tappahannock: printed privately.

Washburn, Wilcomb
1957 The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Webb, Stephen Saunders
1984 1676: The End of American Independence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Wertenbaker, Thomas J.
1940 Torchbearer of the Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Westmoreland County Records
1895-1896 Deeds and Wills, fol. 232. Printed in The William and Mary Quarterly. 1st ser. 4: 86.

COLONIALA Study of Virginia Indians and Jamestown: The First Century

CHAPTER 77:
A Seventeenth Century Chronology Drawn from Colonial Records with Contemporary Native Perspectives

Danielle Moretti-Langholtz and Angela L. Daniel

Introduction

For thousands of years, diverse native societies flourished on a continent later to be known as North America. In the late 16th and 17th centuries, the expansionist ideology of Europe brought change, upheaval and destruction to those indigenous societies. While the history of the colonial encounter has been told primarily from a non-native perspective, a careful examination of colonial documents and recorded history provides a glimpse of the impact of these events had on Native Peoples. These selected events are combined in this chapter with a time line produced from English records in the left column and contemporary Native commentary in the right column.

Detail of "Their sitting at meate," by Theodor de Bry, 1590.

Native Voice

"Virtually all of the early attempts to establish colonies would have failed if the Indians had not assisted the white men from across the waters in obtaining food. The Indians were frequently described by the colonists, upon first contact as friendly and trusting. The encounters soon fell into an all familiar pattern: friendly curiosity, helpfulness and with growing experience, deepening distrust, fear and hostility.

In their attempts to establish a colony on Roanoke Island, the English destroyed what had begun as a friendly, helpful relationship. Sir Richard Grenville burned an Indian village over the alleged theft of a silver cup. Captain Ralph Lane, after receiving a friendly reception, attacked Chief Wingina due to a false allegation that Wingina was planning a large scale attack. Captain Lane's man servant caught and beheaded the wounded Chief Wingina. The English won the battle but lost the war. The "Lost colony" may have been the result."

— Oliver L. "Fish Hawk" Perry
Nansemond Chief Emeritus
September 16, 1989

"You have to start with the Spaniards."

— Kirk Moore
Pamunkey Tribal Member
March 8, 2004

1606

November 20, 1606
King James I grants a charter to the Virginia Company of London, authorizing its investors to establish a colony in "Virginia."¹

1607

Arrival of English in Tsenacomoco, which the English called "Virginia."²

April 26, 1607
Captain Newport's three ships, the Susan Constant, Godspeed, and the Discovery, enter the Chesapeake Bay and land.³

April 30, 1607
Indians at the village of Kecoughtan (present-day Hampton Roads) welcome the English after Captain Newport puts his hand on his heart, showing they come in peace. Other villages, such as Paspahegh and Kiskiak also extend hospitality.⁴

May 1607
The English sail up the Powhatan River, and rename it in honor of their King James. They enter a peninsula-like projection of land in the Paspahegh's country.⁵

Native Voice

"We welcomed the English. They would not have survived without our assistance."

— Chief Stephen Adkins
Chickahominy Tribe
March 4, 2004

"Why do you think the English built a fort? It was not to keep the Indians out, but to keep the Spaniards out."

— Keith Smith
Nansemond Tribal Member
March 4, 2004

"When the English settlers arrived at Jamestown in 1607, the Tidewater area of Virginia had been inhabited for thousands of years by Native Americans. There were many tribes with very specialized religions, life styles, customs and political structures. The tribes were not nomadic but were very settled with large areas of land cleared for agriculture. The Powhatan tribes were located along the waterways and had observed European ships entering the Chesapeake Bay to capture Indians for the slave trade since the mid-1500s. They had witnessed and experienced the deadly effects of cannons, muskets and hangings. T h e Indians provided the early settlers with food and taught them how to plant corn, to hunt and fish. The need for land and food supplies increased as more ships and many people continued to arrive and the settlement expanded rapidly. The foreign invaders forced the Indians off their ancestral homeland, confiscated their cleared fields, destroyed their longhouses and canoes, stole their corn and desecrated their temples."

— Oliver "Fish Hawk" Perry
Nansemond Chief Emeritus
September 16, 1989

December 1607
A hunting party, consisting of Opechancanough and other Powhatan warriors, captures Captain John Smith and detains him. Two Englishmen die in the struggle. Smith is taken around to the nearby villages and then to Werowocomoco, the Powhatancapital, to see Chief Wahunsenacawh Powhatan, the paramount chief of Tsenacomoco. Chief Powhatan tells Captain John Smith that Smith is going to be made a werowance, a leader. Years later, Smith alleges that Chief Powhatan's daughter, Pocahontas, saves his life during the four-day ceremony.⁶

Detail of Captain John Smith's Map of Virginia, 1612, depicting Chief Powhatan.

1608

January 2, 1608
True to his word, Chief Powhatan releases Captain John Smith within four days. Smith returns to Jamestown.⁷

June 2-July 21, 1608
First Expedition Up the Bay
During Captain John Smith's first expedition up the Chesapeake Bay, he explores various tributary rivers, such as the Patawomeck River. The Patawomecks come out with canoes filled with deer and bear meat to share with the English. On their return to Jamestown, the Patawomeck Chief provides guides to the English to show them their mine. The Patawomecks (Potomac) traded the silver-like ore through out the region. As a gift, the Patawomecks allow the English to take back has much of the ore as they can carry.⁸

Native Voice

"There was no need for Pocahontas to 'save' Smith! He was being made a werowance."

— Kirk Moore
Pamunkey Tribal Member
March 8, 2004

"Smith Rescured by Pocahonta," Christian Inger after Edward Corbould, 1870 (William W. Cole collection).

July 24-September 7, 1608: Second Expedition
During the second expedition, when the English ship passes by a Rappahannock village, the Rappahannock Indians are dancing and singing. Further up river, the following day, the English receive a volley of arrows. After the assaulting Indians flee, the Powhatan scout, Mosco, pursues the attackers, with Smith and his men. Upon their return, they find a wounded Indian. His name is Amoroleck. Smith has the English doctor dress Amoroleck's wound. Then Smith inquires as to why Amoroleck's party attacked them. Amoroleck responds that they had heard that the English had "come from the under world to take their world from them." Smith asks him how many worlds he knew of. According to Smith, Amoroleck states he "knew no more but that which was under the sky that covered him, which were the Powhatans, with the Monacans and the Massawomecks, that were higher up in the mountains."

Near the end of Smith's second expedition, Captain John Smith first enters the Nansemond River, finding four Nansemond villages. Along the river are massive fertile fields producing an abundance of corn. A Nansemond Indian invites Smith into his home. Afterwards, Smith follows a canoe escort further up river, at which time the English encounter seven to eight canoes of Nansemond warriors. According to Smith, the warriors start shooting a multitude of arrows at them. The English return fire with their muskets. Recognizing that the firearms shoot a further distance than their bows, the warriors jump into the river and swim to shore. The English seize the warrior's canoes, and begin to cut one into pieces. The Nansemond warriors returned asking for peace. Smith tells the Nansemond warriors that they must bring him their Chief's bow and arrows, a chain of pearls, and four hundred bushels of corn, or they Nansemonds' homes, villages, corn fields and would burn the destroy their canoes. The Nansemond Indians put their weapons down and return with corn. Smith and his men take all they can possibly carry.⁹

Native Voice

The Spanish came here looking for gold. The English came here to conquer. I think Amoroleck knew what he was talking about.

— Chief Kenneth Branham
Monacan Nation
May 19, 2000

"There has been some scholarly debate as to whether these 'volleys of shot' were hostile or intended as a welcome.'"

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians Chairman Monacan Nation
July 2004

"This myth about their neighbors, the Monacans, was never an issue. These people did not come here to fight, the Cherokees, the Iroquois, they were all the same."

— Kirk Moore
Pamunkey Tribal Member
March 8, 2004

Captain John Smith's Map of Virginia, 1612

Fall 1608
At the coronation of Chief Powhatan, the English present Chief Powhatan with gifts from England, such as a basin and ewer, and bed. Chief Powhatan in turn, gives Captain Christopher Newport his mantle and moccasins.¹⁰

Native Voice

"Captain John Smith first entered the Nansemond River in August 1608 and described the Nansemonds as a proud, warlike nation. He located the four villages of Nand-sa-mund, Mat-ta-nock, Teracosick and Man-tough-que-men-o located on both sides of the river. The river was described as a musket shot wide with a narrow channel three fathoms deep. Smith described his slow progress along the river and noted the island (Dumpling) that would be convenient for a fort.

When he approached the western branch of the river, Captain Smith observed the high plains, abundance of houses, people and 1,000 acres of most fertile, sweet and pleasant ground. He saw large corn fields on the mainland; on the island was an abundance of corn. One of the "savages" invited Smith to his house and told him his house was on the island.

As Smith followed a canoe further up the river, seven or eight canoes full of armed men appeared and the first of many hostile encounters erupted. Captain Smith reported arrows came so fast from each side of the river "as two or three hundred could shoot them and those in the canoes let fly also as fast." When Smith and his men fired their muskets, most of the Indians leapt overboard and swam ashore. It was their first experience with gun fire and they found that muskets shot further than bows.

Smith's men seized the canoes and secured them in the open waters. Having seen the large Indian force and suspecting it might be both the Nansemonds and the Chesapeakes, Smith thought it best to take time to consider the next course of action. Should they burn all [houses, canoes and crops] on the island or take all the corn, which was adequate to feed all the Colony (Jamestown)?

During the lull, Smith began to cut the canoes into pieces, whereupon the Indians put down their weapons and made signs of peace. Captain Smith then stated he would accept peace if they brought the King's bows and arrows, a chain of pearls and when we come again give us four hundred bushels of corn. If not, he would burn their corn, houses, all they had and break all their boats. The Indians put away their bows and arrows and brought corn.

John Smith notes that he took all they could carry and departed good friends. The friendly force arrived back at Jamestown on September 7, 1608."

— Oliver L. "Fish Hawk" Perry
Nansemond Chief Emeritus
July 15, 1988

1609

May 1609
A new charter from the King allows the Virginia Company to transfer the power to governor from the Council over to a Governor.¹¹

Fall 1609
Henry Spelman (14 years old) comes to Virginia in August 1609. Shortly afterwards, he was sent to live with the Powhatan Indians, until December 1610. He is later hired as an interpreter.¹²

Fall 1609
Captain John Smith is wounded and leaves the Colony, never to return to Virginia.¹³

Winter 1609-1610
The region suffers from drought and famine. The winter of 1609-1610 becomes known by the English as the "Starving Time."¹⁴

1610

June 7-8, 1610
Sir Thomas Gates decides to abandon the Jamestown Colony. The Virginia colonists meet a supply ship coming up the James River, with Thomas West, Lord De La Warr aboard. The colonists return to Jamestown.¹⁵

August 1610
English settlers attack the town of Paspahegh. In the raid the Chief's wife and children were killed. The village was completely destroyed, damaging English - Powhatan relations.¹⁶

Powhatan's mantle, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, England.

Native Voice

"The coronation of Chief Powhatan was a political ploy instituted by the English!"

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman Monacan
Nation, July 2004

"After that he went to trade with the Patawomecks and made them angry by being deceitful, so they killed some of his men."

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation, July 2004

Some say Henry Spelman was killed by the Patawomecks. That is not correct in our opinion. He was killed by the Anacostians. The Anacostians were not friendly with the Patawomecks. Spelman spoke the Patawomeck dialect after living with them and we believe that he was mistaken for a Patawomeck by the Anacostians and that was the reason that he was killed. We have never found any supported references to a killing by our people of the colonist. We sincerely believe that we were their friends.

— Chief Robert Green
Patawomeck Tribe, October, 2004

1611

1611-1613
John Rolfe conducts tobacco experiments, purchasing tobacco seeds from the Caribbean Islands.¹⁷

1612

June 1612
Jamestown learns the Vi rginia Company is issued its third charter on March 12, 1612.¹⁸

1613

April, 1613
In the Patawomeck area, Captain Samuel Argall kidnaps Pocahontas, the daughter of Chief Powhatan. Chief Powhatan immediately offers to pay the ransom. Captain Argall , instead, takes Pocahontas to Jamestown, holding her prisoner. Both Powhatan oral tradition and English writings indicate that she was married to a Powahatan warrior, named Kocoum..¹⁹

June 28, 1613
John Rolfe's first shipment of West Indian tobacco is sent on board the ship, Elizabeth, to England.²⁰

Native Voice

"According to the records we have read, the Patawomecks actually fed the colony during the "the starving time" against Powhatan's orders. We believe that it was out of the friendship that had developed between Sam Argall and Japazaws."

— Chief Robert Green
Patawomeck Tribe
October, 2004

"There are more details available, and you noted elsewhere that the Indians suffered also."

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation

"Why do you take by force that which you may quickly have by love?"

— Chief Powhatan, 1608
quoted by Captain John Smith

"Iapassus Persuades Pocahontas to Visit Samuel Argall's Ship," unknown artist, c. 1634.

Native Voice

"Once we apparently formed a relationship with the English, there are very few documented attacks by the Susquehannocks. Because of the pact between Japassus and A rgyle, the English would defend the Potomacs from other tribes. I am convinced that is why Japassus turned Pocahontas over to Argyle. When you're a chief, you have to either sacrifice one person or you have to sacrifice the whole tribe. I'm sure Argyle, although I cannot find it in any of his writings, probably said, 'You either help us get her on the boat or we're no longer going to defend you against the other tribes. It is interesting that Powhatan's favorite daughter should just get turned over to the English by the Potomac and yet Powhatan never takes any action against the Potomac people. You would think if he was incensed and upset about it that the first thing he would have done was come up here and slaughter us. Wouldn't you think so?

What I think happened is that Argyle said 'Well, if you do not help us, you must be against us, and we will no longer be able to defend you against those attacks by those Susquehannocks, and the Massawomecks, and those other tribes.' I think that is where Japassus had to make a decision: Do I protect one girl or do I protect all my people? I think that Powhatan knew that she was going to be turned over before she was turned over. I think Japassus probably sent a message to Powhatan and said, 'I've got Argyle up here and he wants your daughter, and I'm going to turn her over. Let me know if you've got a problem . ' I cannot think of any other explanation. For one, Powhatan takes no retribution. He [Powhatan] comes here and lives after he gives up the throne with Japassus, the man who gave his daughter away. It just doesn't make sense unless he went and said, 'Look, why don't we try and cool this thing with the colonists? Maybe this is the way to do it. I know she's your favorite daughter.' Remember, in that society, even though things were matrilineal, the warrior was still supreme. And so, here is one 12-year-old girl, and I've got all these warriors being killed with these guns, and I've got battles over land, battles over animals. The copper kettle I think was, 'You did me a favor and I give a you a soda to take home with you with a thank you.' I think it was an afterthought. I think it had nothing to do with the exchange. I don't think the premise that they promised her [Japassus's wife] the copper kettle in return for getting Pocahontas aboard is right. I think it is bull. I think it was, 'Okay, we're still friends. You're helping me, here's a copper kettle as a sign of appreciation.' I think it was the threat of dissolving the protection pact that they had with the English was the driving force behind Japassus's decision, not some copper pot.

Argyle professes his love for Japassus and their friendship and their brotherhood throughout his entire writings. I think that Argyle could have said that I won't consider you my brother anymore if you don't help me, but I still think it was the mutual protection against the Massawomecks and Susquehannocks that was the driving force behind his (Japassus), making that decision. Having said that, I think it is clear that Powhatan knew about it before it happened. There is no other explanation for why he didn't take retribution against Japassus and the Patawomeck. Most scholars don't agree with me, but I do not care."

— Chief Robert Green
Patawomeck Tribe
April 20, 2004

1614

1613-1614
Pocahontas is held in custody at either Jamestown and/or the plantation in Henrico. During Pocahontas's confinement, she is provided with personal instruction on the doctrines of the Christian faith. Pocahontas converts to Christianity and takes the name "Rebecca."²¹

April 1614
Pocahontas marries John Rolfe.²²

"Marriage of Pocahontas and John Rolfe" by Henry Brueckner (William W. Cole Collection).

1616

May 1616
Sir Thomas Dale, Pocahontas, John Rolfe, and their baby, Thomas, set sail for England aboard Captain Argall's Treasurer. Ten Powhatan Indians, one of which is Chief Powhatan's priestly advisor, Uttamatomokkin, accompany them. The Virginia Company arranges Pocahontas's voyage. The goal of the trip is to secure financial funding for the Virginia Company.²³

Native Voice

"In a work published in 1612, Wi l l i a m Strachey noted that Pocahontas had been married to a 'private captain' n a m e d Kocoum 'some two years' previously. This would place her marriage in 1610, or possibly 1611 if his estimate of time was off. She was kidnapped in 1613. Most of the world does not know that she was married to one of her own people at the time she was kidnapped."

— Deanna Beacham
Virginia Council of Indians, Program Specialist
July 2004

"No one knows what happed to the Indian husband at the time?"

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation, July 2004

"Pocahontas was kidnapped and held in captivity."

— Sentiment of Numerous Virginia Indians

Editors Note: Pertaining to the abduction of Pocahontas Native People used terms such as kidnapped and captivity, which stresses the violence of the English. While the English, and thus standardized history downplays the violent nature of the event, using words such as confinement.

"It should be noted that this is a different tobacco plant from a different botanical species, than that used by American Indians. The West Indian tobacco is related to the tomato family and is poisonous. It is the ancestor of the plant that is cultivated commercially today."

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation, July 2004

1616-1617
Pocahontas, called "Lady Rolfe" by the English, is received as a royal personage in London. While in London, Pocahontas discovers that Captain John Smith is still alive. It is arranged for the two to meet before she returns to Virginia.²⁴

1617

Spring 1617
Prior to their return to Virginia, Pocahontas becomes very ill and is taken off the ship. Pocahontas dies in England. She is buried at Gravesend churchyard. John Rolfe leaves their young son, Thomas, in England in the care of an uncle, and returns to Virginia.²⁵

1618

June 15, 1618
The George sails from Vi rginia bound for England with about 20,000 pounds of Virginia tobacco.²⁶

Spring 1618
Within a year of Pocahontas's death, Chief Powhatan dies. After his death, Itopatin is named the paramount chief. Being a weak chief, Opechancanough quickly succeeds Itopatin.²⁷

Likeness made of Pocahontas in England from life, "Pocahontas," Simon van de Passe, 1616.

Native Voice

"Somewhere around this time, Powhatan vows that he will not make war on the English again. I think he kept his word."

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation

1619

Summer 1619
The first English representative government in North America met at Jamestown. In the subsequent years the General Assembly passes many laws that will affect the Indians.²⁸

November 1619
The Virginia Company approves sending a group of 90 to 100 young women to Jamestown to become wives of the settlers. They arrive in Jamestown the following spring.²⁹

1622

March 22, 1622
Chief Opechancanough leads the first Indian major attack on the English settlers. At eight o'clock in the morning on Good Friday, the Powhatan Indians launch a surprise attack on the settlers. Approximately one third of the 1200 English living on both sides of the James River in Virginia are killed.³⁰

1622-1623
The English, suffering from food shortages and the spread of disease, are evacuated to Jamestown Island. Problems are exacerbated by a constant influx of new immigrants. Cattle are pastured on Jamestown Island for safety. A plague follows the Indian uprising, leaving less than 400 English in Virginia in 1623, out of over 5,000 that had immigrated in the past three years.³¹

Native Voice

"Pocahontas expresses her displeasure with Smith for not coming to see her in England."

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation

"We think Opitchipan [Itopatin] was the Chief of the Potomac. Now, because Opitchipan was crippled, when the English arrived, they were met by Japassus who was apparently a very imposing figure. Japassus was the lesser chief. The English didn't have a name for our chief or king. We believe it's because Opitchipan, being crippled, was kept out of sight of the English. Coincidentally after Powhatan turns over the supreme chiefdom to Opitchipan, Opitchipan suddenly appears at Jamestown and Powhatan comes to the Potomac tribes to live."

— Chief Robert Green
Patawomeck Tribe
April 20, 2004

1623

Chief Opechancanough sends an emissary to Martin's Hundred stating that the Powhatan people are hungry because of the retaliatory raids by the English on the communities. The Indians offer to return English captives and seek a return to peaceful relations. English remain suspicious of Indian intentions.³²

Detail of "A weroan or great Lorde of Virginia," by Theodor de Bry, 1590.

Native Voice

"If we do not fight, they will destroy us!"

— Opechancanough
quoted by Kirk Moore
Pamunkey Tribal Member
March 8, 2004

"The thing about these time lines is that they do not say why Native People fought. They [the English colonists] took our children. You will fight for your children!"

— Debora Moore
Pamunkey Tribal Member
March 8, 2004

"There were also Indians from the Maryland area who participated."

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation
July 2004

"I think that we had a totally different relationship with Powhatan than did the other Powhatan tribes. This was in part to the distance we were from his main village. This was demonstrated on several occasions, like our refusal to join Openchancanough's rebellion. The Patawomecks did not participate and refused to join Openchancanough's efforts to get them to join with the others. We did not attack or take part in the attacks against the colony."

— Chief Robert Green
Patawomeck Tribe
April 20, 2004

March 1623 — Acts of Assembly at Jamestown by English —

• March 22 to be observed as a "Day of Thanksgiving" by English to commemorate the 1622 Uprising on March 22, 1622.³²
• Prohibiting the trade of corn with Indians.³³
• Every dwelling house shall have a palisade built around in defense against the Indians.³⁴

October 15, 1623
The King of England is advised to assume control over the Colony of Virginia. King James requests the Colony surrender its charter. The Colony refuses.³⁵

1624

The Virginia Company is dissolved. Virginia's government requests regiments of 500 soldiers per year to be sent to fortifications and to suppress the Indians.³⁶

1625

King James I dies. He is succeeded by his son, Charles I.³⁷

1628

The English establish a peace treaty with the Indians and terminate it shortly after."³⁸

1629

October 1629 — Acts of Assembly—

• The governor shall appoint a commander to several plantations. This commander has the authority to gather a posse of men to attack Indians.³⁹
• Assembly agrees that attacks be conducted on the Indians three times during the year: November, March and July, to clear the area of Indians. Several plantations, including Martin's Hundred, listed to attack the Indians. The Pamunkey Indians are targeted for attack before Christmas and in the summer (June, July or August). Every fit man is to participate in the summer assailment against the Pamunkeys in the summer.⁴⁰
• Three Indians residing among the Colonists are to be supported.⁴¹

March 1629 — Acts of Assembly—

• Newcomers to the colony are not required to "march" upon the Indians until after being in the colony one year, unless it is necessary.⁴²
• The war upon the Indians is to be carried out. There will be no peace made with the Indians.⁴³

1631

February 1631 — Acts of Assembly—

• Colonists are prohibited from speaking withIndians. Indians are to be brought to the commander of the plantation or the commander is to be told of the whereabouts of the Indian(s). Failure to do so is a month of service to a free man, and twenty stripes (lashes) to any servant. Exception: in the Eastern Shore area Indians are to be treated with good terms, especially the Mattawombes.⁴⁴
• All trade with Indians is prohibited.⁴⁵
• "For the Indians we should hold them our irrecoileable enemies." Commanders are given the authority to "fall out uppon" any Indians lurking about or molesting hogs, etc.⁴⁶

1632

1632
Peace treaty concluded with Chickahominy and Pamunkey Tribe.⁴⁷

September 1632 — Acts of Assembly —

• English are not to speak or parley with Indians, except in Eastern Shore region.⁴⁸
• Power is given to plantation commanders to raise a posse to attack Indians near a plantation or believed to be "molesting" English cattle, hogs, etc.⁴⁹
• Neighboring plantations are to assist each other upon alarms of Indian attacks.⁵⁰

1633

August 1633 —Acts of Assembly—

• No arms or ammunition are to be sold or bartered to the Indians. Penalty: possessions go to the public, imprisonment, and providing service to whoever turned the person in and to the public.⁵¹
• Cloth and cotton is not to be traded with the Indians. The colonists are to have first bids. If supplies are excessive, the governor can provide a license to trade cloth to the Indians.⁵²

1630s

In December 1640, Virginia's first Indian reservation was established for the Accomac (Gingoskin) Indians on the Eastern Shore.⁵³ Editor's Note: Today, this area is no longer reservation land, but is still known as Indian town Neck.

1640

January 1640 — Acts of Assembly—

• Price fixing of corn: 16 shillings per barrel.⁵⁴
• Repeal of the 1637 act prohibiting trade or barter with Indians.⁵⁵

1643

March 1643 — Acts of Assembly —

• Felony, with death penalty, for a runaway servant to supply arms and ammunition to Indians.⁵⁶
• English are not to sell or barter arms or ammunition to Indians. Penalty includes loss of whole estate, half going to the informer and the other half to county the offense occurred in. Lending a weapon to an Indian to hunt with carries a lesser fine of giving the arms and ammunition to the informer.⁵⁷

Detail of "An ageed manne in his winter garment," Theodor de Bry, 1590.

Native Voice

"There should be some explanation as to why the Indians are so hostile. This whole list sounds like the English did nothing to provoke the attacks!"

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman Monacan Nation
July 2004
[emphasis original]

"The Bass prominence in Nansemond history originally goes back to the 1638 marriage of Elizabeth, her Christianized name, to John Bass. She was the king of the Nansemond's daughter. The family still own or still has in its possession the prayer book, which documents this marriage in 1638. Basically, that's where our whole line today descends from, from John Bass."

— Chief Barry "Big Buck" Bass
Nansemond Tribe
May 21, 2004

1644

April 18, 1644
Chief Opechancanough, the aged successor of Chief Powhatan, orders a second surprise attack upon the colonists, killing some 400 settlers, mostly on outlying plantations.⁵⁸

October 1644 — Acts of Assembly —

• Men hurt in the recent expeditions against the Indians are to be cared for by the county they reside in.⁵⁹
• Six pounds of tobacco was to be taxed on every eligible person to defray the costs of fighting the Pamunkey and Chickahominy Indians.⁶⁰

1645

February 1645 — Acts of Assembly —

• April 18th to be a yearly day of thanks giving for the deliverance from the Indians.⁶¹
• Three counties: Isle of Wight, Upper North and Lower North, to continue the war with the Indians, especially the Chipoaks. The Governor and the council of war are given authority to recruit men to fight.⁶²
• Three forts are to be built. One at the Pamunkey, to be called Fort Royal, another at the Falls of the James River, to be called Fort Charles, and the third at the Ridge of the Chickahominy, to be called Fort James. Some Indians of the Accomack or Rappahannock to be of service to the English.⁶³

November 1645 — Acts of Assembly —

• Settlers who are not able to defend themselves are not to hunt in the woods or travel.⁶⁴
• Fort to be built at the falls of the Appomattox River, to be called Fort Henry, to prevent the Indians from fishing in that river, and to cut down their corn, among other things. In the counties: Isle of Wight, Upper North and Lower North, war is to be undertaken with the Nansemond Indians, cutting down their corn and other acts of hostilities.⁶⁵

1646

March 1646 — Acts of Assembly—

• Arrangements for "the great and vast expense of the collony, in prosecuting the warr against our common enemies the Indians."⁶⁶
• Captain Henry Fleet is to be paid 15,000 lbs. of tobacco, unless peace is made with "Opechancanough or his Indians, our enemies." If peace cannot be made, Captain Fleet shall build a fort any where along the Rappahannock River.⁶⁷

October 1646
Opechancanough is captured and held prisoner at Jamestown. He is shot in the back, by one of the English guards, who acted without orders, and dies.⁶⁸

October 1646
Chief Necotowance succeeds Chief Opechancanough as leader of the Powhatan Chiefdom and signs the October 1646 treaty.⁶⁹

October 1646 — Acts of Assembly — Treaty of Peace with the signatory tribes in alliance with Chief Necotowance, leader of the Powhatan Chiefdom

Article 1) Indians are to submit to the King of England, successors to be appointed or confirmed by the King's Governor; the Colony is to protect Chief Necotowance and his people; tribute for such protection of twenty beaver skins, yearly at the going away of the geese, shall be presented to the Governor;⁷⁰

Article 2) Chief Necotowance and his people are to live and hunt on the north side of the York River without any inference from the English, unless the Governor and Council see fit to allow any English to live there;⁷¹

Article 3) Indians cede all the land between the falls of the James and York Rivers down towards Kequotan. It is lawful to kill any Indian in this region, unless he is a messenger from Chief Necotowance. Chief Necotowance is required to hand over any Indian seeking refuge, who escaped the English. To keep the messenger from being killed, a badge of a striped coat is to be worn.⁷²

Article 4) A felony for any Englishman to be in the Indian territory, unless there is permission from Chief Necotowance or the Governor, plus, the English are given until March 1st to seize or kill any cattle or hogs on the north side of the York River.⁷³

Article 5)Limitations of Indian hunting ground: no closer to the English plantations than the head of the Yapin black water to "the old Monakin Towne."⁷⁴

Article 6)Death to any Englishman who entertains or conceals any Indian within the English limits.⁷⁵

Article 7) Badges of messengers to be received at Fort Royal for the north side. Death to kill a messenger or one of his party.⁷⁶

Article 8) Badges and striped coat to be received at Fort Henry, alias Appomattox Forte, for the south side.⁷⁷

Article 9) Chief Necotowance to turn over any English prisoners, Negroes, guns, and escaped Indian servants, if they ran away under the age of twelve years old.⁷⁸

Article 10) Indian children under twelve years old may live with the English.⁷⁹

Article 11) Commanders of forts to provide the striped coats to Indians for trade or messengers.⁸⁰

Native Voice

Indians had to have a pass to travel. They couldn 't testify in court against whites. They couldn't inherit property at one time."

— Oliver "Fish Hawk" Perry
Chief Emeritus Nansemond
1987

Badge for Pamunkey tribal members.

October 1646 — Acts of Assembly —

• The October Assembly ratifies a treaty of peace, which is agreed to by the Indian leader Necotowance. A significant feature of this treaty is a clause reserving the land to the north of the Pamunkey (York) River to the Indians and making it a felony for an Englishman to settle there.⁸¹
• Captain John Floud to be interpreter for the colony with a salary of four thousand pounds of tobacco yearly.⁸²
• Reward of 100 pounds of tobacco to be given to a person for killing a wolf.⁸³
• Land grants north of the York River to be inhabited within three years extended. Persons who have not inhabited land north of the York River due to the 1622 Uprising have until December 20, 1647 to move onto the land.⁸⁴
• Previous acts prohibiting any terms of peace with the Indians is repealed.⁸⁵
• The act permitting the English to destroy Indian corn fields is repealed.⁸⁶
• The act calling for a march against the Nansemond Indians is repealed.⁸⁷
• Extra taxes are to be levied to defray expenses of the late war.⁸⁸

1647

November 1647— Acts of Assembly—

• Additional places for Indian messengers to stop for a rest: houses of Captain Edward Hill at Westover, and Captain William Tayler at Chiscake (Kiskiak).⁸⁹

1653

July 1653 — Acts of Assembly—

• Tottopottomoy has choice of remaining where he and his Indians are at or to go to Ramomak. The Pamunkey and the Chickahominy Indians are to be moved according to a late act of Assembly. Col. John Fludd to oversee the proceedings with Tottopottomoy.⁹⁰
• Gloucester and Lancaster counties are to assign tracts of land for Indians as hunting grounds.⁹¹
• An act of indemnity (a legal exception) to those who have lent guns to the Indians.⁹²

1654

November 1654 — Acts of Assembly—

• Complaints against the Rappahan nock Indians. Assembly authorizes three counties to raise men: Lancaster 100, Northumberland 40 and Westmoreland 30, to meet on the first Wednesday in February to next to Thomas Meades' house. Major John Carter to lead the men to the Rappahannock town demanding satisfaction. Following, Carter is to give account to the Governor, who will determine with his Council, as to peace or war. Captain Henry Fleet and David Wheatliff to go as interpreters.⁹³
• No person to employ Indians with guns unless by license from the county court or the Governor and Council.⁹⁴
• Commissioners of Northampton County may purchase land from the Indians there, if the Indians desire to sell it, and if the majority of the town agrees. The Governor and Council areto be notified of proceedings.⁹⁵

Native Voice

"We have a lot of interpreters I think that married into our tribe. A lot of the interpreters' surnames show up in our family names, like the name Cox. The families that were in Virginia before 1700 tended to inter-marry a lot. There weren't a lot of English women around. And who did the English kill? The Indian men, not the women. So there were a lot of Indian women and few Indian men for them to marry. So, it made sense that these interpreters married these Indian women since they spent most f their time with the Indian tribes anyway. So, when you talk about blood quantum, I have no idea what my blood quantum is. When somebody tells me they're pure Indian, I doubt that there are any pure Indians in this part of the country. The Spanish went into the southwest, and then the settlers. The trappers in the north either raped the Indian women or married into those tribes. To me, blood quantum doesn't really matter. Its like an older Elder that Mitchell Bush once introduced me to said, "I know white men that are more Indian than some Indians I know. It's what's in your heart and not necessarily what's in your blood that matters. Your heart tells you whether your are an Indian or not. Do you love and respect Mother Earth?""

— Chief Robert Green
Patawomeck Tribe
April 20, 2004

1656

March 1656 — Acts of Assembly—

• For every eight wolf heads, the King or Great Man [chiefs] shall be delivered a cow. "This will be a step to civilizing them and to making them Christians."⁹⁶
• Indians who bring their children in voluntarily can choose the persons to entrust the care of their children to, not to be slaves, but to do "their best to bring them up in Christianity, civility and the knowledge of necessary trades." The Englishmen will be paid for such service.⁹⁷
• Henceforth, land cannot be purchased from Indians without the consent of the Assembly.
• This does not nullify any previous transactions.⁹⁸
• The county of Northampton authorized to enact laws as to Indians or manufactures, subject to the revision of the assembly.⁹⁹
• Since shooting off guns is an alarm signal of attacking Indians, no guns are to be shot off, except at marriages and funerals. Penalty is 100 pounds of tobacco.¹⁰⁰
• Six hundred to seven hundred western Indians come from the mountains to the falls of the James River. The English consider their presence a threat to the colony, "having cost so much blood to expel and extirpate those perfidious and treacherous Indians which were there formerly." Two upper counties under the command of Col. Edward Hill with 100 men are to first try to remove the Indians without war. Reciting the requirement of the Indians under the Treaty of 1646 to assist the English, the messengers are to be sent to Tottopotomoy and the Chickahominies regarding their advice on the matter.¹⁰¹
• Indians are not to be killed within English territory unless they are doing something suspicious.¹⁰²
• No Indians to be entertained without license from the county court or two justices of the peace.¹⁰³
• Indian children can be servants, by leave of their parents, if the children are educated and brought up in the Christian religion.¹⁰⁴

Native Voice

"Traditionally, the Chief's role and responsibilities were to make sure that everyone in his village had food, shelter, clothing, and when someone got sick they had someone take care of them."

— Chief G. Anne "Little Fawn" Richardson
Rappahannock Tribe
July 2000

December 1656 — Acts of Assembly —

• Repeal of previous act allowing indiscriminate killing of Indians for minor infractions such as trespassing. No Indian to be killed unless committing an act that would be a felony for an Englishman. A felony to be proved by two witnesses. No Indian is to come within the boundaries of a fenced plantation without a "ticket." Indians can fish or gather wild fruits as long as they do not carry arms or come inside of the fenced plantations. All free men may trade with the Indians.¹⁰⁵

1658

March 1658 — Acts of Assembly —

• Penalty for selling arms to Indians is the forfeit of one's entire estate, half to the informant and the other half to the County. A gun lent to an Indian may be seized.¹⁰⁶
• Indian servants of 16 years old, male and female, are to be taxed.¹⁰⁷
• Indian children within English custody are not to be transferred to another custodian for any reason. Such children are to be free at age 25.¹⁰⁸
• No land grants to be issued until each Indian bowman receive his 50 acres. Any Indian land within already granted patent must be bought from the Indians or relinquished.¹⁰⁹
• Indians to be employed to kill wolves, without English weapons.¹¹⁰
• Due to the many complaints coming in about the wrong done to the Indians by taking away their lands, the Assembly passes an act stating that the Indians are to keep their lands they now possess and no Englishman can settle a claim there without consent from the Governor and Council or commissioners in that place. Recent settlers near the Pamunkey Indians and Chickahominy Indians are recalled.¹¹¹
• Editor's Note: This one section of the English records is quoted verbatim due to the extensive insights within the text, thus allowing the reader to draw his or her own interpretation.
  
  "WHEREAS many complaints have bin brought to the Assembly touching wrong done to the Indians, in the taking away their land and forcing them into such narrow streights and places that they cannot subsist either by planting or hunting, and for that it may be feared they may justly driven to despaire & to attempt some desperate course for themselves, which inconveniencies though they have bin endeavored to be remedied by former acts of Assembly made to the same purpose, Yet notwithstanding manie English doe still intrench upon the said Indian's land, which this Assembly conceiveing to be contrary to justice, and the true intent of the English plantation in this country, whereby the Indians might by all just and faire waies be reduced to civility and the true worship of God, have therefore thought fitt to ordeine and enact, and bee in hereby ordained and enacted, That all the Indians of this collonie shall and may hold and keep those seates of land which they now have, and that no person or person whatsoever be suffered to intrench or plant upon such places as the Indians claime or desire untill full leave from the Governour and Councill or com'rs. [commissioners] for the place; Yet this act not to be extended to prejudice those English which are now seated with the Indians' former consent unless uppon further examination before the Grand Assemblie cause shall be found for so doeing, And the said com'rs. shall be accomptable before the Governour and Councill and the Grand Assembly if any wrong or injurie be done to the Indians contrary to the intent of this act, And be it further encated, That the Indians as either now or hereafter shall want seates to live on, or shall desire to remove to any places void or untaken upp they shall be assisted therin, and order granted them, for confirmation thereof, And no Indians to sell their lands but at quarter courtes, And that those English which are lately gone to seate neare the Pamunkeys and the Chickahominies on the north side of Pamunkie river shall be recalled and such English to choose other seates else where, and that the Indians as by a former act was granted them, shall have free liberty of hunting in the woods without the English fenced plantations, these places excepted between Yorke river and James river and between the Black water and the Manakin towne and James river, and noe patent shall be adjudged valid which hath lately passed or shall pass contrary to the sense of this act, Nor none to be of force which shall intrench uppon the Indians' lands to their discontent without expresse order for the same."¹¹²
• Against employing Indians with guns.¹¹³
• Northampton Commissioners to take acknowledgement of Indian Lands.¹¹⁴
• For preservation of the peace with the Indians by entertaining Indians without leave.¹¹⁵
• Due to a problem with Indian children being stolen from their parents and sold to the English by other Indians, no person shall buy an Indian from the English. If a person has done so, ten days are allowed to return the Indian child from where he/she was taken. The informant receives 500 pounds of tobacco.¹¹⁶
• Wiccacomoco Indians allegedly deserted their land, thus it was granted to Samuel Mathewes on November 27, 1657 and confirmed on March 11, 1658.¹¹⁷
• Indians may carry their own guns within their own territory.¹¹⁸
• Upon the death of interpreter Col. John Flood, his son, Thomas Flood, is hired to take his place for the same salary.¹¹⁹
• Since both the English and foreigner plantations are trading guns and ammunition to the Indians for beaver to their gain, and the colony's loss, free trade with the Indians will be permitted starting April 1, 1660.¹²⁰

Native Voice

"Somewhere around this time, a group of Monacans move to a village near Ft. Henry, and a battle occurs between the English (with Powhatan allies) and the Monacans. The Pamunkey Chief Totapotamoi [Tottopotomoy] is killed."

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation
July 2004

Detail of "On a Religeous men in the towne of Secota," Theodor de Bry, 1590.

1660

March 1660 — Acts of Assembly —

• Because the Indians are unaccustomed to English law and imprisonment, and out of fear of inciting a war with the Indians, any English trading with the Indians who allows an Indian to build up a debt, does so at his own risk. The Assembly will not permit English laws of debt recovery be applied to the Indians.¹²¹
• The King of Weanoak incurs debt with the English beyond his ability to pay back. He is put in prison. In prison, he petitions the government to grant him protection from arrest until the first of the following March.¹²²
• John Beauchamp, merchant, is granted permission to take his Indian boy to England, if county court in Charles City County receives the parent's consent.¹²³

Native Voice

"There should be some foreshadowing of this, earlier in the timeline. It is the reason for all of the earlier acts by the English intended to protect themselves. The same is true in Maryland colonial records, except that Indians were allowed to address the colonial government during its meetings. The way this timeline is written, it appears that the Indians were the bad guys for a long time before this Act became necessary!"

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation, July 2004

October 1660 — Acts of Assembly —

• Accomack Indians, also known as "Gingaskins," complaining that the English are getting too close to them, their corn is being damaged. Surveyors are to survey out enough land for them to fish and hunt.¹²⁴
• There is a dispute over whether the land granted to Col. Mathewes was actually agreed upon by the Wiccocomoco Indians or not. To settle the dispute the Wiccocomoco Indians are to be offered payment for the lands. If they accept, the land will belong to Col. Mathewes' heir. If not accepted, the land will belong to the Wiccocomoco Indians until they leave the land. If they leave the land, Mathewes' heir is entitled to the land.¹²⁵
• Col. Fantleroy claims to have the consent of the Indians to purchase land from them. However, he does not have any evidence to back it up. The Assembly will take the matter up at the next session. Col. Carter is to defend the rights of the Indians.¹²⁶
• John Powell complains of the Indians damaging his property. The Northumberland commissioners are to look into the matter and determine if there is enough proof to support Powell's claims. If there is evidence, then the chief of the Indians is to be approached to comply to pay for the damages. If the chief refuses, the court will decide how many Indians may be apprehended and sold asslaves in a foreign country.¹²⁷
  

March 1660 — Acts of Assembly —

• Only persons who have obtained a license may trade with the Indians. Penalty for first offense: 500 lbs. of tobacco, 2nd offense 1000 lbs. of tobacco, and 3rd offense 1,500 lbs. of tobacco, along with all trading goods.¹²⁸

Native Voice

"Of course, we would like to have all our land back. You asked for dreams. But we know better. They would have to give us half of the state of Virginia back."

—Ronnie Branham
Chief Emeritus Monacan Nation
1987

1661

March 1661 — Acts of Assembly —

• Lands of the Chickahominy Indians confirmed, no purchase to be made from them except by the quarter court or the Assembly. "UPON the petition of Harquip the Mangai of the Chickahominy Indians to have all the lands from Mr. Malorys bounds to the head of the Mattaponi river & into the woods to the Pamunkeys. It is accordingly ordered that the said land be confirmed to the said Indians by patent, and that no Englishman shall upon any pretence disturbe them in their said bounds nor purchase it of them unless the major part of the great men shall freely and voluntarily declare their consent in the quarter court or assembly."¹²⁹
• Major General Manwaring Hamond claims that 2000 acres within land granted to the Chickahominy Indians was granted him by patent. The Assembly states that he is required to either purchase the land from the Indians or obtain their consent to preserve the country's honor and reputation.¹³⁰
• In the controversy over land by Col. Fantleroy and Indians, the Assembly judged that since Fantleroy had provided some compensation for the land, and Fantleory had constructed buildings and cleared the land, which the Indians were unable to pay for, the land would go to Fantleroy. Fantleroy is to pay Mr. Mathew Kempe 30 matchcoats of two yards apiece, with one trimmed in copper lace for the chief, for the service of the Indians.¹³¹
• Because the Chesskoiack Indians have been kind to the English and have obeyed English laws, the Assembly grants the continued use of the land they are presently on, as well as holding guns in their possession.¹³²
• Harquip Mangoi of the Chickahominy Indians, on April 4, 1661, acknowledged efore the Grand Assembly the sale of 743 acres of land from the cliffs to the little creek to Mr. Phillip Mallory.¹³³

Native Voice

Editor's Note: The mention of Indian slavery in the English records is significant verification of Native oral tradition, which states that Indian slavery occurred with the English, as well as the earlier Spanish excursions.

"WOW!! This is not the usual information [history] we are usually given."

—Mitchell Bush
Virginia Council of Indians, Indian At Large
Onondaga Tribal Member
July 2004

Editor's Note: Most Virginia Indian Tribes still view many of the acts of the English in the seventeenth century as cruel, and need to presented within the historical narrative.

1662

March 1662 — Acts of Assembly—

• Repeals any acts inhibiting free trade among inhabitants of the colony/country, except with Indians. Trade with Indians for beaver, otter and other furs must be commissioned by the Governor.¹³⁴
• John Flood's son to take his place as an interpreter, and Henry Newcombe to be interpreter in the northern region.¹³⁵
• This act prohibits the selling or buying of Indian lands, any contracts are null and void.¹³⁶
• Any Englishman who cannot produce good evidence of title on Indians lands shall be removed by the sheriff; any constructed buildings are to be demolished and burned.¹³⁷
• Englishmen within three miles of the Indians are to assist in making a fence around the cornfields of the Indians, in order to protect the crops from the cattle and hogs of the English. It is up to the Indians, however, to maintain the fence.¹³⁸
• Indians may obtain a license to gather oysters and wild fruits for a given period of time. They, however, may not carry any weapons with them. If the English harm the Indians, the English are to be prosecuted as if the harm had been done to an Englishman.¹³⁹
• There is to be no trade with the Indians whatsoever except by commissions by the Governor.¹⁴⁰
• The Governor to hear disputes of trades with the Indians.¹⁴¹
• An Indian chief cannot be imprisoned without a special warrant from the Governor and two Council members.¹⁴²
• The Governor is to appoint commissioners without personal interest in the area to go to the Indian towns to tell them of the English acts passed for their protection. Commissioners are to go annually to insure that their (Indians') rights are not being violated.¹⁴³
• Silver-plated and copper plated badges are to be provided to the chiefs under the protection of the English. Indians, or at least one Indian within the group, coming into English bounds are to wear one of these badges. If the Indians are found in harming any English, the chief associated with the badge will be held responsible. Indians found English bounds without a badge are to be apprehended and taken to a justice of the peace, and held in safe custody until the chief, or "great man," pays 100-arm length of roanoke (shell beads) for each Indian.¹⁴⁴
• Any Englishman proven to have taken a badge away from an Indian shall be fined two hours in the "pillory" and 5,000 pounds of tobacco. If the Englishman is unable make such a payment, he is to spend six months in prison.¹⁴⁵
• Tributary Indian Kings are to send one of their great men to the English militia at the notice of approaching strange Indians to give a report of their knowledge of the Indian group.¹⁴⁶
• The English are not to harbor runaway Indians from their respective tribes.¹⁴⁷
• Indian servants are not to be sold as slaves, nor held in service longer than expected of an English servant.¹⁴⁸
• Indian servants are permitted only by license obtained from the Governor. The Englishman with the license is responsible for the actions of the Indian servant.¹⁴⁹
• Wahanganoche, King of the Patawomeck Indians, is acquitted of murder charges by Captain Giles Brent.¹⁵⁰
• Chief Wahanganoche of the Patawomeck Indians is to be paid 200 arms length of roanoke by Captain Giles Brent, and 100 arms length of roanoke by other accusers, Colonel Gerrard Fowke, Mr. John Lord and Captain George Mason. Matchcoats of 20 arms length can be substituted for the roanoke.¹⁵¹
• Colonel Gerrard Fowke is fined 10,000 pounds of tobacco for allowing one of the murderers to escape (presumably an Englishman).¹⁵²
• Captain Giles Brent and Colonel Gerrard Fowke issued an illegal warrant for Wahanganoche, King of the Patawomeck Indians' arrest. They are fined 15,000 pounds of tobacco. They can no longer hold civil or military positions. Brent is to pay the costs of the witnesses. Fowke is to pay whatever charges remain.¹⁵³
• Colonel Moore Fantlorey has built a house in the lowland near marshes. It appears that he wants 500 acres of high land ground instead. He is to pay the King of the Rappahannock 15 match coats prior to moving and 30 upon acquiring the uplands.¹⁵⁴
• Colonel Moore Fantlorey falsely accused the Rappahannock Chief of not paying tribute to the Governor, Sir William Berkeley. Colonel Moore Fantlorey is relieved of any civil or military office.¹⁵⁵
• White receives 10,000 pounds of tobacco from the public trust to compensate for the murder of his son and two servants by Indians.¹⁵⁶
• Trade is prohibited with Marylanders and northern Indians, such as the Susquehannocks. It is feared that the well-worn paths will bring danger from northern Indians and they will also trade with the tributary Indians in Virginia, which would hurt the colonists trade with tributary Indians.¹⁵⁷
• It appears that Mrs. Mary Ludlow, estate executive for the late Collonel Thomas Ludlow, has encroached upon the Chiskiack Indian land at Pyanketancke. The Ludlow heirs are to have only the land as previously surveyed. A commission appointed by the Governor is to settle all disputes.¹⁵⁸
• Wahanganoche, King of the Patawomeck Indians, acknowledged before the committee of Indian businesses [first noticed mention of such a committee] that he has sold a parcel of land to Mr. Peter Austin for matchcoats. Trees will be marked to establish the boundaries of this land.¹⁵⁹
• Commissioners appointed by the Governor shall settle Land disputes between Colonel Gerard Fowke and Wahanganoche, King of the Patawomecks.¹⁶⁰
• Commissioners appointed by the Governor shall settle Land disputes between Captain Giles Brent and Wahanganoche, King of the Patawomeck Indians.¹⁶¹
• Lieutenant Colonel Goodridge is summoned to appear before the Governor and the Council to answer complaints by the King of the Mattaponi Indians concerning the burning of his English house.¹⁶²
• John Carter to issue a warrant for William Johnsons concerning whether an Indian boy should remain with the English or be returnedto the Indians.¹⁶³
  
• Metappin, a Powhatan Indian, sold for a lifetime of service to Elizabeth Short by the King of the Wainoake (possibly the Weynoke) Indians, is to be set free. The King of the Wainoake Indians could not legally sell Metappin because he was of another nation. Metappin can speak perfect English and desires to be baptized.¹⁶⁴
• The Assembly upon the advice of the committee appointed for the Indian business requests that the Governor appoint uninterested person to enquire on differences between the English and the Indians.¹⁶⁵

Native Voice

"I'm sure that they went to Wahanganoche and wanted land, but he wouldn't give them any land. So, they accuse him of treason and murder, and he gets hauled down to Middle Plantation, which is Williamsburg today. And he gets tried, and he was found innocent."

—Chief Robert Green
Patawomeck Tribe
April 20, 2004

Detail of "The Towne of Secota," Theodor de Bry, 1590.

1663

September 1663 — Acts of Assembly —

• Tributary Indians (Virginia Powhatans) claim that other Indians, such as the Tuscarores, are committing the diverse thefts on the south side of the James River. English are prohibited to entertain any Indian without a badge. The English who do so will be subject to the same punishment as the Indians who enter English territory without a badge. The informer of such actions will receive half the penalty.¹⁶⁶
• The King of the Patawomeck and other northern Werowances and Mangays (chief men) are to deliver such hostages of their children or others as shall be required, if not they will be considered enemies of the English.¹⁶⁷
• If any Englishman be hurt or killed, the nearest Indian nation to the incident is to produce the culprit, or else they will be considered actors in the crime.¹⁶⁸
  
  Editor's Note: This shows the English are applying the concept of entire group responsible for the actions of a few.
• If any strange Indian(s) shall come into their territory, they are to pursue them as enemies. If they do not have the manpower to deal with the incoming Indians, chief men are to be sent to the English, providing information of the situation, and the English will assist them.¹⁶⁹
• The Patawomeck Indians and their neighboring Indians are to seek out to the best of their abilities the late murders and those committing other mischief against the English.¹⁷⁰
• All Indian nations are to join in and pursue the Doeggs who confessed to be the actors in the first murders of the Occaneechis and the Monacans.¹⁷¹
  
  Editor's Note: This is an example of developing English policy whereby the English pressure the tribes to act in their self interest, resulting in factionalism among the tribes.
• If the Doeggs come in the future to trade with them, they are to turn the Doeggs over to the English.¹⁷²
• The King of the Patawomeck is not to hold Matchacominco [council] with any strange nation without the militia having knowledge of it beforehand, or before the hostages be delivered as according to this act.¹⁷³
• The Indian hostages shall be well cared for and educated. Those caring for them shall receive 1200 pounds of tobacco a year.¹⁷⁴
• An Indian, who carries away such a hostage and does not return the hostage, shall be considered and proceeded against as an enemy.¹⁷⁵

Native Voice

"Even though colonial records mistakenly call chief 'king,' this timeline should avoid doing so."

—Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation, July 2004

Editor's Note: Ms. Wood is not the only person to comment on the English usage of "king." One objective of this time line is to bring these differences of perspective on history to the forefront. Word usage contains many hidden cultural and political perspectives. The usage of "king" verses "chief" distinguishes difference between English and Indian perspective, as well as a difference between the seventeenth century and contemporary language usage.

I think that once he [Fowke] gets back and the Indians don't leave, the English suddenly say, 'Well, if we kill them, they won't be living on the land and we can claim it.'"

—Chief Robert Green
Patawomeck Tribe
April 20, 2004

1665

October 1665 — Acts of Assembly—

• Since the Dutch were trading the Indians guns and ammunition the English were allowed to do so, as well. However, now that the Dutch are gone, the General Assembly forbids the sale of guns and ammunition to the Indians.¹⁷⁶
• The 1633 act holding the northern Indians accountable for the murders of English on the nearest Indian town is extended to all Indians. Commissioners will be appointed to enforce this act.¹⁷⁷
• Indians no longer can determine their own Werowance or chief commander, but instead the Governor is to appoint the successor. If the Indians refuse, they will be considered enemies.¹⁷⁸
  
  Editor's Note: This indicates clearly an emerging policy that the English colonial government will select and appoint tribal leaders according to their own interests.
• Penalty for harboring, employing or entertaining an Indian without permit will be 5,000 pounds of tobacco or one year in prison.¹⁷⁹

Native Voice

"Because our tribe was a matrilineal society, we had female leaders in the seventeenth century. There were actually two Rappahannock Chiefs. But in all actuality in 1684, our tribe was consolidated with the Nanzatico Tribe. The Nanzatico Tribe was actually a sister village of the Rappahannock domain. There was an English family that had been burned out and murdered nearby. The colonial authorities automatically assumed because the Nanzatico were the closest tribe to them that it was them that had done that. So, they went in and they hung all of the young men in the town square. The women and the old men were sold into slavery to Antigua because the Indian commissioner's daughter at the time was engaged to be married to the ambassador to Antigua. They sold them into slavery and the children were bound out to English families to be servants. Since the English were unable to distinguish the Rappahannocks from the Nanzatico, the Rappahannocks claimed a number of Nanzatico people as Rappahannock to prevent them from being murdered or sold into slavery. Because of all the men being taken, there emerged a woman from the Nanzatico that was Chief, and then a Rappahannock woman who was Chief. So, we ended up with two Chiefs, or Queens, as the English termed them, at the same time."

— Chief G. Anne "Little Fawn" Richardson
Rappahannock Tribe
July 2000

Detail of "Their manner of prainge with Rattles abowt te fyer," Theodor de Bry, 1590.

1666

October 1666 — Acts of Assembly—

• The paying of Indians for killing wolves has become burdensome beyond benefit. T h e Assembly grants each county to determine the amount of award, if any.¹⁸⁰
• Realization that holding the closest neighboring Indian town responsible for the murder of an English person does not pertain to probable guilt, the Assembly will make a test case out of Henrico County, being on the frontier. After, the north side of the James River is to be secured with set boundaries, as the south side, any Indian entering the English boundaries can be legally killed. If it goes well in Henrico, they will apply the same principle to other counties.¹⁸¹
  
  Editor's Note: Indians must have a permit to work on land that was "native" land at the beginning of the century. The ultimate penalty of this was death.

Native Voice

"This is another neighborly act affirming Indian sovereignty!"

—Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation
July 2004

1669

October 1669 — Acts of Assembly—

• Tributary Indians are to kill a certain amount of wolves each year.¹⁸²
  
  

  County	Indian Group	Bowmen	Wolves
  Nansemond	Nansemond	45	9
  Surrey	Pawchay-ick	30	6
  Weyenoake	15	3
  Charles City	Nottoway (2 towns)	90	18
  Appomattux	50	10
  Men-Heyrick	50	10
  Henrico	Manachee	30	6
  Powhites	10	2
  New Kent	Pamuncy	50	10
  Chickahomony	60	12
  Mattaponi	20	4
  Rappahanock	30	6
  Totas Chees	40	8
  Gloucester	Chiskiack	15	3
  Rappahannock	Portobacco	60	12
  Nanzcatico & Mattehatique	50	10
  Northumberland	Wickacomico	70	14
  Westmoreland	Appomatux	10	2

  
  
  Editor's Note: This list gives us some idea of the extent of the tribes population size, by county, in 1669. Modern county lines may differ from seventeenth century boundary lines. Note absence of tribal listings for James City and York counties.
• Counties courts are to appoint a person to take in and keep track of the killed wolves. If the quota is not meet by the Indian group, the great man [chief] is to come and explain the situation for the default, where they shall be warned to meet the quota. If the quota is not met, the contempt will be addressed in the next assembly. If more wolves are brought in than required, they shall be paid 100 pounds of tobacco and cask (a wooden barrel.)¹⁸³
• At the next Assembly they will decide if the wolves brought in can be in lieu of the tribute. Also, since it is unlawful for the Indians to come in among the English, they need to be issued licenses to bring the wolf heads into the English communities.¹⁸⁴

1670

October 1670 — Acts of Assembly —

• No free Indian or Negro can purchase a Christian servant, but can buy any from their own nation.¹⁸⁵
• The act encouraging the Indians to kill wolves and pay their tribute in wolf heads has not produced the desired effects.¹⁸⁶
• To settle disputes as to whether Indians taken in war by other nations can be sold to the English should be for life or a number of years, the Assembly decides that servants, not being Christian, imported into the colony are for life, whereas, servants brought by land, if boys or girls, until the age of 30, if men or women, twelve years and no longer.¹⁸⁷

1671

September 1671 — Acts of Assembly —

• The act of making it lawful to kill any Indian entering Henrico County is repealed. Indians are permitted to come into Henrico County for lawful occasions. However, legal permits must be obtained prior to entertaining any Indians.¹⁸⁸

Native Voice

"Most of the Upper Mattaponi people have the last name Adams, including myself, and that came about through an interpreter that lived among the Indian people in the early 1700s."

— Chief Kenneth Adams
Upper Mattaponi, March 17, 2001

Editor's Note: An interpreter with the name James Adams appears in the James City County records on April 26, 1705. See chart.

1674

Septembers 1674 — Acts of Assembly —

• Due to the difficulty of proving hog stealing, the testimony of Indians will be admissible and Indians are to mark their hogs.¹⁸⁹

1676

Editor's Note: The Acts of Assembly from 1676 are worth reading carefully. These acts point to the growing frictions and tension that erupt into physical violence between natives and settlers. The friendly tribes suffer at the hands of their English neighbors in what has become known as "Bacon's Rebellion." This is one of the most devastating events of the seventeenth century for tributary Indians.

March 1676 — Acts of Assembly —The English Declare War on the Indians.

• War shall be declared on Indians who are notoriously known or shall be discovered to have committed murders, aiders and abettors, Indians who refuse to hand over hostages, or other security to show their fidelity and good affections to the English, and Indians refusing to aid the English in discovering, pursuing and destroying those enemies.¹⁹⁰
• The whole colony/country shall help finance this war.¹⁹¹
• 500 men shall be pulled out of the colony, especially from the more secure, interior counties to enter into standard pay. Col. Nathaniel Bacon, Esqr. From Yorktown.¹⁹²
• A few Indians to be employed and paid with matchcoats for services.¹⁹³
• Certain Indians agree to Col. George Mason's request to seek out the murders. For every prisoner brought back alive, three matchcoats will be awarded, for the head of every one killed, one matchcoat.¹⁹⁴
• Death to English or Indian who give private intelligence to the enemy.¹⁹⁵
• Not only are the colonists being murdered in the frontier regions, but increasingly in the more prominent areas. The Assembly states that the Indians have been emboldened by the large amounts of guns and ammunition they have traded for. Thus, this act places a death penalty on trading guns and ammunition with the Indians.¹⁹⁶
• To enforce this act, the Assembly states that no English shall go into an Indian town, or carry more than one gun and ten charges of powder outside a plantation. If found with more, the English will be punished as if he was trading guns and ammunition with the Indians, whether he was or not. Since there are friendly Indians living amongst the English who would perish without the necessities of matchcoats, hoes and axes to tend their corn fields, each county will appoint five commissioners to trade necessities with the friendly Indians. Trading with Indians is barred exclusively, except for these five commissioners. Penalty for trading with Indians is 10,000 pounds of tobacco or one year in prison.¹⁹⁷

Native Voice

"Even thought treaties had been made and the Indians segregated by means of reservations, the colonists continued to intrude on Indian land. In 1607, the Indian population in Powhatan's realm was approximately 14,000. It had decreased to 2,000-3,000 by 1670 and the settlers had increased to approximately 40,000."

— Oliver L. "Fish Hawk" Perry
Nansemond Chief Emeritus
September 16, 1989

"Bacon's Rebellion was sort of the same thing (as the taking of land by Fowke). Bacon and his supporters thought that the Governor and the colony were looking out for the Indians too much. Protecting them. That was one of the main reasons for Bacon's Rebellion. When these landowners weren't allowed to take the Indian lands, they felt that the Governor was mollycoddling the Indians. They wanted to be able to take the Indian lands for their own. I think that the attack against the Patawomecks in 1666 was just a lead-up to Bacon's Rebellion."

— Chief Robert Green
Patawomeck Tribe
April 20, 2004

April 1676
Nathaniel Bacon is chosen by frontiersmen to be their leader in a campaign against the natives.¹⁹⁸

June 1676 — Acts of Assembly—

• War is declared on the Indians. However, the English want to distinguish between hostile and friendly Indians.¹⁹⁹
• Indians shall be considered enemies if they have or in the future abandon their customary towns without first obtaining a license from the Governor^.200
• To be considered friendly, Indians must turn in all weapons, excluding bows and arrows.²⁰¹
• AllIndian towns are to give an account of name and number of all Indians in their town. Failure to do so will be considered enemies.²⁰²
• 1,000 militiamen to be raised, one eighth to be horsemen.²⁰³
• Indians taken captive in the Indian war shall be slaves for life.²⁰⁴
• The previous act allowing five commissioners to trade with the Indians is repealed due to corruption. All trade with Indians is prohibited. However, Indians fighting with the English shall have access to guns and ammunition.²⁰⁵
  
• Friendly Indians may continue to fish and hunt within their limits with bows and arrows. The English may trade fish, canoes, bowls, mats or baskets for corn from friendly Indians. If any Indian items other than these are found in the houses of the English, the English person shall be fined 1,000 pounds of tobacco, half to go to the public and the other half to the informer. A chief officer must certify Indian items taken in war; the justice of the peace is to be notified. Anyone having Indian items prior to this act must obtain a certificate from the justice of the peace. Any English person killing a beaver, otter, or wildcat on their own must immediately take the skin(s) to be certified by the justice of the peace.²⁰⁶
• Any land deserted by Indians shall be put on reserve to sell to defray the cost of the war. The land shall not be patented to the English, but sold.²⁰⁷

Native Voice

For over three hundred years, scholars and historians have debated the cause of Bacon's Rebellion without reaching a definitive conclusion. Governor William Berkely and Nathaniel Bacon, Jr. have each been vigorously accused and defended as the villain of the infamous insurrection of 1676-1677. Even though many problems existed in the colony, both real and fictitious, the Governor and the rebel soon agreed on at least one issue — the extermination of the Indians.

— Oliver L. "Fish Hawk" Perry
Nansemond Chief Emeritus
September 16, 1989

June 1676
Governor Berkeley and the Assembly make Bacon the commander-in-chief of the forces to fight the Indians.²⁰⁸

June 1676
Nathaniel Bacon leaves Jamestown with his followers to march against the Indians.²⁰⁹

Native Voice

"He [Nathaniel Bacon] also convinced the Occaneechis to attack a Susquehannock fort, and then he attacked the Occaneechis after their victory and murdered almost all of them."

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation
July 2004

"Because he [Nathaniel Bacon] wanted Gov. Berkeley's job, I heard."

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation
July 2004

August 1676
Nathaniel Bacon crosses the York and raids friendly, tributary Indians, such as the Pamunkeys. Instead of fighting back the tributary Indians, who signed the 1646 Treaty of Peace, try to escape and hide from Bacon and his men.²¹⁰

September 1676
Nathaniel Bacon enters Jamestown and sets it on fire, after which he returns to Gloucester. He died a month later in Gloucester of the "bloody flux" and "lousey disease."²¹¹

Reproduction of the Treaty of Middle Plantation 1677.

1677

May 29, 1677
After Bacon's Rebellion, the Queen of the Pamunkeys, Cockacoeske, approaches the Colonial government to update the 1646 Treaty of Peace. The 1677 Treaty is signed at Middle Plantation in Williamsburg, Virginia.²¹²

February 1677 — Acts of Assembly —

• Arms and ammunition may be sold and traded to any colonists, the Indians of the eastern shore, and other friendly neighboring Indians.²¹³
• The cost of the war with the Susquehanna Indians shall be born by the public.²¹⁴
• The counties are to pay for the war against the Indians.²¹⁵
• Indians taken captive in war may be retained as slaves, and the soldiers may retain the plunder.²¹⁶

October 1677 — Acts of Assembly —

• Total prohibition of trade with Indians is found to be hurtful. Free trade with all friendly Indians is to resume. Indians may come to the English region on certain days to trade. Marts or fairs are to be established for this trade. The English are not to trade with Indians at any other place, but the deemed markets. There shall be an account kept of all that is traded at the market. Exceptions are made to the Wiccocomico Indians in Northumberland and Chiskiack Indians living in Gloucester: the respective counties may set up their own times and rules. Indians are to come to the markets unarmed, but may carry back arms, if they are recorded with the clerk. Indians may be entertained within individual homes with a license to do so.²¹⁷
  
  Editor's Note: This was treaty between Charles II of England the Virginia Indians, which repeats many of the articles of peace from the 1646 Treaty. Several of the articles from this treaty were enacted into law by the General Assembly.

Native Voice

"The Pamunkey Queen emerged as a very powerful leader. She actually negotiated the Treaty of 1677 on behalf of all the Powhatan tribes. Women were prominent in government."

— Chief G. Anne "Little Fawn" Richardson
Rappahannock Tribe
July 2000

1679

April 1679 — Acts of Assembly—

• Reiteration of soldiers being free to keep plunder from Indians and sell Indian captives as slaves.²¹⁸

1680

June 1680 — Acts of Assembly—

• All limitations of trade with friendly Indians repealed until the next session.²¹⁹
  

1682

November 1682 — Acts of Assembly—

• Repeal of Act XII, October 1670 concerning the tenure of slaves. Except for Turks and Moors, any person from a nation not known to be Christian can be sold as slaves, regardless of where they are from or whether they are converted to Christianity.²²⁰

Native Voice

"An earlier act prohibited Indian slavery. Now it is okay?"

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation
July 2004

Editor's Note: Ms. Wood points to an interesting aspect in colonial English culture, which requires further research into the English colonial distinctions between slavery and captivity.

1691

April 1691 — Acts of Assembly—

• Customs and licenses required for exporting Indian goods, such as furs, outside the country.²²¹
• All former acts limiting trade with the Indians repealed. There shall be free and open trade for all persons and all times.²²²
• To prevent the mischief occurring with the English in "fire huntings," the English are prohibited to hunt in remote areas without a license.²²³
• For protection against enemy Indians and others, one lieutenant, 11 soldiers and two Indians will be stationed at the heads of the great rivers. Horses and ammunition are to be provided for scouting the area for enemies.²²⁴
• The two Indians will be paid eight yards of duffels (woolen material) and two barrels of Indian corn per year. Each Indian is to have a horse, bridle and saddle. The owners of the horses shall receive 80 pounds of tobacco and cask per month.²²⁵
• The boundaries given in Act 8 (October 10th, 1665) for the Indians on the south side of the James River are clarified further: the line from the head of the principle branch of the black water, to the upper part of the old Appamattock Indian Town field, and thence to the upper end of the Manakin Town be judged, deemed held and taken to be the said bounds.²²⁶
• Banishment within three months if an English man or woman marries Negro, mulatto or Indian. If an English woman has a child out-of-wedlock with a Negro or mulatto, she is to pay fifteen pounds of sterling. The child is to be a servant of the Church wardens until the age of thirty.²²⁷

1692

April 1692 — Acts of Assembly—

• Ranger scouts authorized in April 1691 are in service and are to continue.²²⁸
• Payment for the two Indian scouts.²²⁹
• Any English or Indians providing intelligence shall be reserved until ascertained whether the information is true or not. If true the person shall be rewarded, if false it will be considered a criminal act.²³⁰

1693

March 1693 — Acts of Assembly—

• Act 6 (1674) commanded that Indians keeping hogs must mark them according to their town. However, it has been reported to the Assembly that the Nottoway Indians and others have diverse marks, and marks similar to the English. Indians are killing English hogs. There is a dispute in the courts as to what mark the Nottoway and the Weyanock Indians should use. Surry County is authorized to assign a mark to the each of the towns of the Nottoway and Weyanock Indians. The proper mark must be on the hog sold to the English.²³¹
• The lieutenant, eleven soldiers and two Indians are to continue with their service of scouting.²³²

1696

September 1696 — Acts ofAssembly —

• Indians are to be paid 100 pounds of tobacco for each wolf killed. Claims are to made in the county where the wolf was killed.²³³

Native Voice

"What was the reward for killing an Indian?"

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation
July 2004

"1701. A group of French Huguenots moved into the Monacan town, called Manakin, west of present day Richmond. The town had been attacked by Col. Bourne, who massacred most of the Indian inhabitants."

— Karenne Wood
Virginia Council of Indians, Chairman
Monacan Nation
July 2004

"From the Acts of Assembly, we see discrimination documented in the first laws of Virginia. The seeds of racial discrimination separation of people crossed the ocean with the invaders, they sowed their seeds and it took root in Virginia. Unfortunately, those seeds grew and infected the nation with much destruction for my people"

—Chief G. Anne "Little Fawn" Richardson
Rappahannock Tribe
Summer 2004

1705

Editor's Note: A few of the early Acts of Assembly from the eighteenth century are included below to show the continuing pattern of relations between Indians and settlers in Virginia.

Detail of "The manner of making their boates," Theodor de Bry, 1590.

October 1705 — Acts of Assembly —

• No Negro, mulatto or Indian may bear any office, civil or military, or be in any place of public trust. If such a position is taken there will be a fine of 500 pounds of current money, and twenty pounds of like money for every month he continues. However, an Indian may hold such an office if commissioned from Her Majesty.²³⁴
• Definition of a mulatto: the child of an Indian, the child, grandchild or great grandchild of a Negro.²³⁵
• Indians may use adjacent county marks in marking their hogs. One third of the fine of 1000 pounds of tobacco of not possessing proper proof of mark now goes to the Queen and her heirs, and successors^.236
• Larger reward for English in killing wolves than Indians. If the wolf is killed by pit or trap the reward is 300 pounds of tobacco, and 200 pounds of tobacco by other means. Indians are only to be paid 100 pounds of tobacco per wolf.²³⁷
• Indians, Negroes, mulattos, and non-Christians are not allowed to be witnesses in cases of law.²³⁸
• It is unlawful for the English to employ a Tuscarora, or other Indian, unless a slave or servant, to hunt or kill deer, or furnish them with guns and ammunition, on patent lands. Penalty is 1000 pounds of tobacco.²³⁹
• Any person finding an Indian hunting illegally on such lands is permitted to take the gun and ammunition into their own possession.³⁴⁰
• There is nothing in this act that should interfere with the hunting customs of the Pamunkey, Chickahominy or Eastern Shore Indians.²⁴¹
• An act to prevent animosities, fears and misunderstandings between the tributary Indians and her majesty's subjects.²⁴²
• Indian chiefs are not to sell land allotted to them in the articles of peace on May 29, 1677.²⁴³
• An act to prevent non-Indians from buying or leasing Indian lands, bringing a fine of ten shillings for every acre of land so purchased, leased or occupied.²⁴⁴
• Exceptions to the above prohibition of acquiring Indian lands, the following have been granted patents out of Pamunkey lands:
  • George Shillings, 300 acres of land
  • Michael Waldrop, 90 acres of land
  • The heir of George Southerland, deceased, 200 acres.²⁴⁵
• No construction is to be made within three miles of any Indian town, according to the articles of peace (originally Article IV Treaty of Middle Plantation 1677.)²⁴⁶
  
  Editor's Note: The reservation tribes, Pamunkey and Mattaponi, still considered the Treaty of 1677 a viable document.
• If the English have already settled within three miles of an Indian town on the opposite side of a river, they may stay.²⁴⁷
• Tributary Indians are to be protected under English law as any Englishman.²⁴⁸
• Indians may obtain a license to go oystering, fishing, gathering items not useful to the English, such as Tuckahoe, cuttenemons, wild oats, rushes, puckoon, on English lands. If the Indians are hurt, the culprits will be punished as if the crime had been against an Englishman.²⁴⁹
• Indians may not bring guns and ammunition while foraging for oysters, fish, etc, and are not to stay any longer than the license permits.²⁵⁰
• All tributary Indian kings and queens are to notify the nearest militia officer of any strange Indian movements of war. The tributary Indians will be provided aid if needed against the strange Indians.²⁵¹
• Tributary Indians are to march with the English against foreign Indians.²⁵²
• Free and open trade is now allowed at all times, with all Indians.²⁵³
• The sale of rum or brandy prohibited in Indian towns and on Indian lands. Penalty is ten shillings per quart of rum or brandy sold.²⁵⁴
• Grants of 14-year trading monopolies may be given to those discovering Indians towns and nations to the west, towards the Appalachian Mountains.²⁵⁵
• All acts limiting trade with Indians shall be repealed, except one act on the April 18, 1705, concerning the Nanzatico, and other Indians.²⁵⁶

Editor's Note:Despite the pressure of the oppressive legislation and of the 100 years of contact, the descendants of Virginia's original native inhabitants survived in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are still here today.

Detail of "The Coniuerer," Theodor de Bry, 1590.

End Notes

1. (Abbot 1957:2)
2. (Strachey [1612] 2001: 598)
3. (Abbot 1957:2)
4. (Abbot 1957:2; Rountree 1990: 31; Smith 1986a [1624]: 79)
5. (Percy 1967:15-16; Abbot 1957:2-3)
6. (Smith 2001a [1608]: 156-162; Smith 2001b [1624]: 239)
7. (Smith 2001a [1608]: 162)
8. (Smith 2001b [1624]: 260-2)
9. (Smith 2001b [1624]: 268-273, 275-77)
10. (Smith 2001b [1624]: 282; Smith 1986b: 184; Rountree 1990:47)
11. (Abbot, 1957:5)
12. (Haile 2001:62)
13. (Smith 2001b: 334; Abbot 1957:5)
14. (Tyler 1922:267-269; Brown 1890:I: 392)
15. (Smith 1986b [1624]: 234; Tyler 1922:262)
16. (Rountree 1990:55)
17. (Hamor2001 [1615]: 820)
18. (Abbot 1957:7)
19. (Argall 2001 [1613]: 745-755; Abbot 1957:7; Smith 1986 [1624]: 243-244; Strachey, 1849 [1612]: 54; Townsend 2004)
20. (Abbot 1957:7)
21. (Dale 2001 [1614]: 845; Whitaker 2001 [1614]: 848; Rolfe 2001[1614]: 854; Rasmusse & Tilton 1994: 23)
22. (Abbot 1957:7; Tyler 1946: 237; Smith 1986 [1624:245-246)
23. (Abbot 1957:7; Smith 1986 [1624]: 258-261; Sams 1939:175)
24. (Smith 1986 [1624]: 260-261)
25. (Smith 1986 [1624]: 261-262; Rolfe 2001 [1617]: 888-889)
26. (Abbot 1957:7-8)
27. (Smith 1986 [1624]: 265)
28. (McIlwaine 1905-1915:1619-1660:35; Brydon 1947:83)
29. (Abbot 1957:9)
30. (Abbot 1957:9-10; Smith 1986 [1624]: 294-295)
31. (Abbot 1957:10; McIlwaine 1924:40, 120; Tyler 1907:438)
32. (Henning 1823a: 123)
33. (Henning 1823a: 126)
34. (Henning 1823a: 127)
35. (Stanard 1928: 176)
36. (Abbot 1957:10)
37. (Abbot 1957:11)
38. (Abbot 1957:11)
39. (Henning 1823a: 140)
40. (Henning 1823a: 141)
41. (Henning 1823a: 143)
42. (Henning 1823a: 150)
43. (Henning 1823a: 153)
44. (Henning 1823a: 167)
45. (Henning 1823a: 173)
46. (Henning 1823a: 176)
47. (Rountree 1990:81)
48. (Henning 1823a: 192-193)
49. (Henning 1823a: 193)
50. (Henning 1823a: 198)
51. (Henning 1823a: 219)
52. (Henning 1823a: 219)
53. (Nugent 1960-1979: I: 77, 150, 183; II: 211-212; McIlwaine 1924: 478). Research by Martha W. McCartney, see "Narrative History" in this publication.)
54. (Henning 1823a: 227)
55. (Henning 1823a: 227)
56. (Henning 1823a: 255)
57. (Henning 1823a: 255-256)
58. (Rountree 1990: 84)
59. (Henning 1823a: 287)
60. (Henning 1823a: 287)
61. (Henning 1823a: 290)
62. (Henning 1823a: 292)
63. (Henning 1823a: 293)
64. (Henning 1823a: 300)
65. (Henning 1823a: 315)
66. (Henning 1823a: 317-318)
67. (Henning 1823a: 319)
68. (Beverley 1947: 62)
69. (Force 1963:II:8: 13)
70. (Henning 1823a: 323) Thus, later on in the Acts of the Assembly, the tribes that had signed the treaty of peace are often referred to as "Tributary Indians."
71. (Henning 1823a: 323-324)
72. (Henning 1823a: 324)
73. (Henning 1823a: 324)
74. (Henning 1823a: 325)
75. (Henning 1823a: 325)
76. (Henning 1823a: 325)
77. (Henning 1823a: 325)
78. (Henning 1823a: 325-326)
79. (Henning 1823a: 326)
80. (Henning 1823a: 326)
81. (Henning 1823a: 324)
82. (Henning 1823a: 328)
83. (Henning 1823a: 328)
84. (Henning 1823a: 328-329)
85. (Henning 1823a: 333)
86. (Henning 1823a: 333)
87. (Henning 1823a: 333)
88. (Henning 1823a: 337)
89. (Henning 1823a: 348)
90. (Henning 1823a: 380)
91. (Henning 1823a: 382)
92. (Henning 1823a: 382)
93. (Henning 1823a: 389)
94. (Henning 1823a: 391)
95. (Henning 1823a: 391)
96. (Henning 1823a: 395)
97. (Henning 1823a: 396)
98. (Henning 1823a: 396)
99. (Henning 1823a: 396)
100. (Henning 1823a: 401-402)
101. (Henning 1823a: 402-403)
102. (Henning 1823a: 410)
103. (Henning 1823a: 410)
104. (Henning 1823a: 410)
105. (Henning 1823a: 415)
106. (Henning 1823a: 441)
107. (Henning 1823a: 454)
108. (Henning 1823a: 455-456)
109. (Henning 1823a: 456-457)
110. (Henning 1823a: 457)
111. (Henning 1823a: 467)
112. (Henning 1823a: 467-468)
113. (Henning 1823a: 470)
114. (Henning 1823a: 470)
115. (Henning 1823a: 471)
116. (Henning 1823a: 481-482)
117. (Henning 1823a: 515)
118. (Henning 1823a: 518)
119. (Henning 1823a: 521)
120. (Henning 1823a: 525)
121. (Henning 1823a: 541)
122. (Henning 1823a: 547)
123. (Henning 1823a: 546)
124. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 13-14)
125. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 14)
126. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 14-15)
127. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 15-16)
128. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 20)
129. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 34)
130. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 35)
131. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 36)
132. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 39)
133. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 39)
134. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 124)
135. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 138)
136. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 139)
137. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 139)
138. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 139)
139. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 140)
140. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 140)
141. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 141)
142. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 141)
143. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 141)
144. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 142)
145. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 142)
146. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 142)
147. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 143)
148. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 143)
149. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 143)
150. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 149)
151. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 150)
152. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 150)
153. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 150-151)
154. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 152)
155. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 152-153)
156. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 153)
157. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 153)
158. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 153-154)
159. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 154)
160. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 154)
161. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 155)
162. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 155)
163. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 155)
164. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 155)
165. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 155)
166. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 185)
167. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 193)
168. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 193)
169. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 193)
170. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 193)
171. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 194)
172. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 194)
173. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 194)
174. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 194)
175. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 194)
176. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 215)
177. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 219)
178. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 219)
179. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 219)
180. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 236)
181. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 237)
182. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 274-275)
183. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 275)
184. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 276)
185. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 280-281)
186. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 282)
187. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 283)
188. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 289)
189. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 316-317)
190. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 327)
191. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 327)
192. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 327)
193. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 331)
194. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 332)
195. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 336)
196. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 336)
197. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 337)
198. (Rountree 1990:97)
199. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 341-342)
200. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 342)
201. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 343)
202. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 343)
203. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 343)
204. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 346)
205. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 350)
206. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 350)
207. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 351-352)
208. (Rountree 1990:98)
209. (Rountree 1990:99)
210. (Rountree 1990:99)
211. (Washburn, 1957:85)
212. (Rountree 1990:100-101)
213. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 403)
214. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 403)
215. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 403)
216. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 404)
217. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 410)
218. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 440)
219. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 480)
220. (Henning 1969 [1823b]: 490)
221. (Henning 1823c: 69)
222. (Henning 1823c: 69)
223. (Henning 1823c: 69)
224. (Henning 1823c: 83)
225. (Henning 1823c: 84)
226. (Henning 1823c: 84-85)
227. (Henning 1823c: 86-87)
228. (Henning 1823c: 98-99)
229. (Henning 1823c: 100)
230. (Henning 1823c: 100)
231. (Henning 1823c: 109)
232. (Henning 1823c: 115)
233. (Henning 1823c: 141)
234. (Henning 1823c: 251)
235. (Henning 1823c: 252)
236. (Henning 1823c: 278)
237. (Henning 1823c: 282)
238. (Henning 1823c: 298)
239. (Henning 1823c: 343)
240. (Henning 1823c: 343)
241. (Henning 1823c: 343)
242. (Henning 1823c: 464-465)
243. (Henning 1823c: 465)
244. (Henning 1823c: 465)
245. (Henning 1823c: 466)
246. (Henning 1823c: 466)
247. (Henning 1823c: 466)
248. (Henning 1823c: 467)
249. (Henning 1823c: 467)
250. (Henning 1823c: 467)
251. (Henning 1823c: 467)
252. (Henning 1823c: 468)
253. (Henning 1823c: 468)
254. (Henning 1823c: 468)
255. (Henning 1823c: 468)
256. (Henning 1823c: 469)

Bibliography

Abbot, William W.

1957 A Virginia Chronology 1958-1783. Williamsburg, Virginia: Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corporation.

Argall, Samuel

2001 [1613] Letter to Don Alonso de Velasco, 28 May 1613 in Jamestown Narratives, Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, The First Decade: 1607-1617, ed. Edward Wright Haile, first printing in 1998. Champlain, Virginia: RoundHouse.

Beverley, Robert

1947 [1705] The History and Present State of Virginia, in Four Parts, by a Native and Inhabitant of the Place, ed. Louis B. Wright, frist printing in 1705, London: R. Parker. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Brown, Alexander

1890 The Genesis of the United States. 2 vols. Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston and New York. Reprint, Heritage Books, Inc., Bowie, Maryland, 1994.

Brydon, George M.

1947 Virginia's Mother Church. Whittet and Shepperson, Richmond, Virginia.

Dale, Sir Thomas

2001 [1614] Letter to Mr. D. M. in London in Jamestown Narratives, Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, The First Decade: 1607-1617, ed. Edward Wright Haile, first printing in 1998. Champlain, Virginia: RoundHouse.

Haile, Edward Wright Haile, ed.

2001 Jamestown Narratives, Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, The First Decade: 1607-1617,first printing in 1998. Champlain, Virginia: RoundHouse.

Hamor, Ralph

2001 [1615] "A True Dicourse" in Jamestown Narratives, Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, The First Decade: 1607-1617, ed. Edward Wright Haile, first printing in 1998. Champlain, Virginia: RoundHouse.

Force, Peter, comp.

1963 [1836-46] Tracts and Other Papers Relating Principally to the Origin, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies in North America, from the Discovery of the Country to the Year 1776. Washington: Printed by P. Force, 4 vols.

Hening, William Waller

1823a The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature, in the year 1619, Vol. I. New York: R. & W. & G. Bartow.

1969 [1823b] Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature, in the year 1619, Vol. II. Reprint of 1823 New York: R. & W. & G. Bartow. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

1823c The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature, in the year 1619, Vol. III. Philadelphia: Thomas Desilver.

Kingsbury, Susan Myra, ed.

1906-1935 The Records of the Virginia Company of London. Washington: Library of Congress. 4 vols.

McIlwaine, H. R., et al, eds.

1905-1915 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1619-1776. 13 Vols. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia.

McIlwaine, H. R., ed.

1924 Minutes of Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia. The Library Board, Richmond, Virginia. Reprinted 1934, 1979.

Nugent, Nell Marion

1666-1979 Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants. Vol. 2: 1666-1695; Vol. 3: 1695-1732. Richmond: Virginia State Library], 1977-1979.

Percy, George

1967 [1006] Observations Gathered out of "A Discourse of the Plantation of the Southern Colony in Virginia by the English, 1606, edited by David B. Quinn. The University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville.

Rasmussen, William M. S., and Robert Steven Tilton.

1994 Pocahontas: Her Life and Legend. Virginia Historical Society: Richmond.

Rolfe, John

2001 [1614] Letter to Sandys, 8 June 1617 in Jamestown Narratives, Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, The First Decade: 1607-1617, ed. Edward Wright Haile, first printing in 1998. Champlain, Virginia: RoundHouse.Rolfe, John.

2001 [1614] Letter to Sir Thomas Dale in Jamestown Narratives, Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, The First Decade: 1607-1617, ed. Edward Wright Haile, first printing in 1998. Champlain, Virginia: RoundHouse.

Sams, Conway Whittle,

1939 The Conquest of Virginia, The Third Attempt 1610-1624. New York: G.P. Putman's Sons.

Strachey, William

2001 [1612] "The History of Travel into Virginia Britannia" in Jamestown Narratives, Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, The First Decade: 1607-1617, ed. Edward Wright Haile ,first printing in 1998. Champlain, Virginia: RoundHouse.

1849 [1612] The Historie of Travaiel into Virginia Britannia. Facsimile of The Hakluyt Society. London 1849 edition. Elibron Classics.

Smith, John

2001a [1608] "A True Relation" in Jamestown Narratives, Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, The First Decade: 1607-1617, ed. Edward Wright Haile, first printing in 1998. Champlain, Virginia: RoundHouse.

2001b [1624] "The Genaral History, 3rd Book" in Jamestown Narratives, Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, The First Decade: 1607-1617, ed. Edward Wright Haile, first printing in 1998. Champlain, Virginia: RoundHouse.

1986a [1624] "A True Relation" in The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580-1631) Volume 1, ed. Philip L. Barbour. Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press .

1986b [1624] "The Generall Historie" in The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580-1631) Volume 2, ed. Philip L. Barbour. Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press.

Stanard, Mary Newton

1928 The Story of Virginia's First Century. Philadelphia and London: J.B. Lippincott Company.

Rountree, Helen C.

1990 Pocahontas's People, The Powhatan Indians of Virginia Through Four Centuries. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press.

Townsend, Camilla

2004 Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma. New York: Hill and Wang.

Tyler, Lyon G., ed.

1922 "A Trewe Relacyon." Tyler's Historical Quarterly 3:259-282.

1907 Narratives of Early Virginia. Barnes and Noble, New York, New York.

Washburn, Wilcomb E.

1957 Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. W.W. Norton, New York.