Effect of early Jamestown/Virginia collapse on plans, timing & routes of Separatists & Puritans

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
A question on the effect of an early Jamestown/Virginia collapse (english settlement destroyed with the loss of all hands) on plans, timing & routes of Pilgrims, Puritans and Calverts (& Dutch, Swedes, French)?

With a total Jamestown & Virginia collapse in the first 15 years, are the Pilgrim Fathers still going to migrate at the same time as OTL (1620) and go to the same place as OTL (Cape Cod), and are the Puritan fleets of 1628 onward still going to go to Massachusetts Bay? For the Chesapeake, will the first English colony be Maryland in 1634? Or would would see other attempts, perhaps successful ones, in the territory or present-day Virginia before 1620.

Particularly with the Pilgrims, I wonder if failure of prior settlements in the Chesapeake region will make it more likely for them to go "hey, there's no other englishmen in Chesapeake and James River areas, so it's a blank slate for us" or if it will reinforce the idea of, "hey, when we go to America, let's make sure its a little further north and away from the areas of previous failures" thus landing them in Cape Cod or at least some point from Manhattan island northward.
 
If I recall correctly (this may be a mistake on my part so I am open to correction) the Puritans were originally aiming to be a bit further south than where they ended up. One has to remember that the colony of Roanoke occurred in the late 1580's and ultimately failed but Jamestown was not too far from the modern-day North Carolina area. The time gap between the two colonies was around 20 years. After the death of Wahunsenacawh, the colony at Jamestown was, in my opinion, pretty close to being dismantled due to attacks on the colonists from the natives which resulted in quite a few deaths for the colonists. I am curious as to how you would go about having Jamestown and, ultimately, Virginia collapse ITTL.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I am curious as to how you would go about having Jamestown and, ultimately, Virginia collapse ITTL.

Well awhile back I had proposed a scenario where the Powhatans wipe out Virginia in the war 1622, but most replies indicated folks thought this was too late to kill off the English in Virginia.

So I suppose riffing off of your statement
After the death of Wahunsenacawh, the colony at Jamestown was, in my opinion, pretty close to being dismantled due to attacks on the colonists from the natives which resulted in quite a few deaths for the colonists.
I would propose that the Powhatan just begin attacking the English nonstop from Wahunsenecawh's death in 1618.

Maybe with a three to four year headstart, Indian attackers can get the surviving English population down to zero.
 
From what I recall, a colonist named Richard Pace, who lived across the river from Jamestown, was warned of the impending attack. Smaller settlements along the James River were abandoned as well. In my opinion, if information about an attack on Jamestown was not passed on/received then the colonists will have a rough time ahead. However, I agree that the English were quite entrenched and had invested a lot in this colony. I know that this is unlikely but if an attack were to occur prior to John Rolfe's first successful tobacco crop in 1612 then the Powhatan might have a better chance than in 1618 or 1622.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I know that this is unlikely but if an attack were to occur prior to John Rolfe's first successful tobacco crop in 1612 then the Powhatan might have a better chance than in 1618 or 1622.

Let's go with this - the colony overwhelmed in an attack that comes in 1612 before the tobacco crop is harvested & sold. (hmm so I guess 1612 is the outer limit of when the colony could be plausibly "Roanoake'd"). One could wonder why the Powhatan's would do a major attack so early, but with the english having stuck around and increased, it might have been clear to the Powhatans that their initial assumption the english would just all starve to death in that awful swamp wasn't coming to pass.

So, going on past precedent (the Roanoake-Jamestown time gap), it might be up to 20 years before the English try the Chesapeake-Tidewater region again, so not till 1632. Presumably other Europeans (thinking mainly of French and Dutch) would know what happened and not try their hand there either in the meantime.

However by 1619-1620, the Separatist Pilgrim Fathers probably still have reason to want to migrate away from the Netherlands. Would they still be looking toward the east coast of North America as a major candidate destination?

You recalled correctly that
the Puritans were originally aiming to be a bit further south than where they ended up.
According to wikipedia, and one of the "What ifs of American History", their target was the mouth of the Hudson. Unless they are deterred from going to America altogether, they could end up anywhere from Manhattan to Cape Cod, or possibly to points south.

Even if early Plymouth and Massachussetts are established roughly as OTL, and then the English try and succeed at a Chesapeake colony in the 1630s, the establishment of "New England" before Dixie will likely have growing knock-on effects throughout subsequent American history.
 
They may have a shot in 1612 or prior to that. One has to remember that the colonists were going through difficult time during 1609-1610 due to disease and starvation. Approximately 80 percent of the colonists perished during the "Starving Time." That would be, in my opinion, an opportune time to strike. Just think, if there were no survivors of the massacre then the Powhatan can just blame their deaths on the elements.

http://mayflowerhistory.com/voyage
Actually, according to this source, it was much further south than the Hudson River.


I believe that the Pilgrims would still look toward the east coast of North America as a major candidate destination but, if we are going with the events of this timeline, then they would either move to the northern region of the Chesapeake Bay (modern day Maryland) or they would avoid the region altogether. I am not sure how well information was received but, if I am not mistaken, there were tribes in the northern part of Virginia and the southern part of Maryland that were not as hostile.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
http://mayflowerhistory.com/voyage
Actually, according to this source, it was much further south than the Hudson River.

Looking at the source in more detail, the destination was called "northern Virginia" but back in that time the region was considered to extend as far north as the Hudson, which the source mentions as the objective, and the voyage is never explicitly called out as being aimed at points further south like the Chesapeake or Delaware bays.

I believe that the Pilgrims would still look toward the east coast of North America as a major candidate destination but, if we are going with the events of this timeline, then they would either move to the northern region of the Chesapeake Bay (modern day Maryland) or they would avoid the region altogether.

I think that in 1619-1620 the Jamestown failure is a recent enough memory that the Pilgrims will not aim for the Chesapeake but instead will aim for the Hudson, and actually end up anywhere between Cape Cod and Cape May (southern New Jersey).

Plymouth will be an English colony in any of those regions, although if they are close to the mouth of the Hudson, the Dutch, who had scoped out the area and founded a fort at Albany, may successfully contest English sovereignty. A Plymouth-in-Manhattan might end up as an autonomous community under Dutch rule. If it came to blows between England and Netherlands in the 1620s over control of the Hudson, I do not know for sure which side would win.

I think the Puritans of the Winthrop group in the late 1620s would most likely settle, as in OTL, close by to "Plymouth" but not on top of it. So this could be anywhere from Philadelphia to New Jersey to New York, Connecticut or Massachussetts.

By the 1630s Cecelius Calvert is looking into colonial enterprise and the passage of time makes another attempt at the Chesapeake, probably OTL's Maryland, somewhat likely. At the same time, through odd reshuffling of grants and charters, there is also the chance that Calvert will have his land grant and attempt to start "Maryland" on Newfoundland.

With a long enough delay, Virginia might end up settled by the Barbadian English who in OTL settled in South Carolina. That difference in founders would make for cultural differences in the upper south.

Yet another wrinkle is that the Scottish Kirkes who occupied Quebec from 1627 to 1629 might not be ordered by the English Crown to trade it back to the French. This may possibly lead to an English North America by 1630 that is entirely based north of the "Mason-Dixon line" and include the northeastern seaboard and St. Lawrence, and its profitmakers are more the fur trade than tobacco. Who knows, maybe the Bourbon French may make the first successful establishments in Virginia or the Carolinas or both. Maybe the Dutch or Swedes would.
 
Last edited:
Top