II. Spanish America<\/span><\/h1>\r\nSpain extended its reach in the Americas after reaping the benefits of its colonies in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. Expeditions slowly began combing the continent and bringing Europeans into the modern-day United States in the hopes of establishing religious and economic dominance in a new territory.\r\n\r\nJuan Ponce de Le\u00f3n arrived in the area named La Florida in 1513. He found between 150,000 and 300,000 Native Americans. But then two and a half centuries of contact with European and African peoples\u2014whether through war, slave raids, or, most dramatically, foreign disease\u2014decimated Florida\u2019s Indigenous population. European explorers, meanwhile, had hoped to find great wealth in Florida, but reality never aligned with their imaginations.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_341\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"712\"]![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/229\/2025\/04\/2.2-300x182.jpg\")
1513 Atlantic map from cartographer Martin Waldseemuller. Wikimedia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn the first half of the sixteenth century, Spanish colonizers fought frequently with Florida\u2019s Native peoples as well as with other Europeans. In the 1560s Spain expelled French Protestants, called Huguenots, from the area near modern-day Jacksonville in northeast Florida. In 1586 English privateer Sir Francis Drake burned the wooden settlement of St. Augustine. At the dawn of the seventeenth century, Spain\u2019s reach in Florida extended from the mouth of the St. Johns River south to the environs of St. Augustine\u2014an area of roughly 1,000 square miles. The Spaniards attempted to duplicate methods for establishing control used previously in Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Andes. The Crown granted missionaries the right to live among Timucua and Guale villagers in the late 1500s and early 1600s and encouraged settlement through the encomienda<\/em> system (grants of Native labor).[footnote]Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of the United States, Vol. I: The Colonial Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nIn the 1630s, the mission system extended into the Apalachee district in the Florida panhandle. The Apalachee, one of the most powerful tribes in Florida at the time of contact, claimed the territory from the modern Florida-Georgia border to the Gulf of Mexico. Apalachee farmers grew an abundance of corn and other crops. Native American traders carried surplus products east along the Camino Real (the royal road) that connected the western anchor of the mission system with St. Augustine. Spanish settlers drove cattle eastward across the St. Johns River and established ranches as far west as Apalachee. Still, Spain held Florida tenuously.\r\n\r\nFarther west, in 1598, Juan de O\u00f1ate led four hundred settlers, soldiers, and missionaries from Mexico into New Mexico. The Spanish Southwest had brutal beginnings. When O\u00f1ate sacked the Pueblo city of Acoma, the \u201csky city,\u201d the Spaniards slaughtered nearly half of its roughly 1,500 inhabitants, including women and children. O\u00f1ate ordered one foot cut off every surviving male over age fifteen, and he enslaved the remaining women and children.[footnote]Andrew L. Knaut, The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance in Seventeenth Century New Mexico (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2015), 46.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nSanta Fe, the first permanent European settlement in the Southwest, was established in 1610. Few Spaniards relocated to the Southwest because of the distance from Mexico City and the dry and hostile environment. Thus, the Spanish never achieved a commanding presence in the region. By 1680, only about three thousand colonists called Spanish New Mexico home.[footnote]John E. Kicza and Rebecca Horn, Resilient Cultures: America\u2019s Native Peoples Confront European Colonization, 1500\u20131800 (New York: Routledge, 2013), 122.[\/footnote] There, they traded with and exploited the local Puebloan peoples. The region\u2019s Puebloan population had plummeted from as many as sixty thousand in 1600 to about seventeen thousand in 1680.[footnote]Knaut, Pueblo Revolt of 1680, 155.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nSpain shifted strategies after the military expeditions wove their way through the southern and western half of North America. Missions became the engine of colonization in North America. Missionaries, most of whom were members of the Franciscan religious order, provided Spain with an advance guard in North America. Catholicism had always justified Spanish conquest, and colonization always carried religious imperatives. By the early seventeenth century, Spanish friars had established dozens of missions along the Rio Grande and in California.\r\nIII. Spain\u2019s Rivals Emerge<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_342\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"624\"]![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/229\/2025\/04\/2.3-300x200.jpg\")
The earliest plan of New Amsterdam (now Manhattan),1660. Wikimedia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nWhile Spain plundered the New World, unrest plagued Europe. The Reformation threw England and France, the two European powers capable of contesting Spain, into turmoil. Long and expensive conflicts drained time, resources, and lives. Millions died from religious violence in France alone. As the violence diminished in Europe, however, religious and political rivalries continued in the New World.\r\n\r\nThe Spanish exploitation of New Spain\u2019s riches inspired European monarchs to invest in exploration and conquest. Reports of Spanish atrocities spread throughout Europe and provided a humanitarian justification for European colonization. An English reprint of the writings of Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas bore the sensational title \u201cPopery Truly Display\u2019d in its Bloody Colours: Or, a Faithful Narrative of the Horrid and Unexampled Massacres, Butcheries, and all manners of Cruelties that Hell and Malice could invent, committed by the Popish Spanish.\u201d An English writer explained that Native Americans \u201cwere simple and plain men, and lived without great labour,\u201d but in their lust for gold the Spaniards \u201cforced the people (that were not used to labour) to stand all the daie in the hot sun gathering gold in the sand of the rivers. By this means a great number of them (not used to such pains) died, and a great number of them (seeing themselves brought from so quiet a life to such misery and slavery) of desperation killed themselves. And many would not marry, because they would not have their children slaves to the Spaniards.\u201d[footnote]John Ponet, A Short Treatise on Political Power: And of the True Obedience Which Subjects Owe to Kings, and Other Civil Governors (London: s.n.), 43\u201344.[\/footnote] The Spanish accused their critics of fostering a \u201cBlack Legend.\u201d The Black Legend drew on religious differences and political rivalries. Spain had successful conquests in France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands and left many in those nations yearning to break free from Spanish influence. English writers argued that Spanish barbarities were foiling a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of Christianity across the globe and that a benevolent conquest of the New World by non-Spanish monarchies offered the surest salvation of the New World\u2019s pagan masses. With these religious justifications, and with obvious economic motives, Spain\u2019s rivals arrived in the New World.\r\nThe French<\/i><\/h2>\r\nThe French crown subsidized exploration in the early sixteenth century. Early French explorers sought a fabled Northwest Passage, a mythical waterway passing through the North American continent to Asia. Despite the wealth of the New World, Asia\u2019s riches still beckoned to Europeans. Canada\u2019s St. Lawrence River appeared to be such a passage, stretching deep into the continent and into the Great Lakes. French colonial possessions centered on these bodies of water (and, later, down the Mississippi River to the port of New Orleans).\r\n\r\nFrench colonization developed through investment from private trading companies. Traders established Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) in 1603 and launched trading expeditions that stretched down the Atlantic coast as far as Cape Cod. The needs of the fur trade set the future pattern of French colonization. Founded in 1608 under the leadership of Samuel de Champlain, Quebec provided the foothold for what would become New France. French fur traders placed a higher value on cooperating with Indigenous people than on establishing a successful French colonial footprint. Asserting dominance in the region could have been to their own detriment, as it might have compromised their access to skilled Native American trappers, and therefore wealth. Few Frenchmen traveled to the New World to settle permanently. In fact, few traveled at all. Many persecuted French Protestants (Huguenots) sought to emigrate after France criminalized Protestantism in 1685, but all non-Catholics were forbidden in New France.[footnote]Alan Greer, The People of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).[\/footnote]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_343\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"991\"]![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/229\/2025\/04\/2.4-300x89.jpg\")
This depiction of New Orleans in 1726 when it was an eight-year-old French frontier settlement. Jean-Pierre Lassus, Ve\u00fce et Perspective de la Nouvelle Orleans, 1726, Centre des archives d\u2019outre-mer, France. Wikimedia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe French preference for trade over permanent settlement fostered more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with Native Americans than was typical among the Spanish and English. Perhaps eager to debunk the anti-Catholic elements of the Black Legend, the French worked to cultivate cooperation with Native Americans. Jesuit missionaries, for instance, adopted different conversion strategies than the Spanish Franciscans. Spanish missionaries brought Natives into enclosed missions, whereas Jesuits more often lived with or alongside Indigenous people. Many French fur traders married Native American women.[footnote]Susan Sleeper-Smith, Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001).[\/footnote] The offspring of Native American women and French men were so common in New France that the French developed a word for these children, M\u00e9tis(sage)<\/em>. The Huron people developed a particularly close relationship with the French, and many converted to Christianity and engaged in the fur trade. But close relationships with the French would come at a high cost. The Huron were decimated by the ravages of European disease, and entanglements in French and Dutch conflicts proved disastrous.[footnote]Carole Blackburn, Harvest of Souls: The Jesuit Missions and Colonialism in North America, 1632\u20131659 (Montreal: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 2000), 116.[\/footnote] Despite this, some Native peoples maintained alliances with the French.\r\n\r\nPressure from the powerful Iroquois in the East pushed many Algonquian-speaking peoples toward French territory in the midseventeenth century, and together they crafted what historians have called a \u201cmiddle ground,\u201d a kind of cross-cultural space that allowed for native and European interaction, negotiation, and accommodation. French traders adopted\u2014sometimes clumsily\u2014the gift-giving and mediation strategies expected of Native leaders. Natives similarly engaged the impersonal European market and adapted\u2014often haphazardly\u2014to European laws. The Great Lakes \u201cmiddle ground\u201d experienced tumultuous success throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries until English colonial officials and American settlers swarmed the region. The pressures of European expansion strained even the closest bonds.[footnote]Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650\u20131815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991).[\/footnote]\r\nThe Dutch<\/i><\/h2>\r\nThe Netherlands, a small maritime nation with great wealth, achieved considerable colonial success. In 1581, the Netherlands had officially broken away from the Hapsburgs and won a reputation as the freest of the new European nations. Dutch women maintained separate legal identities from their husbands and could therefore hold property and inherit full estates.\r\n\r\nRavaged by the turmoil of the Reformation, the Dutch embraced greater religious tolerance and freedom of the press than other European nations.[footnote]Evan Haefeli, New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 20\u201353.[\/footnote] Radical Protestants, Catholics, and Jews flocked to the Netherlands. The English Pilgrims, for instance, fled first to the Netherlands before sailing to the New World years later. The Netherlands built its colonial empire through the work of experienced merchants and skilled sailors. The Dutch were the most advanced capitalists in the modern world and marshaled extensive financial resources by creating innovative financial organizations such as the Amsterdam Stock Exchange and the Dutch East India Company. Although the Dutch offered liberties, they offered very little democracy\u2014power remained in the hands of only a few. And Dutch liberties certainly had their limits. The Dutch advanced the slave trade and brought enslaved Africans with them to the New World. Slavery was an essential part of Dutch capitalist triumphs.\r\n\r\nSharing the European hunger for access to Asia, in 1609 the Dutch commissioned the Englishman Henry Hudson to discover the fabled Northwest Passage through North America. He failed, of course, but nevertheless found the Hudson River and claimed modern-day New York for the Dutch. There they established New Netherland, an essential part of the Dutch New World empire. The Netherlands chartered the Dutch West India Company in 1621 and established colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. The island of Manhattan provided a launching pad to support its Caribbean colonies and attack Spanish trade.\r\n\r\nSpiteful of the Spanish and mindful of the Black Legend, the Dutch were determined not to repeat Spanish atrocities. They fashioned guidelines for New Netherland that conformed to the ideas of Hugo Grotius, a legal philosopher who believed that Native peoples possessed the same natural rights as Europeans. Colony leaders insisted that land be purchased; in 1626 Peter Minuit therefore \u201cbought\u201d Manhattan from Munsee people.[footnote]Allen W. Trelease, Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 36.[\/footnote] Despite the seemingly honorable intentions, it is likely the Dutch paid the wrong people for the land (either intentionally or unintentionally) or that the Munsee and the Dutch understood the transaction in very different terms. Transactions like these illustrated both the Dutch attempt to find a more peaceful process of colonization and the inconsistency between European and Native American understandings of property.\r\n\r\nLike the French, the Dutch sought to profit, not to conquer. Trade with Native peoples became New Netherland\u2019s central economic activity. Dutch traders carried wampum along Native trade routes and exchanged it for beaver pelts. Wampum consisted of shell beads fashioned by Algonquians on the southern New England coast and was valued as a ceremonial and diplomatic commodity among the Iroquois. Wampum became a currency that could buy anything from a loaf of bread to a plot of land.[footnote]Daniel K. Richter, Trade, Land, Power: The Struggle for Eastern North America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 101.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nIn addition to developing these trading networks, the Dutch also established farms, settlements, and lumber camps. The West India Company directors implemented the patroon system to encourage colonization. The patroon system granted large estates to wealthy landlords, who subsequently paid passage for the tenants to work their land. Expanding Dutch settlements correlated with deteriorating relations with local Native Americans. In the interior of the continent, the Dutch retained valuable alliances with the Iroquois to maintain Beverwijck, modern-day Albany, as a hub for the fur trade.[footnote]Janny Venema, Beverwijck: A Dutch Village on the American Frontier, 1652\u20131664 (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003).[\/footnote] In the places where the Dutch built permanent settlements, the ideals of peaceful colonization succumbed to the settlers\u2019 increasing demand for land. Armed conflicts erupted as colonial settlements encroached on Native villages and hunting lands. Profit and peace, it seemed, could not coexist.\r\n\r\nLabor shortages, meanwhile, crippled Dutch colonization. The patroon system failed to bring enough tenants, and the colony could not attract a sufficient number of indentured servants to satisfy the colony\u2019s backers. In response, the colony imported eleven enslaved people owned by the company in 1626, the same year that Minuit purchased Manhattan. Enslaved laborers were tasked with building New Amsterdam (modern-day New York City), including a defensive wall along the northern edge of the colony (the site of modern-day Wall Street). They created its roads and maintained its all-important port. Fears of racial mixing led the Dutch to import enslaved women, enabling the formation of African Dutch families. The colony\u2019s first African marriage occurred in 1641, and by 1650 there were at least five hundred enslaved Africans in the colony. By 1660, New Amsterdam had the largest urban enslaved population on the continent.[footnote]Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626\u20131863 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 21.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nAs was typical of the practice of African slavery in much of the early seventeenth century, Dutch slavery in New Amsterdam was less comprehensively exploitative than later systems of American slavery. Some enslaved Africans, for instance, successfully sued for back wages. When several enslaved people owned by the company fought for the colony against the Munsee, they petitioned for their freedom and won a kind of \u201chalf freedom\u201d that allowed them to work their own land in return for paying a large tithe, or tax, to their enslavers. The children of these \u201chalf-free\u201d laborers remained held in bondage by the West India Company, however. The Dutch, who so proudly touted their liberties, grappled with the reality of African slavery, and some New Netherlanders protested the enslavement of Christianized Africans. The economic goals of the colony slowly crowded out these cultural and religious objections, and the much-boasted liberties of the Dutch came to exist alongside increasingly brutal systems of slavery.\r\nThe Portuguese\u00a0<\/i><\/h2>\r\nThe Portuguese had been leaders in Atlantic navigation well ahead of Columbus\u2019s voyage. But the incredible wealth flowing from New Spain piqued the rivalry between the two Iberian countries, and accelerated Portuguese colonization efforts. This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.\r\n\r\nLucrative colonies in Africa and India initially preoccupied Portugal, but by 1530 the Portuguese turned their attention to the land that would become Brazil, driving out French traders and establishing permanent settlements. Gold and silver mines dotted the interior of the colony, but two industries powered early colonial Brazil: sugar and the slave trade. In fact, over the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than in any other colony in the Atlantic World. Gold mines emerged in greater numbers throughout the eighteenth century but still never rivaled the profitability of sugar or slave trading.\r\n\r\nJesuit missionaries brought Christianity to Brazil, but strong elements of African and Native spirituality mixed with orthodox Catholicism to create a unique religious culture. This culture resulted from the demographics of Brazilian slavery. High mortality rates on sugar plantations required a steady influx of new enslaved laborers, thus perpetuating the cultural connection between Brazil and Africa. The reliance on new imports of enslaved laborers increased the likelihood of resistance, however, and those who escaped slavery managed to create several free settlements, called quilombos.<\/em> These settlements drew from both enslaved Africans and Natives, and despite frequent attacks, several endured throughout the long history of Brazilian slavery.[footnote]Alida C. Metcalf, Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil: 1500\u20131600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005). See also James H. Sweet, Recreating Africa: Culture, Kinship, and Religion in the African-Portuguese World, 1441\u20131770 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nDespite the arrival of these new Europeans, Spain continued to dominate the New World. The wealth flowing from the exploitation of the Aztec and Incan Empires greatly eclipsed the profits of other European nations. But this dominance would not last long. By the end of the sixteenth century, the powerful Spanish Armada would be destroyed, and the English would begin to rule the waves.\r\nIV. English Colonization<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_344\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"975\"]![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/229\/2025\/04\/2.5-300x132.jpg\")
Nicholas Hilliard, The Battle of Gravelines, 1588. Wikimedia[\/caption]\r\n\r\nSpain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.\r\n\r\nHowever, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[footnote]Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975), 30.[\/footnote] The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[footnote]John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2006), 131\u2013135.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nNew World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[footnote]Christopher Hodgkins, Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 15.[\/footnote] Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.\r\n\r\nIn his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[footnote]Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584). https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/discourseonweste02hakl_0<\/a>.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nThis noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).\r\n\r\nRather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[footnote]Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 9.[\/footnote] Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.\r\n\r\nAn island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[footnote]Felipe Fern\u00e1ndez-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).[\/footnote] The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.\r\n\r\nAfter King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.\r\nV. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_345\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"870\"]![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/229\/2025\/04\/2.6-300x169.jpg\")
Incolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), c. 1590. The Encyclopedia Virginia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.\r\n\r\nThe English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.\r\n\r\nJamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[footnote]John Smith, Advertisements for the Inexperienced Planters \u2028of New England, or Anywhere or\u2028The Pathway to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: Haviland, 1631), 16.[\/footnote] And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.\r\n\r\nJohn Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.\r\n\r\nPowhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_346\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1023\"]![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/229\/2025\/04\/2.7-300x120.jpg\")
John White, \u201cVillage of the Secotan, 1585. Wikimedia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nDespite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[footnote]George Percy, \u201cA True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurrents of Moment Which Have Hap\u2019ned in Virginia,\u201d quoted in Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607\u20131617, ed. Edward Wright Haile (Champlain, VA: Round House, 1998), 505.[\/footnote] Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[footnote]Eric A. Powell, \u201cChilling Discovery at Jamestown,\u201d Archaeology (June 10, 2013). http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/issues\/96-1307\/trenches\/973-jamestown-starving-time-cannibalism<\/a>.[\/footnote] All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.\r\n\r\nLittle improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.\r\n\r\nBy the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[footnote]Dennis Montgomery, 1607: Jamestown and the New World (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007), 126.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nTobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.\r\n\r\nIn 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.\r\n\r\nSoon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[footnote]Rebecca Goetz, The Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 57.[\/footnote] The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[footnote]Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 75.[\/footnote] War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.\r\n\r\nSpanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[footnote]Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550\u201312 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7.[\/footnote] An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[footnote]Ibid., 16.[\/footnote] More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.\r\n\r\nAnd yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[footnote]T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, \u201cMyne Owne Ground\u201d: Race and Freedom on Virginia\u2019s Eastern Shore, 1640\u20131676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nIn 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.\r\nVI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_347\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"854\"]![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/229\/2025\/04\/2.8-300x169.jpg\")
Seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.\r\n\r\nThe term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.\r\n\r\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.\r\n\r\nDuring the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[footnote]John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>.[\/footnote] The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.\r\n\r\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.\r\n\r\nThere is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.\r\n\r\nAlthough New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.\r\n\r\nA combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[footnote]Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[footnote]Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391.[\/footnote] They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.\r\n\r\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[footnote]Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687).[\/footnote] The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.\r\n\r\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[footnote]Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389.[\/footnote] Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[footnote]Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d\r\nVII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\r\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.","rendered":"![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/229\/2025\/04\/2.1-300x150.jpg\")
Theodor de Bry, \u201cNegotiating Peace With the Indians,\u201d 1634, Virginia Historical Society.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nI. Introduction<\/span><\/h1>\nThe Columbian Exchange transformed both sides of the Atlantic, but with dramatically disparate outcomes. New diseases wiped out entire civilizations in the Americas, while newly imported nutrient-rich foodstuffs enabled a European population boom. Spain benefited most immediately as the wealth of the Aztec and Incan Empires strengthened the Spanish monarchy. Spain used its new riches to gain an advantage over other European nations, but this advantage was soon contested.<\/p>\n
Portugal, France, the Netherlands, and England all raced to the New World, eager to match the gains of the Spanish. Native peoples greeted the new visitors with responses ranging from welcoming cooperation to aggressive violence, but the ravages of disease and the possibility of new trading relationships enabled Europeans to create settlements all along the western rim of the Atlantic world. New empires would emerge from these tenuous beginnings, and by the end of the seventeenth century, Spain would lose its privileged position to its rivals. An age of colonization had begun and, with it, a great collision of cultures commenced.<\/p>\n
II. Spanish America<\/span><\/h1>\nSpain extended its reach in the Americas after reaping the benefits of its colonies in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. Expeditions slowly began combing the continent and bringing Europeans into the modern-day United States in the hopes of establishing religious and economic dominance in a new territory.<\/p>\n
Juan Ponce de Le\u00f3n arrived in the area named La Florida in 1513. He found between 150,000 and 300,000 Native Americans. But then two and a half centuries of contact with European and African peoples\u2014whether through war, slave raids, or, most dramatically, foreign disease\u2014decimated Florida\u2019s Indigenous population. European explorers, meanwhile, had hoped to find great wealth in Florida, but reality never aligned with their imaginations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n1513 Atlantic map from cartographer Martin Waldseemuller. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn the first half of the sixteenth century, Spanish colonizers fought frequently with Florida\u2019s Native peoples as well as with other Europeans. In the 1560s Spain expelled French Protestants, called Huguenots, from the area near modern-day Jacksonville in northeast Florida. In 1586 English privateer Sir Francis Drake burned the wooden settlement of St. Augustine. At the dawn of the seventeenth century, Spain\u2019s reach in Florida extended from the mouth of the St. Johns River south to the environs of St. Augustine\u2014an area of roughly 1,000 square miles. The Spaniards attempted to duplicate methods for establishing control used previously in Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Andes. The Crown granted missionaries the right to live among Timucua and Guale villagers in the late 1500s and early 1600s and encouraged settlement through the encomienda<\/em> system (grants of Native labor).[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn the 1630s, the mission system extended into the Apalachee district in the Florida panhandle. The Apalachee, one of the most powerful tribes in Florida at the time of contact, claimed the territory from the modern Florida-Georgia border to the Gulf of Mexico. Apalachee farmers grew an abundance of corn and other crops. Native American traders carried surplus products east along the Camino Real (the royal road) that connected the western anchor of the mission system with St. Augustine. Spanish settlers drove cattle eastward across the St. Johns River and established ranches as far west as Apalachee. Still, Spain held Florida tenuously.<\/p>\n
Farther west, in 1598, Juan de O\u00f1ate led four hundred settlers, soldiers, and missionaries from Mexico into New Mexico. The Spanish Southwest had brutal beginnings. When O\u00f1ate sacked the Pueblo city of Acoma, the \u201csky city,\u201d the Spaniards slaughtered nearly half of its roughly 1,500 inhabitants, including women and children. O\u00f1ate ordered one foot cut off every surviving male over age fifteen, and he enslaved the remaining women and children.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSanta Fe, the first permanent European settlement in the Southwest, was established in 1610. Few Spaniards relocated to the Southwest because of the distance from Mexico City and the dry and hostile environment. Thus, the Spanish never achieved a commanding presence in the region. By 1680, only about three thousand colonists called Spanish New Mexico home.[3]<\/sup><\/a> There, they traded with and exploited the local Puebloan peoples. The region\u2019s Puebloan population had plummeted from as many as sixty thousand in 1600 to about seventeen thousand in 1680.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSpain shifted strategies after the military expeditions wove their way through the southern and western half of North America. Missions became the engine of colonization in North America. Missionaries, most of whom were members of the Franciscan religious order, provided Spain with an advance guard in North America. Catholicism had always justified Spanish conquest, and colonization always carried religious imperatives. By the early seventeenth century, Spanish friars had established dozens of missions along the Rio Grande and in California.<\/p>\n
III. Spain\u2019s Rivals Emerge<\/span><\/h1>\nThe earliest plan of New Amsterdam (now Manhattan),1660. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nWhile Spain plundered the New World, unrest plagued Europe. The Reformation threw England and France, the two European powers capable of contesting Spain, into turmoil. Long and expensive conflicts drained time, resources, and lives. Millions died from religious violence in France alone. As the violence diminished in Europe, however, religious and political rivalries continued in the New World.<\/p>\n
The Spanish exploitation of New Spain\u2019s riches inspired European monarchs to invest in exploration and conquest. Reports of Spanish atrocities spread throughout Europe and provided a humanitarian justification for European colonization. An English reprint of the writings of Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas bore the sensational title \u201cPopery Truly Display\u2019d in its Bloody Colours: Or, a Faithful Narrative of the Horrid and Unexampled Massacres, Butcheries, and all manners of Cruelties that Hell and Malice could invent, committed by the Popish Spanish.\u201d An English writer explained that Native Americans \u201cwere simple and plain men, and lived without great labour,\u201d but in their lust for gold the Spaniards \u201cforced the people (that were not used to labour) to stand all the daie in the hot sun gathering gold in the sand of the rivers. By this means a great number of them (not used to such pains) died, and a great number of them (seeing themselves brought from so quiet a life to such misery and slavery) of desperation killed themselves. And many would not marry, because they would not have their children slaves to the Spaniards.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a> The Spanish accused their critics of fostering a \u201cBlack Legend.\u201d The Black Legend drew on religious differences and political rivalries. Spain had successful conquests in France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands and left many in those nations yearning to break free from Spanish influence. English writers argued that Spanish barbarities were foiling a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of Christianity across the globe and that a benevolent conquest of the New World by non-Spanish monarchies offered the surest salvation of the New World\u2019s pagan masses. With these religious justifications, and with obvious economic motives, Spain\u2019s rivals arrived in the New World.<\/p>\nThe French<\/i><\/h2>\n
The French crown subsidized exploration in the early sixteenth century. Early French explorers sought a fabled Northwest Passage, a mythical waterway passing through the North American continent to Asia. Despite the wealth of the New World, Asia\u2019s riches still beckoned to Europeans. Canada\u2019s St. Lawrence River appeared to be such a passage, stretching deep into the continent and into the Great Lakes. French colonial possessions centered on these bodies of water (and, later, down the Mississippi River to the port of New Orleans).<\/p>\n
French colonization developed through investment from private trading companies. Traders established Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) in 1603 and launched trading expeditions that stretched down the Atlantic coast as far as Cape Cod. The needs of the fur trade set the future pattern of French colonization. Founded in 1608 under the leadership of Samuel de Champlain, Quebec provided the foothold for what would become New France. French fur traders placed a higher value on cooperating with Indigenous people than on establishing a successful French colonial footprint. Asserting dominance in the region could have been to their own detriment, as it might have compromised their access to skilled Native American trappers, and therefore wealth. Few Frenchmen traveled to the New World to settle permanently. In fact, few traveled at all. Many persecuted French Protestants (Huguenots) sought to emigrate after France criminalized Protestantism in 1685, but all non-Catholics were forbidden in New France.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\nThis depiction of New Orleans in 1726 when it was an eight-year-old French frontier settlement. Jean-Pierre Lassus, Ve\u00fce et Perspective de la Nouvelle Orleans, 1726, Centre des archives d\u2019outre-mer, France. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe French preference for trade over permanent settlement fostered more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with Native Americans than was typical among the Spanish and English. Perhaps eager to debunk the anti-Catholic elements of the Black Legend, the French worked to cultivate cooperation with Native Americans. Jesuit missionaries, for instance, adopted different conversion strategies than the Spanish Franciscans. Spanish missionaries brought Natives into enclosed missions, whereas Jesuits more often lived with or alongside Indigenous people. Many French fur traders married Native American women.[7]<\/sup><\/a> The offspring of Native American women and French men were so common in New France that the French developed a word for these children, M\u00e9tis(sage)<\/em>. The Huron people developed a particularly close relationship with the French, and many converted to Christianity and engaged in the fur trade. But close relationships with the French would come at a high cost. The Huron were decimated by the ravages of European disease, and entanglements in French and Dutch conflicts proved disastrous.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Despite this, some Native peoples maintained alliances with the French.<\/p>\nPressure from the powerful Iroquois in the East pushed many Algonquian-speaking peoples toward French territory in the midseventeenth century, and together they crafted what historians have called a \u201cmiddle ground,\u201d a kind of cross-cultural space that allowed for native and European interaction, negotiation, and accommodation. French traders adopted\u2014sometimes clumsily\u2014the gift-giving and mediation strategies expected of Native leaders. Natives similarly engaged the impersonal European market and adapted\u2014often haphazardly\u2014to European laws. The Great Lakes \u201cmiddle ground\u201d experienced tumultuous success throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries until English colonial officials and American settlers swarmed the region. The pressures of European expansion strained even the closest bonds.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe Dutch<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Netherlands, a small maritime nation with great wealth, achieved considerable colonial success. In 1581, the Netherlands had officially broken away from the Hapsburgs and won a reputation as the freest of the new European nations. Dutch women maintained separate legal identities from their husbands and could therefore hold property and inherit full estates.<\/p>\n
Ravaged by the turmoil of the Reformation, the Dutch embraced greater religious tolerance and freedom of the press than other European nations.[10]<\/sup><\/a> Radical Protestants, Catholics, and Jews flocked to the Netherlands. The English Pilgrims, for instance, fled first to the Netherlands before sailing to the New World years later. The Netherlands built its colonial empire through the work of experienced merchants and skilled sailors. The Dutch were the most advanced capitalists in the modern world and marshaled extensive financial resources by creating innovative financial organizations such as the Amsterdam Stock Exchange and the Dutch East India Company. Although the Dutch offered liberties, they offered very little democracy\u2014power remained in the hands of only a few. And Dutch liberties certainly had their limits. The Dutch advanced the slave trade and brought enslaved Africans with them to the New World. Slavery was an essential part of Dutch capitalist triumphs.<\/p>\nSharing the European hunger for access to Asia, in 1609 the Dutch commissioned the Englishman Henry Hudson to discover the fabled Northwest Passage through North America. He failed, of course, but nevertheless found the Hudson River and claimed modern-day New York for the Dutch. There they established New Netherland, an essential part of the Dutch New World empire. The Netherlands chartered the Dutch West India Company in 1621 and established colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. The island of Manhattan provided a launching pad to support its Caribbean colonies and attack Spanish trade.<\/p>\n
Spiteful of the Spanish and mindful of the Black Legend, the Dutch were determined not to repeat Spanish atrocities. They fashioned guidelines for New Netherland that conformed to the ideas of Hugo Grotius, a legal philosopher who believed that Native peoples possessed the same natural rights as Europeans. Colony leaders insisted that land be purchased; in 1626 Peter Minuit therefore \u201cbought\u201d Manhattan from Munsee people.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Despite the seemingly honorable intentions, it is likely the Dutch paid the wrong people for the land (either intentionally or unintentionally) or that the Munsee and the Dutch understood the transaction in very different terms. Transactions like these illustrated both the Dutch attempt to find a more peaceful process of colonization and the inconsistency between European and Native American understandings of property.<\/p>\nLike the French, the Dutch sought to profit, not to conquer. Trade with Native peoples became New Netherland\u2019s central economic activity. Dutch traders carried wampum along Native trade routes and exchanged it for beaver pelts. Wampum consisted of shell beads fashioned by Algonquians on the southern New England coast and was valued as a ceremonial and diplomatic commodity among the Iroquois. Wampum became a currency that could buy anything from a loaf of bread to a plot of land.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn addition to developing these trading networks, the Dutch also established farms, settlements, and lumber camps. The West India Company directors implemented the patroon system to encourage colonization. The patroon system granted large estates to wealthy landlords, who subsequently paid passage for the tenants to work their land. Expanding Dutch settlements correlated with deteriorating relations with local Native Americans. In the interior of the continent, the Dutch retained valuable alliances with the Iroquois to maintain Beverwijck, modern-day Albany, as a hub for the fur trade.[13]<\/sup><\/a> In the places where the Dutch built permanent settlements, the ideals of peaceful colonization succumbed to the settlers\u2019 increasing demand for land. Armed conflicts erupted as colonial settlements encroached on Native villages and hunting lands. Profit and peace, it seemed, could not coexist.<\/p>\nLabor shortages, meanwhile, crippled Dutch colonization. The patroon system failed to bring enough tenants, and the colony could not attract a sufficient number of indentured servants to satisfy the colony\u2019s backers. In response, the colony imported eleven enslaved people owned by the company in 1626, the same year that Minuit purchased Manhattan. Enslaved laborers were tasked with building New Amsterdam (modern-day New York City), including a defensive wall along the northern edge of the colony (the site of modern-day Wall Street). They created its roads and maintained its all-important port. Fears of racial mixing led the Dutch to import enslaved women, enabling the formation of African Dutch families. The colony\u2019s first African marriage occurred in 1641, and by 1650 there were at least five hundred enslaved Africans in the colony. By 1660, New Amsterdam had the largest urban enslaved population on the continent.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nAs was typical of the practice of African slavery in much of the early seventeenth century, Dutch slavery in New Amsterdam was less comprehensively exploitative than later systems of American slavery. Some enslaved Africans, for instance, successfully sued for back wages. When several enslaved people owned by the company fought for the colony against the Munsee, they petitioned for their freedom and won a kind of \u201chalf freedom\u201d that allowed them to work their own land in return for paying a large tithe, or tax, to their enslavers. The children of these \u201chalf-free\u201d laborers remained held in bondage by the West India Company, however. The Dutch, who so proudly touted their liberties, grappled with the reality of African slavery, and some New Netherlanders protested the enslavement of Christianized Africans. The economic goals of the colony slowly crowded out these cultural and religious objections, and the much-boasted liberties of the Dutch came to exist alongside increasingly brutal systems of slavery.<\/p>\n
The Portuguese\u00a0<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Portuguese had been leaders in Atlantic navigation well ahead of Columbus\u2019s voyage. But the incredible wealth flowing from New Spain piqued the rivalry between the two Iberian countries, and accelerated Portuguese colonization efforts. This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.<\/p>\n
Lucrative colonies in Africa and India initially preoccupied Portugal, but by 1530 the Portuguese turned their attention to the land that would become Brazil, driving out French traders and establishing permanent settlements. Gold and silver mines dotted the interior of the colony, but two industries powered early colonial Brazil: sugar and the slave trade. In fact, over the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than in any other colony in the Atlantic World. Gold mines emerged in greater numbers throughout the eighteenth century but still never rivaled the profitability of sugar or slave trading.<\/p>\n
Jesuit missionaries brought Christianity to Brazil, but strong elements of African and Native spirituality mixed with orthodox Catholicism to create a unique religious culture. This culture resulted from the demographics of Brazilian slavery. High mortality rates on sugar plantations required a steady influx of new enslaved laborers, thus perpetuating the cultural connection between Brazil and Africa. The reliance on new imports of enslaved laborers increased the likelihood of resistance, however, and those who escaped slavery managed to create several free settlements, called quilombos.<\/em> These settlements drew from both enslaved Africans and Natives, and despite frequent attacks, several endured throughout the long history of Brazilian slavery.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the arrival of these new Europeans, Spain continued to dominate the New World. The wealth flowing from the exploitation of the Aztec and Incan Empires greatly eclipsed the profits of other European nations. But this dominance would not last long. By the end of the sixteenth century, the powerful Spanish Armada would be destroyed, and the English would begin to rule the waves.<\/p>\n
IV. English Colonization<\/span><\/h1>\nNicholas Hilliard, The Battle of Gravelines, 1588. Wikimedia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nSpain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.<\/p>\n
However, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[16]<\/sup><\/a> The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nNew World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[18]<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.<\/p>\nIn his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThis noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).<\/p>\n
Rather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a> Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.<\/p>\nAn island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[21]<\/sup><\/a> The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.<\/p>\nEnglish colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.<\/p>\n
English colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.<\/p>\nAfter King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.<\/p>\n
V. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\nIncolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), c. 1590. The Encyclopedia Virginia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.<\/p>\nThe English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.<\/p>\n
Jamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a> And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.<\/p>\nJohn Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.<\/p>\n
Powhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nJohn White, \u201cVillage of the Secotan, 1585. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nDespite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a> Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[24]<\/sup><\/a> All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.<\/p>\nLittle improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.<\/p>\n
By the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nTobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.<\/p>\n
In 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.<\/p>\n
Soon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[26]<\/sup><\/a> The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.<\/p>\nEnglish colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.<\/p>\n
Spanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[29]<\/sup><\/a> More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.<\/p>\nAnd yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.<\/p>\n
VI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\nSeal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.<\/p>\n
The term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.<\/p>\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.<\/p>\n
During the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[31]<\/sup><\/a> The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.<\/p>\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.<\/p>\n
Although New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.<\/p>\n
A combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[33]<\/sup><\/a> They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.<\/p>\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[34]<\/sup><\/a> The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.<\/p>\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a> Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d<\/p>\n
VII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.<\/p>\n
- Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of the United States, Vol. I: The Colonial Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Andrew L. Knaut, The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance in Seventeenth Century New Mexico (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2015), 46. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John E. Kicza and Rebecca Horn, Resilient Cultures: America\u2019s Native Peoples Confront European Colonization, 1500\u20131800 (New York: Routledge, 2013), 122. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Knaut, Pueblo Revolt of 1680, 155. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Ponet, A Short Treatise on Political Power: And of the True Obedience Which Subjects Owe to Kings, and Other Civil Governors (London: s.n.), 43\u201344. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Greer, The People of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Susan Sleeper-Smith, Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Carole Blackburn, Harvest of Souls: The Jesuit Missions and Colonialism in North America, 1632\u20131659 (Montreal: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 2000), 116. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650\u20131815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Evan Haefeli, New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 20\u201353. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Allen W. Trelease, Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 36. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Trade, Land, Power: The Struggle for Eastern North America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 101. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Janny Venema, Beverwijck: A Dutch Village on the American Frontier, 1652\u20131664 (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626\u20131863 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alida C. Metcalf, Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil: 1500\u20131600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005). See also James H. Sweet, Recreating Africa: Culture, Kinship, and Religion in the African-Portuguese World, 1441\u20131770 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975), 30. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2006), 131\u2013135. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Christopher Hodgkins, Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 15. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584). https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/discourseonweste02hakl_0<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 9. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Felipe Fern\u00e1ndez-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Smith, Advertisements for the Inexperienced Planters \u2028of New England, or Anywhere or\u2028The Pathway to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: Haviland, 1631), 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- George Percy, \u201cA True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurrents of Moment Which Have Hap\u2019ned in Virginia,\u201d quoted in Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607\u20131617, ed. Edward Wright Haile (Champlain, VA: Round House, 1998), 505. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Eric A. Powell, \u201cChilling Discovery at Jamestown,\u201d Archaeology (June 10, 2013). http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/issues\/96-1307\/trenches\/973-jamestown-starving-time-cannibalism<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Dennis Montgomery, 1607: Jamestown and the New World (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007), 126. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Rebecca Goetz, The Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 57. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 75. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550\u201312 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Ibid., 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, \u201cMyne Owne Ground\u201d: Race and Freedom on Virginia\u2019s Eastern Shore, 1640\u20131676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":158,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-339","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/158"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":646,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions\/646"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
The earliest plan of New Amsterdam (now Manhattan),1660. Wikimedia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nWhile Spain plundered the New World, unrest plagued Europe. The Reformation threw England and France, the two European powers capable of contesting Spain, into turmoil. Long and expensive conflicts drained time, resources, and lives. Millions died from religious violence in France alone. As the violence diminished in Europe, however, religious and political rivalries continued in the New World.\r\n\r\nThe Spanish exploitation of New Spain\u2019s riches inspired European monarchs to invest in exploration and conquest. Reports of Spanish atrocities spread throughout Europe and provided a humanitarian justification for European colonization. An English reprint of the writings of Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas bore the sensational title \u201cPopery Truly Display\u2019d in its Bloody Colours: Or, a Faithful Narrative of the Horrid and Unexampled Massacres, Butcheries, and all manners of Cruelties that Hell and Malice could invent, committed by the Popish Spanish.\u201d An English writer explained that Native Americans \u201cwere simple and plain men, and lived without great labour,\u201d but in their lust for gold the Spaniards \u201cforced the people (that were not used to labour) to stand all the daie in the hot sun gathering gold in the sand of the rivers. By this means a great number of them (not used to such pains) died, and a great number of them (seeing themselves brought from so quiet a life to such misery and slavery) of desperation killed themselves. And many would not marry, because they would not have their children slaves to the Spaniards.\u201d[footnote]John Ponet, A Short Treatise on Political Power: And of the True Obedience Which Subjects Owe to Kings, and Other Civil Governors (London: s.n.), 43\u201344.[\/footnote] The Spanish accused their critics of fostering a \u201cBlack Legend.\u201d The Black Legend drew on religious differences and political rivalries. Spain had successful conquests in France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands and left many in those nations yearning to break free from Spanish influence. English writers argued that Spanish barbarities were foiling a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of Christianity across the globe and that a benevolent conquest of the New World by non-Spanish monarchies offered the surest salvation of the New World\u2019s pagan masses. With these religious justifications, and with obvious economic motives, Spain\u2019s rivals arrived in the New World.\r\nThe French<\/i><\/h2>\r\nThe French crown subsidized exploration in the early sixteenth century. Early French explorers sought a fabled Northwest Passage, a mythical waterway passing through the North American continent to Asia. Despite the wealth of the New World, Asia\u2019s riches still beckoned to Europeans. Canada\u2019s St. Lawrence River appeared to be such a passage, stretching deep into the continent and into the Great Lakes. French colonial possessions centered on these bodies of water (and, later, down the Mississippi River to the port of New Orleans).\r\n\r\nFrench colonization developed through investment from private trading companies. Traders established Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) in 1603 and launched trading expeditions that stretched down the Atlantic coast as far as Cape Cod. The needs of the fur trade set the future pattern of French colonization. Founded in 1608 under the leadership of Samuel de Champlain, Quebec provided the foothold for what would become New France. French fur traders placed a higher value on cooperating with Indigenous people than on establishing a successful French colonial footprint. Asserting dominance in the region could have been to their own detriment, as it might have compromised their access to skilled Native American trappers, and therefore wealth. Few Frenchmen traveled to the New World to settle permanently. In fact, few traveled at all. Many persecuted French Protestants (Huguenots) sought to emigrate after France criminalized Protestantism in 1685, but all non-Catholics were forbidden in New France.[footnote]Alan Greer, The People of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).[\/footnote]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_343\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"991\"] This depiction of New Orleans in 1726 when it was an eight-year-old French frontier settlement. Jean-Pierre Lassus, Ve\u00fce et Perspective de la Nouvelle Orleans, 1726, Centre des archives d\u2019outre-mer, France. Wikimedia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe French preference for trade over permanent settlement fostered more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with Native Americans than was typical among the Spanish and English. Perhaps eager to debunk the anti-Catholic elements of the Black Legend, the French worked to cultivate cooperation with Native Americans. Jesuit missionaries, for instance, adopted different conversion strategies than the Spanish Franciscans. Spanish missionaries brought Natives into enclosed missions, whereas Jesuits more often lived with or alongside Indigenous people. Many French fur traders married Native American women.[footnote]Susan Sleeper-Smith, Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001).[\/footnote] The offspring of Native American women and French men were so common in New France that the French developed a word for these children, M\u00e9tis(sage)<\/em>. The Huron people developed a particularly close relationship with the French, and many converted to Christianity and engaged in the fur trade. But close relationships with the French would come at a high cost. The Huron were decimated by the ravages of European disease, and entanglements in French and Dutch conflicts proved disastrous.[footnote]Carole Blackburn, Harvest of Souls: The Jesuit Missions and Colonialism in North America, 1632\u20131659 (Montreal: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 2000), 116.[\/footnote] Despite this, some Native peoples maintained alliances with the French.\r\n\r\nPressure from the powerful Iroquois in the East pushed many Algonquian-speaking peoples toward French territory in the midseventeenth century, and together they crafted what historians have called a \u201cmiddle ground,\u201d a kind of cross-cultural space that allowed for native and European interaction, negotiation, and accommodation. French traders adopted\u2014sometimes clumsily\u2014the gift-giving and mediation strategies expected of Native leaders. Natives similarly engaged the impersonal European market and adapted\u2014often haphazardly\u2014to European laws. The Great Lakes \u201cmiddle ground\u201d experienced tumultuous success throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries until English colonial officials and American settlers swarmed the region. The pressures of European expansion strained even the closest bonds.[footnote]Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650\u20131815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991).[\/footnote]\r\nThe Dutch<\/i><\/h2>\r\nThe Netherlands, a small maritime nation with great wealth, achieved considerable colonial success. In 1581, the Netherlands had officially broken away from the Hapsburgs and won a reputation as the freest of the new European nations. Dutch women maintained separate legal identities from their husbands and could therefore hold property and inherit full estates.\r\n\r\nRavaged by the turmoil of the Reformation, the Dutch embraced greater religious tolerance and freedom of the press than other European nations.[footnote]Evan Haefeli, New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 20\u201353.[\/footnote] Radical Protestants, Catholics, and Jews flocked to the Netherlands. The English Pilgrims, for instance, fled first to the Netherlands before sailing to the New World years later. The Netherlands built its colonial empire through the work of experienced merchants and skilled sailors. The Dutch were the most advanced capitalists in the modern world and marshaled extensive financial resources by creating innovative financial organizations such as the Amsterdam Stock Exchange and the Dutch East India Company. Although the Dutch offered liberties, they offered very little democracy\u2014power remained in the hands of only a few. And Dutch liberties certainly had their limits. The Dutch advanced the slave trade and brought enslaved Africans with them to the New World. Slavery was an essential part of Dutch capitalist triumphs.\r\n\r\nSharing the European hunger for access to Asia, in 1609 the Dutch commissioned the Englishman Henry Hudson to discover the fabled Northwest Passage through North America. He failed, of course, but nevertheless found the Hudson River and claimed modern-day New York for the Dutch. There they established New Netherland, an essential part of the Dutch New World empire. The Netherlands chartered the Dutch West India Company in 1621 and established colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. The island of Manhattan provided a launching pad to support its Caribbean colonies and attack Spanish trade.\r\n\r\nSpiteful of the Spanish and mindful of the Black Legend, the Dutch were determined not to repeat Spanish atrocities. They fashioned guidelines for New Netherland that conformed to the ideas of Hugo Grotius, a legal philosopher who believed that Native peoples possessed the same natural rights as Europeans. Colony leaders insisted that land be purchased; in 1626 Peter Minuit therefore \u201cbought\u201d Manhattan from Munsee people.[footnote]Allen W. Trelease, Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 36.[\/footnote] Despite the seemingly honorable intentions, it is likely the Dutch paid the wrong people for the land (either intentionally or unintentionally) or that the Munsee and the Dutch understood the transaction in very different terms. Transactions like these illustrated both the Dutch attempt to find a more peaceful process of colonization and the inconsistency between European and Native American understandings of property.\r\n\r\nLike the French, the Dutch sought to profit, not to conquer. Trade with Native peoples became New Netherland\u2019s central economic activity. Dutch traders carried wampum along Native trade routes and exchanged it for beaver pelts. Wampum consisted of shell beads fashioned by Algonquians on the southern New England coast and was valued as a ceremonial and diplomatic commodity among the Iroquois. Wampum became a currency that could buy anything from a loaf of bread to a plot of land.[footnote]Daniel K. Richter, Trade, Land, Power: The Struggle for Eastern North America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 101.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nIn addition to developing these trading networks, the Dutch also established farms, settlements, and lumber camps. The West India Company directors implemented the patroon system to encourage colonization. The patroon system granted large estates to wealthy landlords, who subsequently paid passage for the tenants to work their land. Expanding Dutch settlements correlated with deteriorating relations with local Native Americans. In the interior of the continent, the Dutch retained valuable alliances with the Iroquois to maintain Beverwijck, modern-day Albany, as a hub for the fur trade.[footnote]Janny Venema, Beverwijck: A Dutch Village on the American Frontier, 1652\u20131664 (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003).[\/footnote] In the places where the Dutch built permanent settlements, the ideals of peaceful colonization succumbed to the settlers\u2019 increasing demand for land. Armed conflicts erupted as colonial settlements encroached on Native villages and hunting lands. Profit and peace, it seemed, could not coexist.\r\n\r\nLabor shortages, meanwhile, crippled Dutch colonization. The patroon system failed to bring enough tenants, and the colony could not attract a sufficient number of indentured servants to satisfy the colony\u2019s backers. In response, the colony imported eleven enslaved people owned by the company in 1626, the same year that Minuit purchased Manhattan. Enslaved laborers were tasked with building New Amsterdam (modern-day New York City), including a defensive wall along the northern edge of the colony (the site of modern-day Wall Street). They created its roads and maintained its all-important port. Fears of racial mixing led the Dutch to import enslaved women, enabling the formation of African Dutch families. The colony\u2019s first African marriage occurred in 1641, and by 1650 there were at least five hundred enslaved Africans in the colony. By 1660, New Amsterdam had the largest urban enslaved population on the continent.[footnote]Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626\u20131863 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 21.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nAs was typical of the practice of African slavery in much of the early seventeenth century, Dutch slavery in New Amsterdam was less comprehensively exploitative than later systems of American slavery. Some enslaved Africans, for instance, successfully sued for back wages. When several enslaved people owned by the company fought for the colony against the Munsee, they petitioned for their freedom and won a kind of \u201chalf freedom\u201d that allowed them to work their own land in return for paying a large tithe, or tax, to their enslavers. The children of these \u201chalf-free\u201d laborers remained held in bondage by the West India Company, however. The Dutch, who so proudly touted their liberties, grappled with the reality of African slavery, and some New Netherlanders protested the enslavement of Christianized Africans. The economic goals of the colony slowly crowded out these cultural and religious objections, and the much-boasted liberties of the Dutch came to exist alongside increasingly brutal systems of slavery.\r\nThe Portuguese\u00a0<\/i><\/h2>\r\nThe Portuguese had been leaders in Atlantic navigation well ahead of Columbus\u2019s voyage. But the incredible wealth flowing from New Spain piqued the rivalry between the two Iberian countries, and accelerated Portuguese colonization efforts. This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.\r\n\r\nLucrative colonies in Africa and India initially preoccupied Portugal, but by 1530 the Portuguese turned their attention to the land that would become Brazil, driving out French traders and establishing permanent settlements. Gold and silver mines dotted the interior of the colony, but two industries powered early colonial Brazil: sugar and the slave trade. In fact, over the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than in any other colony in the Atlantic World. Gold mines emerged in greater numbers throughout the eighteenth century but still never rivaled the profitability of sugar or slave trading.\r\n\r\nJesuit missionaries brought Christianity to Brazil, but strong elements of African and Native spirituality mixed with orthodox Catholicism to create a unique religious culture. This culture resulted from the demographics of Brazilian slavery. High mortality rates on sugar plantations required a steady influx of new enslaved laborers, thus perpetuating the cultural connection between Brazil and Africa. The reliance on new imports of enslaved laborers increased the likelihood of resistance, however, and those who escaped slavery managed to create several free settlements, called quilombos.<\/em> These settlements drew from both enslaved Africans and Natives, and despite frequent attacks, several endured throughout the long history of Brazilian slavery.[footnote]Alida C. Metcalf, Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil: 1500\u20131600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005). See also James H. Sweet, Recreating Africa: Culture, Kinship, and Religion in the African-Portuguese World, 1441\u20131770 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nDespite the arrival of these new Europeans, Spain continued to dominate the New World. The wealth flowing from the exploitation of the Aztec and Incan Empires greatly eclipsed the profits of other European nations. But this dominance would not last long. By the end of the sixteenth century, the powerful Spanish Armada would be destroyed, and the English would begin to rule the waves.\r\nIV. English Colonization<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_344\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"975\"] Nicholas Hilliard, The Battle of Gravelines, 1588. Wikimedia[\/caption]\r\n\r\nSpain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.\r\n\r\nHowever, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[footnote]Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975), 30.[\/footnote] The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[footnote]John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2006), 131\u2013135.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nNew World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[footnote]Christopher Hodgkins, Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 15.[\/footnote] Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.\r\n\r\nIn his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[footnote]Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584). https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/discourseonweste02hakl_0<\/a>.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nThis noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).\r\n\r\nRather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[footnote]Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 9.[\/footnote] Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.\r\n\r\nAn island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[footnote]Felipe Fern\u00e1ndez-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).[\/footnote] The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.\r\n\r\nAfter King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.\r\nV. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_345\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"870\"] Incolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), c. 1590. The Encyclopedia Virginia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.\r\n\r\nThe English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.\r\n\r\nJamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[footnote]John Smith, Advertisements for the Inexperienced Planters \u2028of New England, or Anywhere or\u2028The Pathway to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: Haviland, 1631), 16.[\/footnote] And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.\r\n\r\nJohn Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.\r\n\r\nPowhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_346\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1023\"] John White, \u201cVillage of the Secotan, 1585. Wikimedia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nDespite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[footnote]George Percy, \u201cA True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurrents of Moment Which Have Hap\u2019ned in Virginia,\u201d quoted in Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607\u20131617, ed. Edward Wright Haile (Champlain, VA: Round House, 1998), 505.[\/footnote] Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[footnote]Eric A. Powell, \u201cChilling Discovery at Jamestown,\u201d Archaeology (June 10, 2013). http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/issues\/96-1307\/trenches\/973-jamestown-starving-time-cannibalism<\/a>.[\/footnote] All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.\r\n\r\nLittle improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.\r\n\r\nBy the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[footnote]Dennis Montgomery, 1607: Jamestown and the New World (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007), 126.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nTobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.\r\n\r\nIn 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.\r\n\r\nSoon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[footnote]Rebecca Goetz, The Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 57.[\/footnote] The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[footnote]Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 75.[\/footnote] War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.\r\n\r\nSpanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[footnote]Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550\u201312 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7.[\/footnote] An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[footnote]Ibid., 16.[\/footnote] More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.\r\n\r\nAnd yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[footnote]T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, \u201cMyne Owne Ground\u201d: Race and Freedom on Virginia\u2019s Eastern Shore, 1640\u20131676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nIn 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.\r\nVI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_347\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"854\"] Seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.\r\n\r\nThe term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.\r\n\r\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.\r\n\r\nDuring the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[footnote]John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>.[\/footnote] The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.\r\n\r\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.\r\n\r\nThere is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.\r\n\r\nAlthough New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.\r\n\r\nA combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[footnote]Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[footnote]Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391.[\/footnote] They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.\r\n\r\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[footnote]Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687).[\/footnote] The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.\r\n\r\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[footnote]Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389.[\/footnote] Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[footnote]Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d\r\nVII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\r\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.","rendered":"Theodor de Bry, \u201cNegotiating Peace With the Indians,\u201d 1634, Virginia Historical Society.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nI. Introduction<\/span><\/h1>\nThe Columbian Exchange transformed both sides of the Atlantic, but with dramatically disparate outcomes. New diseases wiped out entire civilizations in the Americas, while newly imported nutrient-rich foodstuffs enabled a European population boom. Spain benefited most immediately as the wealth of the Aztec and Incan Empires strengthened the Spanish monarchy. Spain used its new riches to gain an advantage over other European nations, but this advantage was soon contested.<\/p>\n
Portugal, France, the Netherlands, and England all raced to the New World, eager to match the gains of the Spanish. Native peoples greeted the new visitors with responses ranging from welcoming cooperation to aggressive violence, but the ravages of disease and the possibility of new trading relationships enabled Europeans to create settlements all along the western rim of the Atlantic world. New empires would emerge from these tenuous beginnings, and by the end of the seventeenth century, Spain would lose its privileged position to its rivals. An age of colonization had begun and, with it, a great collision of cultures commenced.<\/p>\n
II. Spanish America<\/span><\/h1>\nSpain extended its reach in the Americas after reaping the benefits of its colonies in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. Expeditions slowly began combing the continent and bringing Europeans into the modern-day United States in the hopes of establishing religious and economic dominance in a new territory.<\/p>\n
Juan Ponce de Le\u00f3n arrived in the area named La Florida in 1513. He found between 150,000 and 300,000 Native Americans. But then two and a half centuries of contact with European and African peoples\u2014whether through war, slave raids, or, most dramatically, foreign disease\u2014decimated Florida\u2019s Indigenous population. European explorers, meanwhile, had hoped to find great wealth in Florida, but reality never aligned with their imaginations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n1513 Atlantic map from cartographer Martin Waldseemuller. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn the first half of the sixteenth century, Spanish colonizers fought frequently with Florida\u2019s Native peoples as well as with other Europeans. In the 1560s Spain expelled French Protestants, called Huguenots, from the area near modern-day Jacksonville in northeast Florida. In 1586 English privateer Sir Francis Drake burned the wooden settlement of St. Augustine. At the dawn of the seventeenth century, Spain\u2019s reach in Florida extended from the mouth of the St. Johns River south to the environs of St. Augustine\u2014an area of roughly 1,000 square miles. The Spaniards attempted to duplicate methods for establishing control used previously in Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Andes. The Crown granted missionaries the right to live among Timucua and Guale villagers in the late 1500s and early 1600s and encouraged settlement through the encomienda<\/em> system (grants of Native labor).[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn the 1630s, the mission system extended into the Apalachee district in the Florida panhandle. The Apalachee, one of the most powerful tribes in Florida at the time of contact, claimed the territory from the modern Florida-Georgia border to the Gulf of Mexico. Apalachee farmers grew an abundance of corn and other crops. Native American traders carried surplus products east along the Camino Real (the royal road) that connected the western anchor of the mission system with St. Augustine. Spanish settlers drove cattle eastward across the St. Johns River and established ranches as far west as Apalachee. Still, Spain held Florida tenuously.<\/p>\n
Farther west, in 1598, Juan de O\u00f1ate led four hundred settlers, soldiers, and missionaries from Mexico into New Mexico. The Spanish Southwest had brutal beginnings. When O\u00f1ate sacked the Pueblo city of Acoma, the \u201csky city,\u201d the Spaniards slaughtered nearly half of its roughly 1,500 inhabitants, including women and children. O\u00f1ate ordered one foot cut off every surviving male over age fifteen, and he enslaved the remaining women and children.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSanta Fe, the first permanent European settlement in the Southwest, was established in 1610. Few Spaniards relocated to the Southwest because of the distance from Mexico City and the dry and hostile environment. Thus, the Spanish never achieved a commanding presence in the region. By 1680, only about three thousand colonists called Spanish New Mexico home.[3]<\/sup><\/a> There, they traded with and exploited the local Puebloan peoples. The region\u2019s Puebloan population had plummeted from as many as sixty thousand in 1600 to about seventeen thousand in 1680.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSpain shifted strategies after the military expeditions wove their way through the southern and western half of North America. Missions became the engine of colonization in North America. Missionaries, most of whom were members of the Franciscan religious order, provided Spain with an advance guard in North America. Catholicism had always justified Spanish conquest, and colonization always carried religious imperatives. By the early seventeenth century, Spanish friars had established dozens of missions along the Rio Grande and in California.<\/p>\n
III. Spain\u2019s Rivals Emerge<\/span><\/h1>\nThe earliest plan of New Amsterdam (now Manhattan),1660. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nWhile Spain plundered the New World, unrest plagued Europe. The Reformation threw England and France, the two European powers capable of contesting Spain, into turmoil. Long and expensive conflicts drained time, resources, and lives. Millions died from religious violence in France alone. As the violence diminished in Europe, however, religious and political rivalries continued in the New World.<\/p>\n
The Spanish exploitation of New Spain\u2019s riches inspired European monarchs to invest in exploration and conquest. Reports of Spanish atrocities spread throughout Europe and provided a humanitarian justification for European colonization. An English reprint of the writings of Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas bore the sensational title \u201cPopery Truly Display\u2019d in its Bloody Colours: Or, a Faithful Narrative of the Horrid and Unexampled Massacres, Butcheries, and all manners of Cruelties that Hell and Malice could invent, committed by the Popish Spanish.\u201d An English writer explained that Native Americans \u201cwere simple and plain men, and lived without great labour,\u201d but in their lust for gold the Spaniards \u201cforced the people (that were not used to labour) to stand all the daie in the hot sun gathering gold in the sand of the rivers. By this means a great number of them (not used to such pains) died, and a great number of them (seeing themselves brought from so quiet a life to such misery and slavery) of desperation killed themselves. And many would not marry, because they would not have their children slaves to the Spaniards.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a> The Spanish accused their critics of fostering a \u201cBlack Legend.\u201d The Black Legend drew on religious differences and political rivalries. Spain had successful conquests in France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands and left many in those nations yearning to break free from Spanish influence. English writers argued that Spanish barbarities were foiling a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of Christianity across the globe and that a benevolent conquest of the New World by non-Spanish monarchies offered the surest salvation of the New World\u2019s pagan masses. With these religious justifications, and with obvious economic motives, Spain\u2019s rivals arrived in the New World.<\/p>\nThe French<\/i><\/h2>\n
The French crown subsidized exploration in the early sixteenth century. Early French explorers sought a fabled Northwest Passage, a mythical waterway passing through the North American continent to Asia. Despite the wealth of the New World, Asia\u2019s riches still beckoned to Europeans. Canada\u2019s St. Lawrence River appeared to be such a passage, stretching deep into the continent and into the Great Lakes. French colonial possessions centered on these bodies of water (and, later, down the Mississippi River to the port of New Orleans).<\/p>\n
French colonization developed through investment from private trading companies. Traders established Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) in 1603 and launched trading expeditions that stretched down the Atlantic coast as far as Cape Cod. The needs of the fur trade set the future pattern of French colonization. Founded in 1608 under the leadership of Samuel de Champlain, Quebec provided the foothold for what would become New France. French fur traders placed a higher value on cooperating with Indigenous people than on establishing a successful French colonial footprint. Asserting dominance in the region could have been to their own detriment, as it might have compromised their access to skilled Native American trappers, and therefore wealth. Few Frenchmen traveled to the New World to settle permanently. In fact, few traveled at all. Many persecuted French Protestants (Huguenots) sought to emigrate after France criminalized Protestantism in 1685, but all non-Catholics were forbidden in New France.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\nThis depiction of New Orleans in 1726 when it was an eight-year-old French frontier settlement. Jean-Pierre Lassus, Ve\u00fce et Perspective de la Nouvelle Orleans, 1726, Centre des archives d\u2019outre-mer, France. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe French preference for trade over permanent settlement fostered more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with Native Americans than was typical among the Spanish and English. Perhaps eager to debunk the anti-Catholic elements of the Black Legend, the French worked to cultivate cooperation with Native Americans. Jesuit missionaries, for instance, adopted different conversion strategies than the Spanish Franciscans. Spanish missionaries brought Natives into enclosed missions, whereas Jesuits more often lived with or alongside Indigenous people. Many French fur traders married Native American women.[7]<\/sup><\/a> The offspring of Native American women and French men were so common in New France that the French developed a word for these children, M\u00e9tis(sage)<\/em>. The Huron people developed a particularly close relationship with the French, and many converted to Christianity and engaged in the fur trade. But close relationships with the French would come at a high cost. The Huron were decimated by the ravages of European disease, and entanglements in French and Dutch conflicts proved disastrous.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Despite this, some Native peoples maintained alliances with the French.<\/p>\nPressure from the powerful Iroquois in the East pushed many Algonquian-speaking peoples toward French territory in the midseventeenth century, and together they crafted what historians have called a \u201cmiddle ground,\u201d a kind of cross-cultural space that allowed for native and European interaction, negotiation, and accommodation. French traders adopted\u2014sometimes clumsily\u2014the gift-giving and mediation strategies expected of Native leaders. Natives similarly engaged the impersonal European market and adapted\u2014often haphazardly\u2014to European laws. The Great Lakes \u201cmiddle ground\u201d experienced tumultuous success throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries until English colonial officials and American settlers swarmed the region. The pressures of European expansion strained even the closest bonds.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe Dutch<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Netherlands, a small maritime nation with great wealth, achieved considerable colonial success. In 1581, the Netherlands had officially broken away from the Hapsburgs and won a reputation as the freest of the new European nations. Dutch women maintained separate legal identities from their husbands and could therefore hold property and inherit full estates.<\/p>\n
Ravaged by the turmoil of the Reformation, the Dutch embraced greater religious tolerance and freedom of the press than other European nations.[10]<\/sup><\/a> Radical Protestants, Catholics, and Jews flocked to the Netherlands. The English Pilgrims, for instance, fled first to the Netherlands before sailing to the New World years later. The Netherlands built its colonial empire through the work of experienced merchants and skilled sailors. The Dutch were the most advanced capitalists in the modern world and marshaled extensive financial resources by creating innovative financial organizations such as the Amsterdam Stock Exchange and the Dutch East India Company. Although the Dutch offered liberties, they offered very little democracy\u2014power remained in the hands of only a few. And Dutch liberties certainly had their limits. The Dutch advanced the slave trade and brought enslaved Africans with them to the New World. Slavery was an essential part of Dutch capitalist triumphs.<\/p>\nSharing the European hunger for access to Asia, in 1609 the Dutch commissioned the Englishman Henry Hudson to discover the fabled Northwest Passage through North America. He failed, of course, but nevertheless found the Hudson River and claimed modern-day New York for the Dutch. There they established New Netherland, an essential part of the Dutch New World empire. The Netherlands chartered the Dutch West India Company in 1621 and established colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. The island of Manhattan provided a launching pad to support its Caribbean colonies and attack Spanish trade.<\/p>\n
Spiteful of the Spanish and mindful of the Black Legend, the Dutch were determined not to repeat Spanish atrocities. They fashioned guidelines for New Netherland that conformed to the ideas of Hugo Grotius, a legal philosopher who believed that Native peoples possessed the same natural rights as Europeans. Colony leaders insisted that land be purchased; in 1626 Peter Minuit therefore \u201cbought\u201d Manhattan from Munsee people.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Despite the seemingly honorable intentions, it is likely the Dutch paid the wrong people for the land (either intentionally or unintentionally) or that the Munsee and the Dutch understood the transaction in very different terms. Transactions like these illustrated both the Dutch attempt to find a more peaceful process of colonization and the inconsistency between European and Native American understandings of property.<\/p>\nLike the French, the Dutch sought to profit, not to conquer. Trade with Native peoples became New Netherland\u2019s central economic activity. Dutch traders carried wampum along Native trade routes and exchanged it for beaver pelts. Wampum consisted of shell beads fashioned by Algonquians on the southern New England coast and was valued as a ceremonial and diplomatic commodity among the Iroquois. Wampum became a currency that could buy anything from a loaf of bread to a plot of land.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn addition to developing these trading networks, the Dutch also established farms, settlements, and lumber camps. The West India Company directors implemented the patroon system to encourage colonization. The patroon system granted large estates to wealthy landlords, who subsequently paid passage for the tenants to work their land. Expanding Dutch settlements correlated with deteriorating relations with local Native Americans. In the interior of the continent, the Dutch retained valuable alliances with the Iroquois to maintain Beverwijck, modern-day Albany, as a hub for the fur trade.[13]<\/sup><\/a> In the places where the Dutch built permanent settlements, the ideals of peaceful colonization succumbed to the settlers\u2019 increasing demand for land. Armed conflicts erupted as colonial settlements encroached on Native villages and hunting lands. Profit and peace, it seemed, could not coexist.<\/p>\nLabor shortages, meanwhile, crippled Dutch colonization. The patroon system failed to bring enough tenants, and the colony could not attract a sufficient number of indentured servants to satisfy the colony\u2019s backers. In response, the colony imported eleven enslaved people owned by the company in 1626, the same year that Minuit purchased Manhattan. Enslaved laborers were tasked with building New Amsterdam (modern-day New York City), including a defensive wall along the northern edge of the colony (the site of modern-day Wall Street). They created its roads and maintained its all-important port. Fears of racial mixing led the Dutch to import enslaved women, enabling the formation of African Dutch families. The colony\u2019s first African marriage occurred in 1641, and by 1650 there were at least five hundred enslaved Africans in the colony. By 1660, New Amsterdam had the largest urban enslaved population on the continent.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nAs was typical of the practice of African slavery in much of the early seventeenth century, Dutch slavery in New Amsterdam was less comprehensively exploitative than later systems of American slavery. Some enslaved Africans, for instance, successfully sued for back wages. When several enslaved people owned by the company fought for the colony against the Munsee, they petitioned for their freedom and won a kind of \u201chalf freedom\u201d that allowed them to work their own land in return for paying a large tithe, or tax, to their enslavers. The children of these \u201chalf-free\u201d laborers remained held in bondage by the West India Company, however. The Dutch, who so proudly touted their liberties, grappled with the reality of African slavery, and some New Netherlanders protested the enslavement of Christianized Africans. The economic goals of the colony slowly crowded out these cultural and religious objections, and the much-boasted liberties of the Dutch came to exist alongside increasingly brutal systems of slavery.<\/p>\n
The Portuguese\u00a0<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Portuguese had been leaders in Atlantic navigation well ahead of Columbus\u2019s voyage. But the incredible wealth flowing from New Spain piqued the rivalry between the two Iberian countries, and accelerated Portuguese colonization efforts. This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.<\/p>\n
Lucrative colonies in Africa and India initially preoccupied Portugal, but by 1530 the Portuguese turned their attention to the land that would become Brazil, driving out French traders and establishing permanent settlements. Gold and silver mines dotted the interior of the colony, but two industries powered early colonial Brazil: sugar and the slave trade. In fact, over the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than in any other colony in the Atlantic World. Gold mines emerged in greater numbers throughout the eighteenth century but still never rivaled the profitability of sugar or slave trading.<\/p>\n
Jesuit missionaries brought Christianity to Brazil, but strong elements of African and Native spirituality mixed with orthodox Catholicism to create a unique religious culture. This culture resulted from the demographics of Brazilian slavery. High mortality rates on sugar plantations required a steady influx of new enslaved laborers, thus perpetuating the cultural connection between Brazil and Africa. The reliance on new imports of enslaved laborers increased the likelihood of resistance, however, and those who escaped slavery managed to create several free settlements, called quilombos.<\/em> These settlements drew from both enslaved Africans and Natives, and despite frequent attacks, several endured throughout the long history of Brazilian slavery.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the arrival of these new Europeans, Spain continued to dominate the New World. The wealth flowing from the exploitation of the Aztec and Incan Empires greatly eclipsed the profits of other European nations. But this dominance would not last long. By the end of the sixteenth century, the powerful Spanish Armada would be destroyed, and the English would begin to rule the waves.<\/p>\n
IV. English Colonization<\/span><\/h1>\nNicholas Hilliard, The Battle of Gravelines, 1588. Wikimedia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nSpain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.<\/p>\n
However, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[16]<\/sup><\/a> The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nNew World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[18]<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.<\/p>\nIn his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThis noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).<\/p>\n
Rather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a> Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.<\/p>\nAn island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[21]<\/sup><\/a> The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.<\/p>\nEnglish colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.<\/p>\n
English colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.<\/p>\nAfter King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.<\/p>\n
V. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\nIncolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), c. 1590. The Encyclopedia Virginia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.<\/p>\nThe English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.<\/p>\n
Jamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a> And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.<\/p>\nJohn Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.<\/p>\n
Powhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nJohn White, \u201cVillage of the Secotan, 1585. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nDespite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a> Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[24]<\/sup><\/a> All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.<\/p>\nLittle improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.<\/p>\n
By the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nTobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.<\/p>\n
In 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.<\/p>\n
Soon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[26]<\/sup><\/a> The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.<\/p>\nEnglish colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.<\/p>\n
Spanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[29]<\/sup><\/a> More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.<\/p>\nAnd yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.<\/p>\n
VI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\nSeal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.<\/p>\n
The term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.<\/p>\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.<\/p>\n
During the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[31]<\/sup><\/a> The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.<\/p>\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.<\/p>\n
Although New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.<\/p>\n
A combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[33]<\/sup><\/a> They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.<\/p>\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[34]<\/sup><\/a> The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.<\/p>\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a> Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d<\/p>\n
VII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.<\/p>\n
- Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of the United States, Vol. I: The Colonial Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Andrew L. Knaut, The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance in Seventeenth Century New Mexico (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2015), 46. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John E. Kicza and Rebecca Horn, Resilient Cultures: America\u2019s Native Peoples Confront European Colonization, 1500\u20131800 (New York: Routledge, 2013), 122. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Knaut, Pueblo Revolt of 1680, 155. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Ponet, A Short Treatise on Political Power: And of the True Obedience Which Subjects Owe to Kings, and Other Civil Governors (London: s.n.), 43\u201344. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Greer, The People of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Susan Sleeper-Smith, Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Carole Blackburn, Harvest of Souls: The Jesuit Missions and Colonialism in North America, 1632\u20131659 (Montreal: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 2000), 116. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650\u20131815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Evan Haefeli, New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 20\u201353. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Allen W. Trelease, Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 36. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Trade, Land, Power: The Struggle for Eastern North America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 101. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Janny Venema, Beverwijck: A Dutch Village on the American Frontier, 1652\u20131664 (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626\u20131863 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alida C. Metcalf, Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil: 1500\u20131600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005). See also James H. Sweet, Recreating Africa: Culture, Kinship, and Religion in the African-Portuguese World, 1441\u20131770 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975), 30. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2006), 131\u2013135. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Christopher Hodgkins, Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 15. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584). https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/discourseonweste02hakl_0<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 9. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Felipe Fern\u00e1ndez-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Smith, Advertisements for the Inexperienced Planters \u2028of New England, or Anywhere or\u2028The Pathway to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: Haviland, 1631), 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- George Percy, \u201cA True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurrents of Moment Which Have Hap\u2019ned in Virginia,\u201d quoted in Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607\u20131617, ed. Edward Wright Haile (Champlain, VA: Round House, 1998), 505. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Eric A. Powell, \u201cChilling Discovery at Jamestown,\u201d Archaeology (June 10, 2013). http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/issues\/96-1307\/trenches\/973-jamestown-starving-time-cannibalism<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Dennis Montgomery, 1607: Jamestown and the New World (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007), 126. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Rebecca Goetz, The Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 57. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 75. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550\u201312 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Ibid., 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, \u201cMyne Owne Ground\u201d: Race and Freedom on Virginia\u2019s Eastern Shore, 1640\u20131676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":158,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-339","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/158"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":646,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions\/646"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
The Portuguese\u00a0<\/i><\/h2>\r\nThe Portuguese had been leaders in Atlantic navigation well ahead of Columbus\u2019s voyage. But the incredible wealth flowing from New Spain piqued the rivalry between the two Iberian countries, and accelerated Portuguese colonization efforts. This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.\r\n\r\nLucrative colonies in Africa and India initially preoccupied Portugal, but by 1530 the Portuguese turned their attention to the land that would become Brazil, driving out French traders and establishing permanent settlements. Gold and silver mines dotted the interior of the colony, but two industries powered early colonial Brazil: sugar and the slave trade. In fact, over the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than in any other colony in the Atlantic World. Gold mines emerged in greater numbers throughout the eighteenth century but still never rivaled the profitability of sugar or slave trading.\r\n\r\nJesuit missionaries brought Christianity to Brazil, but strong elements of African and Native spirituality mixed with orthodox Catholicism to create a unique religious culture. This culture resulted from the demographics of Brazilian slavery. High mortality rates on sugar plantations required a steady influx of new enslaved laborers, thus perpetuating the cultural connection between Brazil and Africa. The reliance on new imports of enslaved laborers increased the likelihood of resistance, however, and those who escaped slavery managed to create several free settlements, called quilombos.<\/em> These settlements drew from both enslaved Africans and Natives, and despite frequent attacks, several endured throughout the long history of Brazilian slavery.[footnote]Alida C. Metcalf, Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil: 1500\u20131600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005). See also James H. Sweet, Recreating Africa: Culture, Kinship, and Religion in the African-Portuguese World, 1441\u20131770 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nDespite the arrival of these new Europeans, Spain continued to dominate the New World. The wealth flowing from the exploitation of the Aztec and Incan Empires greatly eclipsed the profits of other European nations. But this dominance would not last long. By the end of the sixteenth century, the powerful Spanish Armada would be destroyed, and the English would begin to rule the waves.\r\nIV. English Colonization<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_344\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"975\"] Nicholas Hilliard, The Battle of Gravelines, 1588. Wikimedia[\/caption]\r\n\r\nSpain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.\r\n\r\nHowever, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[footnote]Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975), 30.[\/footnote] The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[footnote]John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2006), 131\u2013135.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nNew World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[footnote]Christopher Hodgkins, Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 15.[\/footnote] Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.\r\n\r\nIn his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[footnote]Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584). https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/discourseonweste02hakl_0<\/a>.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nThis noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).\r\n\r\nRather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[footnote]Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 9.[\/footnote] Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.\r\n\r\nAn island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[footnote]Felipe Fern\u00e1ndez-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).[\/footnote] The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.\r\n\r\nAfter King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.\r\nV. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_345\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"870\"] Incolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), c. 1590. The Encyclopedia Virginia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.\r\n\r\nThe English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.\r\n\r\nJamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[footnote]John Smith, Advertisements for the Inexperienced Planters \u2028of New England, or Anywhere or\u2028The Pathway to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: Haviland, 1631), 16.[\/footnote] And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.\r\n\r\nJohn Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.\r\n\r\nPowhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_346\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1023\"] John White, \u201cVillage of the Secotan, 1585. Wikimedia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nDespite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[footnote]George Percy, \u201cA True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurrents of Moment Which Have Hap\u2019ned in Virginia,\u201d quoted in Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607\u20131617, ed. Edward Wright Haile (Champlain, VA: Round House, 1998), 505.[\/footnote] Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[footnote]Eric A. Powell, \u201cChilling Discovery at Jamestown,\u201d Archaeology (June 10, 2013). http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/issues\/96-1307\/trenches\/973-jamestown-starving-time-cannibalism<\/a>.[\/footnote] All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.\r\n\r\nLittle improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.\r\n\r\nBy the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[footnote]Dennis Montgomery, 1607: Jamestown and the New World (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007), 126.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nTobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.\r\n\r\nIn 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.\r\n\r\nSoon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[footnote]Rebecca Goetz, The Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 57.[\/footnote] The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[footnote]Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 75.[\/footnote] War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.\r\n\r\nSpanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[footnote]Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550\u201312 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7.[\/footnote] An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[footnote]Ibid., 16.[\/footnote] More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.\r\n\r\nAnd yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[footnote]T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, \u201cMyne Owne Ground\u201d: Race and Freedom on Virginia\u2019s Eastern Shore, 1640\u20131676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nIn 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.\r\nVI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_347\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"854\"] Seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.\r\n\r\nThe term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.\r\n\r\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.\r\n\r\nDuring the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[footnote]John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>.[\/footnote] The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.\r\n\r\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.\r\n\r\nThere is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.\r\n\r\nAlthough New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.\r\n\r\nA combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[footnote]Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[footnote]Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391.[\/footnote] They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.\r\n\r\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[footnote]Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687).[\/footnote] The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.\r\n\r\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[footnote]Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389.[\/footnote] Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[footnote]Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d\r\nVII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\r\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.","rendered":"Theodor de Bry, \u201cNegotiating Peace With the Indians,\u201d 1634, Virginia Historical Society.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nI. Introduction<\/span><\/h1>\nThe Columbian Exchange transformed both sides of the Atlantic, but with dramatically disparate outcomes. New diseases wiped out entire civilizations in the Americas, while newly imported nutrient-rich foodstuffs enabled a European population boom. Spain benefited most immediately as the wealth of the Aztec and Incan Empires strengthened the Spanish monarchy. Spain used its new riches to gain an advantage over other European nations, but this advantage was soon contested.<\/p>\n
Portugal, France, the Netherlands, and England all raced to the New World, eager to match the gains of the Spanish. Native peoples greeted the new visitors with responses ranging from welcoming cooperation to aggressive violence, but the ravages of disease and the possibility of new trading relationships enabled Europeans to create settlements all along the western rim of the Atlantic world. New empires would emerge from these tenuous beginnings, and by the end of the seventeenth century, Spain would lose its privileged position to its rivals. An age of colonization had begun and, with it, a great collision of cultures commenced.<\/p>\n
II. Spanish America<\/span><\/h1>\nSpain extended its reach in the Americas after reaping the benefits of its colonies in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. Expeditions slowly began combing the continent and bringing Europeans into the modern-day United States in the hopes of establishing religious and economic dominance in a new territory.<\/p>\n
Juan Ponce de Le\u00f3n arrived in the area named La Florida in 1513. He found between 150,000 and 300,000 Native Americans. But then two and a half centuries of contact with European and African peoples\u2014whether through war, slave raids, or, most dramatically, foreign disease\u2014decimated Florida\u2019s Indigenous population. European explorers, meanwhile, had hoped to find great wealth in Florida, but reality never aligned with their imaginations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n1513 Atlantic map from cartographer Martin Waldseemuller. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn the first half of the sixteenth century, Spanish colonizers fought frequently with Florida\u2019s Native peoples as well as with other Europeans. In the 1560s Spain expelled French Protestants, called Huguenots, from the area near modern-day Jacksonville in northeast Florida. In 1586 English privateer Sir Francis Drake burned the wooden settlement of St. Augustine. At the dawn of the seventeenth century, Spain\u2019s reach in Florida extended from the mouth of the St. Johns River south to the environs of St. Augustine\u2014an area of roughly 1,000 square miles. The Spaniards attempted to duplicate methods for establishing control used previously in Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Andes. The Crown granted missionaries the right to live among Timucua and Guale villagers in the late 1500s and early 1600s and encouraged settlement through the encomienda<\/em> system (grants of Native labor).[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn the 1630s, the mission system extended into the Apalachee district in the Florida panhandle. The Apalachee, one of the most powerful tribes in Florida at the time of contact, claimed the territory from the modern Florida-Georgia border to the Gulf of Mexico. Apalachee farmers grew an abundance of corn and other crops. Native American traders carried surplus products east along the Camino Real (the royal road) that connected the western anchor of the mission system with St. Augustine. Spanish settlers drove cattle eastward across the St. Johns River and established ranches as far west as Apalachee. Still, Spain held Florida tenuously.<\/p>\n
Farther west, in 1598, Juan de O\u00f1ate led four hundred settlers, soldiers, and missionaries from Mexico into New Mexico. The Spanish Southwest had brutal beginnings. When O\u00f1ate sacked the Pueblo city of Acoma, the \u201csky city,\u201d the Spaniards slaughtered nearly half of its roughly 1,500 inhabitants, including women and children. O\u00f1ate ordered one foot cut off every surviving male over age fifteen, and he enslaved the remaining women and children.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSanta Fe, the first permanent European settlement in the Southwest, was established in 1610. Few Spaniards relocated to the Southwest because of the distance from Mexico City and the dry and hostile environment. Thus, the Spanish never achieved a commanding presence in the region. By 1680, only about three thousand colonists called Spanish New Mexico home.[3]<\/sup><\/a> There, they traded with and exploited the local Puebloan peoples. The region\u2019s Puebloan population had plummeted from as many as sixty thousand in 1600 to about seventeen thousand in 1680.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSpain shifted strategies after the military expeditions wove their way through the southern and western half of North America. Missions became the engine of colonization in North America. Missionaries, most of whom were members of the Franciscan religious order, provided Spain with an advance guard in North America. Catholicism had always justified Spanish conquest, and colonization always carried religious imperatives. By the early seventeenth century, Spanish friars had established dozens of missions along the Rio Grande and in California.<\/p>\n
III. Spain\u2019s Rivals Emerge<\/span><\/h1>\nThe earliest plan of New Amsterdam (now Manhattan),1660. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nWhile Spain plundered the New World, unrest plagued Europe. The Reformation threw England and France, the two European powers capable of contesting Spain, into turmoil. Long and expensive conflicts drained time, resources, and lives. Millions died from religious violence in France alone. As the violence diminished in Europe, however, religious and political rivalries continued in the New World.<\/p>\n
The Spanish exploitation of New Spain\u2019s riches inspired European monarchs to invest in exploration and conquest. Reports of Spanish atrocities spread throughout Europe and provided a humanitarian justification for European colonization. An English reprint of the writings of Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas bore the sensational title \u201cPopery Truly Display\u2019d in its Bloody Colours: Or, a Faithful Narrative of the Horrid and Unexampled Massacres, Butcheries, and all manners of Cruelties that Hell and Malice could invent, committed by the Popish Spanish.\u201d An English writer explained that Native Americans \u201cwere simple and plain men, and lived without great labour,\u201d but in their lust for gold the Spaniards \u201cforced the people (that were not used to labour) to stand all the daie in the hot sun gathering gold in the sand of the rivers. By this means a great number of them (not used to such pains) died, and a great number of them (seeing themselves brought from so quiet a life to such misery and slavery) of desperation killed themselves. And many would not marry, because they would not have their children slaves to the Spaniards.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a> The Spanish accused their critics of fostering a \u201cBlack Legend.\u201d The Black Legend drew on religious differences and political rivalries. Spain had successful conquests in France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands and left many in those nations yearning to break free from Spanish influence. English writers argued that Spanish barbarities were foiling a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of Christianity across the globe and that a benevolent conquest of the New World by non-Spanish monarchies offered the surest salvation of the New World\u2019s pagan masses. With these religious justifications, and with obvious economic motives, Spain\u2019s rivals arrived in the New World.<\/p>\nThe French<\/i><\/h2>\n
The French crown subsidized exploration in the early sixteenth century. Early French explorers sought a fabled Northwest Passage, a mythical waterway passing through the North American continent to Asia. Despite the wealth of the New World, Asia\u2019s riches still beckoned to Europeans. Canada\u2019s St. Lawrence River appeared to be such a passage, stretching deep into the continent and into the Great Lakes. French colonial possessions centered on these bodies of water (and, later, down the Mississippi River to the port of New Orleans).<\/p>\n
French colonization developed through investment from private trading companies. Traders established Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) in 1603 and launched trading expeditions that stretched down the Atlantic coast as far as Cape Cod. The needs of the fur trade set the future pattern of French colonization. Founded in 1608 under the leadership of Samuel de Champlain, Quebec provided the foothold for what would become New France. French fur traders placed a higher value on cooperating with Indigenous people than on establishing a successful French colonial footprint. Asserting dominance in the region could have been to their own detriment, as it might have compromised their access to skilled Native American trappers, and therefore wealth. Few Frenchmen traveled to the New World to settle permanently. In fact, few traveled at all. Many persecuted French Protestants (Huguenots) sought to emigrate after France criminalized Protestantism in 1685, but all non-Catholics were forbidden in New France.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\nThis depiction of New Orleans in 1726 when it was an eight-year-old French frontier settlement. Jean-Pierre Lassus, Ve\u00fce et Perspective de la Nouvelle Orleans, 1726, Centre des archives d\u2019outre-mer, France. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe French preference for trade over permanent settlement fostered more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with Native Americans than was typical among the Spanish and English. Perhaps eager to debunk the anti-Catholic elements of the Black Legend, the French worked to cultivate cooperation with Native Americans. Jesuit missionaries, for instance, adopted different conversion strategies than the Spanish Franciscans. Spanish missionaries brought Natives into enclosed missions, whereas Jesuits more often lived with or alongside Indigenous people. Many French fur traders married Native American women.[7]<\/sup><\/a> The offspring of Native American women and French men were so common in New France that the French developed a word for these children, M\u00e9tis(sage)<\/em>. The Huron people developed a particularly close relationship with the French, and many converted to Christianity and engaged in the fur trade. But close relationships with the French would come at a high cost. The Huron were decimated by the ravages of European disease, and entanglements in French and Dutch conflicts proved disastrous.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Despite this, some Native peoples maintained alliances with the French.<\/p>\nPressure from the powerful Iroquois in the East pushed many Algonquian-speaking peoples toward French territory in the midseventeenth century, and together they crafted what historians have called a \u201cmiddle ground,\u201d a kind of cross-cultural space that allowed for native and European interaction, negotiation, and accommodation. French traders adopted\u2014sometimes clumsily\u2014the gift-giving and mediation strategies expected of Native leaders. Natives similarly engaged the impersonal European market and adapted\u2014often haphazardly\u2014to European laws. The Great Lakes \u201cmiddle ground\u201d experienced tumultuous success throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries until English colonial officials and American settlers swarmed the region. The pressures of European expansion strained even the closest bonds.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe Dutch<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Netherlands, a small maritime nation with great wealth, achieved considerable colonial success. In 1581, the Netherlands had officially broken away from the Hapsburgs and won a reputation as the freest of the new European nations. Dutch women maintained separate legal identities from their husbands and could therefore hold property and inherit full estates.<\/p>\n
Ravaged by the turmoil of the Reformation, the Dutch embraced greater religious tolerance and freedom of the press than other European nations.[10]<\/sup><\/a> Radical Protestants, Catholics, and Jews flocked to the Netherlands. The English Pilgrims, for instance, fled first to the Netherlands before sailing to the New World years later. The Netherlands built its colonial empire through the work of experienced merchants and skilled sailors. The Dutch were the most advanced capitalists in the modern world and marshaled extensive financial resources by creating innovative financial organizations such as the Amsterdam Stock Exchange and the Dutch East India Company. Although the Dutch offered liberties, they offered very little democracy\u2014power remained in the hands of only a few. And Dutch liberties certainly had their limits. The Dutch advanced the slave trade and brought enslaved Africans with them to the New World. Slavery was an essential part of Dutch capitalist triumphs.<\/p>\nSharing the European hunger for access to Asia, in 1609 the Dutch commissioned the Englishman Henry Hudson to discover the fabled Northwest Passage through North America. He failed, of course, but nevertheless found the Hudson River and claimed modern-day New York for the Dutch. There they established New Netherland, an essential part of the Dutch New World empire. The Netherlands chartered the Dutch West India Company in 1621 and established colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. The island of Manhattan provided a launching pad to support its Caribbean colonies and attack Spanish trade.<\/p>\n
Spiteful of the Spanish and mindful of the Black Legend, the Dutch were determined not to repeat Spanish atrocities. They fashioned guidelines for New Netherland that conformed to the ideas of Hugo Grotius, a legal philosopher who believed that Native peoples possessed the same natural rights as Europeans. Colony leaders insisted that land be purchased; in 1626 Peter Minuit therefore \u201cbought\u201d Manhattan from Munsee people.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Despite the seemingly honorable intentions, it is likely the Dutch paid the wrong people for the land (either intentionally or unintentionally) or that the Munsee and the Dutch understood the transaction in very different terms. Transactions like these illustrated both the Dutch attempt to find a more peaceful process of colonization and the inconsistency between European and Native American understandings of property.<\/p>\nLike the French, the Dutch sought to profit, not to conquer. Trade with Native peoples became New Netherland\u2019s central economic activity. Dutch traders carried wampum along Native trade routes and exchanged it for beaver pelts. Wampum consisted of shell beads fashioned by Algonquians on the southern New England coast and was valued as a ceremonial and diplomatic commodity among the Iroquois. Wampum became a currency that could buy anything from a loaf of bread to a plot of land.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn addition to developing these trading networks, the Dutch also established farms, settlements, and lumber camps. The West India Company directors implemented the patroon system to encourage colonization. The patroon system granted large estates to wealthy landlords, who subsequently paid passage for the tenants to work their land. Expanding Dutch settlements correlated with deteriorating relations with local Native Americans. In the interior of the continent, the Dutch retained valuable alliances with the Iroquois to maintain Beverwijck, modern-day Albany, as a hub for the fur trade.[13]<\/sup><\/a> In the places where the Dutch built permanent settlements, the ideals of peaceful colonization succumbed to the settlers\u2019 increasing demand for land. Armed conflicts erupted as colonial settlements encroached on Native villages and hunting lands. Profit and peace, it seemed, could not coexist.<\/p>\nLabor shortages, meanwhile, crippled Dutch colonization. The patroon system failed to bring enough tenants, and the colony could not attract a sufficient number of indentured servants to satisfy the colony\u2019s backers. In response, the colony imported eleven enslaved people owned by the company in 1626, the same year that Minuit purchased Manhattan. Enslaved laborers were tasked with building New Amsterdam (modern-day New York City), including a defensive wall along the northern edge of the colony (the site of modern-day Wall Street). They created its roads and maintained its all-important port. Fears of racial mixing led the Dutch to import enslaved women, enabling the formation of African Dutch families. The colony\u2019s first African marriage occurred in 1641, and by 1650 there were at least five hundred enslaved Africans in the colony. By 1660, New Amsterdam had the largest urban enslaved population on the continent.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nAs was typical of the practice of African slavery in much of the early seventeenth century, Dutch slavery in New Amsterdam was less comprehensively exploitative than later systems of American slavery. Some enslaved Africans, for instance, successfully sued for back wages. When several enslaved people owned by the company fought for the colony against the Munsee, they petitioned for their freedom and won a kind of \u201chalf freedom\u201d that allowed them to work their own land in return for paying a large tithe, or tax, to their enslavers. The children of these \u201chalf-free\u201d laborers remained held in bondage by the West India Company, however. The Dutch, who so proudly touted their liberties, grappled with the reality of African slavery, and some New Netherlanders protested the enslavement of Christianized Africans. The economic goals of the colony slowly crowded out these cultural and religious objections, and the much-boasted liberties of the Dutch came to exist alongside increasingly brutal systems of slavery.<\/p>\n
The Portuguese\u00a0<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Portuguese had been leaders in Atlantic navigation well ahead of Columbus\u2019s voyage. But the incredible wealth flowing from New Spain piqued the rivalry between the two Iberian countries, and accelerated Portuguese colonization efforts. This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.<\/p>\n
Lucrative colonies in Africa and India initially preoccupied Portugal, but by 1530 the Portuguese turned their attention to the land that would become Brazil, driving out French traders and establishing permanent settlements. Gold and silver mines dotted the interior of the colony, but two industries powered early colonial Brazil: sugar and the slave trade. In fact, over the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than in any other colony in the Atlantic World. Gold mines emerged in greater numbers throughout the eighteenth century but still never rivaled the profitability of sugar or slave trading.<\/p>\n
Jesuit missionaries brought Christianity to Brazil, but strong elements of African and Native spirituality mixed with orthodox Catholicism to create a unique religious culture. This culture resulted from the demographics of Brazilian slavery. High mortality rates on sugar plantations required a steady influx of new enslaved laborers, thus perpetuating the cultural connection between Brazil and Africa. The reliance on new imports of enslaved laborers increased the likelihood of resistance, however, and those who escaped slavery managed to create several free settlements, called quilombos.<\/em> These settlements drew from both enslaved Africans and Natives, and despite frequent attacks, several endured throughout the long history of Brazilian slavery.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the arrival of these new Europeans, Spain continued to dominate the New World. The wealth flowing from the exploitation of the Aztec and Incan Empires greatly eclipsed the profits of other European nations. But this dominance would not last long. By the end of the sixteenth century, the powerful Spanish Armada would be destroyed, and the English would begin to rule the waves.<\/p>\n
IV. English Colonization<\/span><\/h1>\nNicholas Hilliard, The Battle of Gravelines, 1588. Wikimedia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nSpain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.<\/p>\n
However, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[16]<\/sup><\/a> The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nNew World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[18]<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.<\/p>\nIn his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThis noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).<\/p>\n
Rather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a> Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.<\/p>\nAn island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[21]<\/sup><\/a> The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.<\/p>\nEnglish colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.<\/p>\n
English colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.<\/p>\nAfter King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.<\/p>\n
V. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\nIncolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), c. 1590. The Encyclopedia Virginia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.<\/p>\nThe English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.<\/p>\n
Jamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a> And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.<\/p>\nJohn Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.<\/p>\n
Powhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nJohn White, \u201cVillage of the Secotan, 1585. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nDespite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a> Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[24]<\/sup><\/a> All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.<\/p>\nLittle improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.<\/p>\n
By the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nTobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.<\/p>\n
In 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.<\/p>\n
Soon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[26]<\/sup><\/a> The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.<\/p>\nEnglish colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.<\/p>\n
Spanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[29]<\/sup><\/a> More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.<\/p>\nAnd yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.<\/p>\n
VI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\nSeal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.<\/p>\n
The term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.<\/p>\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.<\/p>\n
During the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[31]<\/sup><\/a> The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.<\/p>\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.<\/p>\n
Although New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.<\/p>\n
A combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[33]<\/sup><\/a> They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.<\/p>\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[34]<\/sup><\/a> The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.<\/p>\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a> Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d<\/p>\n
VII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.<\/p>\n
- Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of the United States, Vol. I: The Colonial Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Andrew L. Knaut, The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance in Seventeenth Century New Mexico (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2015), 46. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John E. Kicza and Rebecca Horn, Resilient Cultures: America\u2019s Native Peoples Confront European Colonization, 1500\u20131800 (New York: Routledge, 2013), 122. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Knaut, Pueblo Revolt of 1680, 155. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Ponet, A Short Treatise on Political Power: And of the True Obedience Which Subjects Owe to Kings, and Other Civil Governors (London: s.n.), 43\u201344. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Greer, The People of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Susan Sleeper-Smith, Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Carole Blackburn, Harvest of Souls: The Jesuit Missions and Colonialism in North America, 1632\u20131659 (Montreal: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 2000), 116. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650\u20131815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Evan Haefeli, New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 20\u201353. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Allen W. Trelease, Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 36. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Trade, Land, Power: The Struggle for Eastern North America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 101. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Janny Venema, Beverwijck: A Dutch Village on the American Frontier, 1652\u20131664 (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626\u20131863 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alida C. Metcalf, Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil: 1500\u20131600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005). See also James H. Sweet, Recreating Africa: Culture, Kinship, and Religion in the African-Portuguese World, 1441\u20131770 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975), 30. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2006), 131\u2013135. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Christopher Hodgkins, Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 15. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584). https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/discourseonweste02hakl_0<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 9. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Felipe Fern\u00e1ndez-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Smith, Advertisements for the Inexperienced Planters \u2028of New England, or Anywhere or\u2028The Pathway to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: Haviland, 1631), 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- George Percy, \u201cA True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurrents of Moment Which Have Hap\u2019ned in Virginia,\u201d quoted in Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607\u20131617, ed. Edward Wright Haile (Champlain, VA: Round House, 1998), 505. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Eric A. Powell, \u201cChilling Discovery at Jamestown,\u201d Archaeology (June 10, 2013). http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/issues\/96-1307\/trenches\/973-jamestown-starving-time-cannibalism<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Dennis Montgomery, 1607: Jamestown and the New World (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007), 126. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Rebecca Goetz, The Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 57. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 75. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550\u201312 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Ibid., 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, \u201cMyne Owne Ground\u201d: Race and Freedom on Virginia\u2019s Eastern Shore, 1640\u20131676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":158,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-339","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/158"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":646,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions\/646"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Nicholas Hilliard, The Battle of Gravelines, 1588. Wikimedia[\/caption]\r\n\r\nSpain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.\r\n\r\nHowever, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[footnote]Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975), 30.[\/footnote] The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[footnote]John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2006), 131\u2013135.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nNew World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[footnote]Christopher Hodgkins, Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 15.[\/footnote] Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.\r\n\r\nIn his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[footnote]Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584). https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/discourseonweste02hakl_0<\/a>.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nThis noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).\r\n\r\nRather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[footnote]Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 9.[\/footnote] Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.\r\n\r\nAn island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[footnote]Felipe Fern\u00e1ndez-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).[\/footnote] The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.\r\n\r\nAfter King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.\r\nV. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_345\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"870\"] Incolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), c. 1590. The Encyclopedia Virginia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.\r\n\r\nThe English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.\r\n\r\nJamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[footnote]John Smith, Advertisements for the Inexperienced Planters \u2028of New England, or Anywhere or\u2028The Pathway to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: Haviland, 1631), 16.[\/footnote] And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.\r\n\r\nJohn Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.\r\n\r\nPowhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_346\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1023\"] John White, \u201cVillage of the Secotan, 1585. Wikimedia.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nDespite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[footnote]George Percy, \u201cA True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurrents of Moment Which Have Hap\u2019ned in Virginia,\u201d quoted in Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607\u20131617, ed. Edward Wright Haile (Champlain, VA: Round House, 1998), 505.[\/footnote] Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[footnote]Eric A. Powell, \u201cChilling Discovery at Jamestown,\u201d Archaeology (June 10, 2013). http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/issues\/96-1307\/trenches\/973-jamestown-starving-time-cannibalism<\/a>.[\/footnote] All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.\r\n\r\nLittle improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.\r\n\r\nBy the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[footnote]Dennis Montgomery, 1607: Jamestown and the New World (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007), 126.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nTobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.\r\n\r\nIn 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.\r\n\r\nSoon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[footnote]Rebecca Goetz, The Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 57.[\/footnote] The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[footnote]Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 75.[\/footnote] War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.\r\n\r\nEnglish colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.\r\n\r\nSpanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[footnote]Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550\u201312 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7.[\/footnote] An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[footnote]Ibid., 16.[\/footnote] More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.\r\n\r\nAnd yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[footnote]T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, \u201cMyne Owne Ground\u201d: Race and Freedom on Virginia\u2019s Eastern Shore, 1640\u20131676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nIn 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.\r\nVI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_347\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"854\"] Seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.\r\n\r\nThe term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.\r\n\r\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.\r\n\r\nDuring the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[footnote]John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>.[\/footnote] The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.\r\n\r\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.\r\n\r\nThere is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.\r\n\r\nAlthough New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.\r\n\r\nA combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[footnote]Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[footnote]Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391.[\/footnote] They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.\r\n\r\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[footnote]Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687).[\/footnote] The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.\r\n\r\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[footnote]Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389.[\/footnote] Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[footnote]Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d\r\nVII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\r\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.","rendered":"Theodor de Bry, \u201cNegotiating Peace With the Indians,\u201d 1634, Virginia Historical Society.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nI. Introduction<\/span><\/h1>\nThe Columbian Exchange transformed both sides of the Atlantic, but with dramatically disparate outcomes. New diseases wiped out entire civilizations in the Americas, while newly imported nutrient-rich foodstuffs enabled a European population boom. Spain benefited most immediately as the wealth of the Aztec and Incan Empires strengthened the Spanish monarchy. Spain used its new riches to gain an advantage over other European nations, but this advantage was soon contested.<\/p>\n
Portugal, France, the Netherlands, and England all raced to the New World, eager to match the gains of the Spanish. Native peoples greeted the new visitors with responses ranging from welcoming cooperation to aggressive violence, but the ravages of disease and the possibility of new trading relationships enabled Europeans to create settlements all along the western rim of the Atlantic world. New empires would emerge from these tenuous beginnings, and by the end of the seventeenth century, Spain would lose its privileged position to its rivals. An age of colonization had begun and, with it, a great collision of cultures commenced.<\/p>\n
II. Spanish America<\/span><\/h1>\nSpain extended its reach in the Americas after reaping the benefits of its colonies in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. Expeditions slowly began combing the continent and bringing Europeans into the modern-day United States in the hopes of establishing religious and economic dominance in a new territory.<\/p>\n
Juan Ponce de Le\u00f3n arrived in the area named La Florida in 1513. He found between 150,000 and 300,000 Native Americans. But then two and a half centuries of contact with European and African peoples\u2014whether through war, slave raids, or, most dramatically, foreign disease\u2014decimated Florida\u2019s Indigenous population. European explorers, meanwhile, had hoped to find great wealth in Florida, but reality never aligned with their imaginations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n1513 Atlantic map from cartographer Martin Waldseemuller. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn the first half of the sixteenth century, Spanish colonizers fought frequently with Florida\u2019s Native peoples as well as with other Europeans. In the 1560s Spain expelled French Protestants, called Huguenots, from the area near modern-day Jacksonville in northeast Florida. In 1586 English privateer Sir Francis Drake burned the wooden settlement of St. Augustine. At the dawn of the seventeenth century, Spain\u2019s reach in Florida extended from the mouth of the St. Johns River south to the environs of St. Augustine\u2014an area of roughly 1,000 square miles. The Spaniards attempted to duplicate methods for establishing control used previously in Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Andes. The Crown granted missionaries the right to live among Timucua and Guale villagers in the late 1500s and early 1600s and encouraged settlement through the encomienda<\/em> system (grants of Native labor).[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn the 1630s, the mission system extended into the Apalachee district in the Florida panhandle. The Apalachee, one of the most powerful tribes in Florida at the time of contact, claimed the territory from the modern Florida-Georgia border to the Gulf of Mexico. Apalachee farmers grew an abundance of corn and other crops. Native American traders carried surplus products east along the Camino Real (the royal road) that connected the western anchor of the mission system with St. Augustine. Spanish settlers drove cattle eastward across the St. Johns River and established ranches as far west as Apalachee. Still, Spain held Florida tenuously.<\/p>\n
Farther west, in 1598, Juan de O\u00f1ate led four hundred settlers, soldiers, and missionaries from Mexico into New Mexico. The Spanish Southwest had brutal beginnings. When O\u00f1ate sacked the Pueblo city of Acoma, the \u201csky city,\u201d the Spaniards slaughtered nearly half of its roughly 1,500 inhabitants, including women and children. O\u00f1ate ordered one foot cut off every surviving male over age fifteen, and he enslaved the remaining women and children.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSanta Fe, the first permanent European settlement in the Southwest, was established in 1610. Few Spaniards relocated to the Southwest because of the distance from Mexico City and the dry and hostile environment. Thus, the Spanish never achieved a commanding presence in the region. By 1680, only about three thousand colonists called Spanish New Mexico home.[3]<\/sup><\/a> There, they traded with and exploited the local Puebloan peoples. The region\u2019s Puebloan population had plummeted from as many as sixty thousand in 1600 to about seventeen thousand in 1680.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSpain shifted strategies after the military expeditions wove their way through the southern and western half of North America. Missions became the engine of colonization in North America. Missionaries, most of whom were members of the Franciscan religious order, provided Spain with an advance guard in North America. Catholicism had always justified Spanish conquest, and colonization always carried religious imperatives. By the early seventeenth century, Spanish friars had established dozens of missions along the Rio Grande and in California.<\/p>\n
III. Spain\u2019s Rivals Emerge<\/span><\/h1>\nThe earliest plan of New Amsterdam (now Manhattan),1660. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nWhile Spain plundered the New World, unrest plagued Europe. The Reformation threw England and France, the two European powers capable of contesting Spain, into turmoil. Long and expensive conflicts drained time, resources, and lives. Millions died from religious violence in France alone. As the violence diminished in Europe, however, religious and political rivalries continued in the New World.<\/p>\n
The Spanish exploitation of New Spain\u2019s riches inspired European monarchs to invest in exploration and conquest. Reports of Spanish atrocities spread throughout Europe and provided a humanitarian justification for European colonization. An English reprint of the writings of Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas bore the sensational title \u201cPopery Truly Display\u2019d in its Bloody Colours: Or, a Faithful Narrative of the Horrid and Unexampled Massacres, Butcheries, and all manners of Cruelties that Hell and Malice could invent, committed by the Popish Spanish.\u201d An English writer explained that Native Americans \u201cwere simple and plain men, and lived without great labour,\u201d but in their lust for gold the Spaniards \u201cforced the people (that were not used to labour) to stand all the daie in the hot sun gathering gold in the sand of the rivers. By this means a great number of them (not used to such pains) died, and a great number of them (seeing themselves brought from so quiet a life to such misery and slavery) of desperation killed themselves. And many would not marry, because they would not have their children slaves to the Spaniards.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a> The Spanish accused their critics of fostering a \u201cBlack Legend.\u201d The Black Legend drew on religious differences and political rivalries. Spain had successful conquests in France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands and left many in those nations yearning to break free from Spanish influence. English writers argued that Spanish barbarities were foiling a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of Christianity across the globe and that a benevolent conquest of the New World by non-Spanish monarchies offered the surest salvation of the New World\u2019s pagan masses. With these religious justifications, and with obvious economic motives, Spain\u2019s rivals arrived in the New World.<\/p>\nThe French<\/i><\/h2>\n
The French crown subsidized exploration in the early sixteenth century. Early French explorers sought a fabled Northwest Passage, a mythical waterway passing through the North American continent to Asia. Despite the wealth of the New World, Asia\u2019s riches still beckoned to Europeans. Canada\u2019s St. Lawrence River appeared to be such a passage, stretching deep into the continent and into the Great Lakes. French colonial possessions centered on these bodies of water (and, later, down the Mississippi River to the port of New Orleans).<\/p>\n
French colonization developed through investment from private trading companies. Traders established Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) in 1603 and launched trading expeditions that stretched down the Atlantic coast as far as Cape Cod. The needs of the fur trade set the future pattern of French colonization. Founded in 1608 under the leadership of Samuel de Champlain, Quebec provided the foothold for what would become New France. French fur traders placed a higher value on cooperating with Indigenous people than on establishing a successful French colonial footprint. Asserting dominance in the region could have been to their own detriment, as it might have compromised their access to skilled Native American trappers, and therefore wealth. Few Frenchmen traveled to the New World to settle permanently. In fact, few traveled at all. Many persecuted French Protestants (Huguenots) sought to emigrate after France criminalized Protestantism in 1685, but all non-Catholics were forbidden in New France.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\nThis depiction of New Orleans in 1726 when it was an eight-year-old French frontier settlement. Jean-Pierre Lassus, Ve\u00fce et Perspective de la Nouvelle Orleans, 1726, Centre des archives d\u2019outre-mer, France. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe French preference for trade over permanent settlement fostered more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with Native Americans than was typical among the Spanish and English. Perhaps eager to debunk the anti-Catholic elements of the Black Legend, the French worked to cultivate cooperation with Native Americans. Jesuit missionaries, for instance, adopted different conversion strategies than the Spanish Franciscans. Spanish missionaries brought Natives into enclosed missions, whereas Jesuits more often lived with or alongside Indigenous people. Many French fur traders married Native American women.[7]<\/sup><\/a> The offspring of Native American women and French men were so common in New France that the French developed a word for these children, M\u00e9tis(sage)<\/em>. The Huron people developed a particularly close relationship with the French, and many converted to Christianity and engaged in the fur trade. But close relationships with the French would come at a high cost. The Huron were decimated by the ravages of European disease, and entanglements in French and Dutch conflicts proved disastrous.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Despite this, some Native peoples maintained alliances with the French.<\/p>\nPressure from the powerful Iroquois in the East pushed many Algonquian-speaking peoples toward French territory in the midseventeenth century, and together they crafted what historians have called a \u201cmiddle ground,\u201d a kind of cross-cultural space that allowed for native and European interaction, negotiation, and accommodation. French traders adopted\u2014sometimes clumsily\u2014the gift-giving and mediation strategies expected of Native leaders. Natives similarly engaged the impersonal European market and adapted\u2014often haphazardly\u2014to European laws. The Great Lakes \u201cmiddle ground\u201d experienced tumultuous success throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries until English colonial officials and American settlers swarmed the region. The pressures of European expansion strained even the closest bonds.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe Dutch<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Netherlands, a small maritime nation with great wealth, achieved considerable colonial success. In 1581, the Netherlands had officially broken away from the Hapsburgs and won a reputation as the freest of the new European nations. Dutch women maintained separate legal identities from their husbands and could therefore hold property and inherit full estates.<\/p>\n
Ravaged by the turmoil of the Reformation, the Dutch embraced greater religious tolerance and freedom of the press than other European nations.[10]<\/sup><\/a> Radical Protestants, Catholics, and Jews flocked to the Netherlands. The English Pilgrims, for instance, fled first to the Netherlands before sailing to the New World years later. The Netherlands built its colonial empire through the work of experienced merchants and skilled sailors. The Dutch were the most advanced capitalists in the modern world and marshaled extensive financial resources by creating innovative financial organizations such as the Amsterdam Stock Exchange and the Dutch East India Company. Although the Dutch offered liberties, they offered very little democracy\u2014power remained in the hands of only a few. And Dutch liberties certainly had their limits. The Dutch advanced the slave trade and brought enslaved Africans with them to the New World. Slavery was an essential part of Dutch capitalist triumphs.<\/p>\nSharing the European hunger for access to Asia, in 1609 the Dutch commissioned the Englishman Henry Hudson to discover the fabled Northwest Passage through North America. He failed, of course, but nevertheless found the Hudson River and claimed modern-day New York for the Dutch. There they established New Netherland, an essential part of the Dutch New World empire. The Netherlands chartered the Dutch West India Company in 1621 and established colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. The island of Manhattan provided a launching pad to support its Caribbean colonies and attack Spanish trade.<\/p>\n
Spiteful of the Spanish and mindful of the Black Legend, the Dutch were determined not to repeat Spanish atrocities. They fashioned guidelines for New Netherland that conformed to the ideas of Hugo Grotius, a legal philosopher who believed that Native peoples possessed the same natural rights as Europeans. Colony leaders insisted that land be purchased; in 1626 Peter Minuit therefore \u201cbought\u201d Manhattan from Munsee people.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Despite the seemingly honorable intentions, it is likely the Dutch paid the wrong people for the land (either intentionally or unintentionally) or that the Munsee and the Dutch understood the transaction in very different terms. Transactions like these illustrated both the Dutch attempt to find a more peaceful process of colonization and the inconsistency between European and Native American understandings of property.<\/p>\nLike the French, the Dutch sought to profit, not to conquer. Trade with Native peoples became New Netherland\u2019s central economic activity. Dutch traders carried wampum along Native trade routes and exchanged it for beaver pelts. Wampum consisted of shell beads fashioned by Algonquians on the southern New England coast and was valued as a ceremonial and diplomatic commodity among the Iroquois. Wampum became a currency that could buy anything from a loaf of bread to a plot of land.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn addition to developing these trading networks, the Dutch also established farms, settlements, and lumber camps. The West India Company directors implemented the patroon system to encourage colonization. The patroon system granted large estates to wealthy landlords, who subsequently paid passage for the tenants to work their land. Expanding Dutch settlements correlated with deteriorating relations with local Native Americans. In the interior of the continent, the Dutch retained valuable alliances with the Iroquois to maintain Beverwijck, modern-day Albany, as a hub for the fur trade.[13]<\/sup><\/a> In the places where the Dutch built permanent settlements, the ideals of peaceful colonization succumbed to the settlers\u2019 increasing demand for land. Armed conflicts erupted as colonial settlements encroached on Native villages and hunting lands. Profit and peace, it seemed, could not coexist.<\/p>\nLabor shortages, meanwhile, crippled Dutch colonization. The patroon system failed to bring enough tenants, and the colony could not attract a sufficient number of indentured servants to satisfy the colony\u2019s backers. In response, the colony imported eleven enslaved people owned by the company in 1626, the same year that Minuit purchased Manhattan. Enslaved laborers were tasked with building New Amsterdam (modern-day New York City), including a defensive wall along the northern edge of the colony (the site of modern-day Wall Street). They created its roads and maintained its all-important port. Fears of racial mixing led the Dutch to import enslaved women, enabling the formation of African Dutch families. The colony\u2019s first African marriage occurred in 1641, and by 1650 there were at least five hundred enslaved Africans in the colony. By 1660, New Amsterdam had the largest urban enslaved population on the continent.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nAs was typical of the practice of African slavery in much of the early seventeenth century, Dutch slavery in New Amsterdam was less comprehensively exploitative than later systems of American slavery. Some enslaved Africans, for instance, successfully sued for back wages. When several enslaved people owned by the company fought for the colony against the Munsee, they petitioned for their freedom and won a kind of \u201chalf freedom\u201d that allowed them to work their own land in return for paying a large tithe, or tax, to their enslavers. The children of these \u201chalf-free\u201d laborers remained held in bondage by the West India Company, however. The Dutch, who so proudly touted their liberties, grappled with the reality of African slavery, and some New Netherlanders protested the enslavement of Christianized Africans. The economic goals of the colony slowly crowded out these cultural and religious objections, and the much-boasted liberties of the Dutch came to exist alongside increasingly brutal systems of slavery.<\/p>\n
The Portuguese\u00a0<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Portuguese had been leaders in Atlantic navigation well ahead of Columbus\u2019s voyage. But the incredible wealth flowing from New Spain piqued the rivalry between the two Iberian countries, and accelerated Portuguese colonization efforts. This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.<\/p>\n
Lucrative colonies in Africa and India initially preoccupied Portugal, but by 1530 the Portuguese turned their attention to the land that would become Brazil, driving out French traders and establishing permanent settlements. Gold and silver mines dotted the interior of the colony, but two industries powered early colonial Brazil: sugar and the slave trade. In fact, over the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than in any other colony in the Atlantic World. Gold mines emerged in greater numbers throughout the eighteenth century but still never rivaled the profitability of sugar or slave trading.<\/p>\n
Jesuit missionaries brought Christianity to Brazil, but strong elements of African and Native spirituality mixed with orthodox Catholicism to create a unique religious culture. This culture resulted from the demographics of Brazilian slavery. High mortality rates on sugar plantations required a steady influx of new enslaved laborers, thus perpetuating the cultural connection between Brazil and Africa. The reliance on new imports of enslaved laborers increased the likelihood of resistance, however, and those who escaped slavery managed to create several free settlements, called quilombos.<\/em> These settlements drew from both enslaved Africans and Natives, and despite frequent attacks, several endured throughout the long history of Brazilian slavery.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the arrival of these new Europeans, Spain continued to dominate the New World. The wealth flowing from the exploitation of the Aztec and Incan Empires greatly eclipsed the profits of other European nations. But this dominance would not last long. By the end of the sixteenth century, the powerful Spanish Armada would be destroyed, and the English would begin to rule the waves.<\/p>\n
IV. English Colonization<\/span><\/h1>\nNicholas Hilliard, The Battle of Gravelines, 1588. Wikimedia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nSpain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.<\/p>\n
However, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[16]<\/sup><\/a> The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nNew World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[18]<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.<\/p>\nIn his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThis noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).<\/p>\n
Rather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a> Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.<\/p>\nAn island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[21]<\/sup><\/a> The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.<\/p>\nEnglish colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.<\/p>\n
English colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.<\/p>\nAfter King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.<\/p>\n
V. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\nIncolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), c. 1590. The Encyclopedia Virginia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.<\/p>\nThe English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.<\/p>\n
Jamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a> And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.<\/p>\nJohn Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.<\/p>\n
Powhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nJohn White, \u201cVillage of the Secotan, 1585. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nDespite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a> Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[24]<\/sup><\/a> All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.<\/p>\nLittle improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.<\/p>\n
By the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nTobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.<\/p>\n
In 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.<\/p>\n
Soon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[26]<\/sup><\/a> The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.<\/p>\nEnglish colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.<\/p>\n
Spanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[29]<\/sup><\/a> More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.<\/p>\nAnd yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.<\/p>\n
VI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\nSeal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.<\/p>\n
The term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.<\/p>\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.<\/p>\n
During the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[31]<\/sup><\/a> The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.<\/p>\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.<\/p>\n
Although New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.<\/p>\n
A combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[33]<\/sup><\/a> They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.<\/p>\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[34]<\/sup><\/a> The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.<\/p>\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a> Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d<\/p>\n
VII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.<\/p>\n
- Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of the United States, Vol. I: The Colonial Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Andrew L. Knaut, The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance in Seventeenth Century New Mexico (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2015), 46. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John E. Kicza and Rebecca Horn, Resilient Cultures: America\u2019s Native Peoples Confront European Colonization, 1500\u20131800 (New York: Routledge, 2013), 122. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Knaut, Pueblo Revolt of 1680, 155. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Ponet, A Short Treatise on Political Power: And of the True Obedience Which Subjects Owe to Kings, and Other Civil Governors (London: s.n.), 43\u201344. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Greer, The People of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Susan Sleeper-Smith, Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Carole Blackburn, Harvest of Souls: The Jesuit Missions and Colonialism in North America, 1632\u20131659 (Montreal: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 2000), 116. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650\u20131815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Evan Haefeli, New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 20\u201353. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Allen W. Trelease, Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 36. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Trade, Land, Power: The Struggle for Eastern North America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 101. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Janny Venema, Beverwijck: A Dutch Village on the American Frontier, 1652\u20131664 (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626\u20131863 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alida C. Metcalf, Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil: 1500\u20131600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005). See also James H. Sweet, Recreating Africa: Culture, Kinship, and Religion in the African-Portuguese World, 1441\u20131770 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975), 30. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2006), 131\u2013135. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Christopher Hodgkins, Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 15. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584). https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/discourseonweste02hakl_0<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 9. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Felipe Fern\u00e1ndez-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Smith, Advertisements for the Inexperienced Planters \u2028of New England, or Anywhere or\u2028The Pathway to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: Haviland, 1631), 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- George Percy, \u201cA True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurrents of Moment Which Have Hap\u2019ned in Virginia,\u201d quoted in Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607\u20131617, ed. Edward Wright Haile (Champlain, VA: Round House, 1998), 505. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Eric A. Powell, \u201cChilling Discovery at Jamestown,\u201d Archaeology (June 10, 2013). http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/issues\/96-1307\/trenches\/973-jamestown-starving-time-cannibalism<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Dennis Montgomery, 1607: Jamestown and the New World (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007), 126. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Rebecca Goetz, The Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 57. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 75. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550\u201312 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Ibid., 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, \u201cMyne Owne Ground\u201d: Race and Freedom on Virginia\u2019s Eastern Shore, 1640\u20131676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":158,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-339","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/158"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":646,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions\/646"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.\r\n\r\nThe term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.\r\n\r\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.\r\n\r\nDuring the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[footnote]John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>.[\/footnote] The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.\r\n\r\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.\r\n\r\nThere is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.\r\n\r\nAlthough New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.\r\n\r\nA combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[footnote]Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[footnote]Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391.[\/footnote] They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.\r\n\r\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[footnote]Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687).[\/footnote] The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.\r\n\r\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[footnote]Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389.[\/footnote] Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[footnote]Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d\r\nVII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\r\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.","rendered":"Theodor de Bry, \u201cNegotiating Peace With the Indians,\u201d 1634, Virginia Historical Society.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nI. Introduction<\/span><\/h1>\nThe Columbian Exchange transformed both sides of the Atlantic, but with dramatically disparate outcomes. New diseases wiped out entire civilizations in the Americas, while newly imported nutrient-rich foodstuffs enabled a European population boom. Spain benefited most immediately as the wealth of the Aztec and Incan Empires strengthened the Spanish monarchy. Spain used its new riches to gain an advantage over other European nations, but this advantage was soon contested.<\/p>\n
Portugal, France, the Netherlands, and England all raced to the New World, eager to match the gains of the Spanish. Native peoples greeted the new visitors with responses ranging from welcoming cooperation to aggressive violence, but the ravages of disease and the possibility of new trading relationships enabled Europeans to create settlements all along the western rim of the Atlantic world. New empires would emerge from these tenuous beginnings, and by the end of the seventeenth century, Spain would lose its privileged position to its rivals. An age of colonization had begun and, with it, a great collision of cultures commenced.<\/p>\n
II. Spanish America<\/span><\/h1>\nSpain extended its reach in the Americas after reaping the benefits of its colonies in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. Expeditions slowly began combing the continent and bringing Europeans into the modern-day United States in the hopes of establishing religious and economic dominance in a new territory.<\/p>\n
Juan Ponce de Le\u00f3n arrived in the area named La Florida in 1513. He found between 150,000 and 300,000 Native Americans. But then two and a half centuries of contact with European and African peoples\u2014whether through war, slave raids, or, most dramatically, foreign disease\u2014decimated Florida\u2019s Indigenous population. European explorers, meanwhile, had hoped to find great wealth in Florida, but reality never aligned with their imaginations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n1513 Atlantic map from cartographer Martin Waldseemuller. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn the first half of the sixteenth century, Spanish colonizers fought frequently with Florida\u2019s Native peoples as well as with other Europeans. In the 1560s Spain expelled French Protestants, called Huguenots, from the area near modern-day Jacksonville in northeast Florida. In 1586 English privateer Sir Francis Drake burned the wooden settlement of St. Augustine. At the dawn of the seventeenth century, Spain\u2019s reach in Florida extended from the mouth of the St. Johns River south to the environs of St. Augustine\u2014an area of roughly 1,000 square miles. The Spaniards attempted to duplicate methods for establishing control used previously in Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Andes. The Crown granted missionaries the right to live among Timucua and Guale villagers in the late 1500s and early 1600s and encouraged settlement through the encomienda<\/em> system (grants of Native labor).[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn the 1630s, the mission system extended into the Apalachee district in the Florida panhandle. The Apalachee, one of the most powerful tribes in Florida at the time of contact, claimed the territory from the modern Florida-Georgia border to the Gulf of Mexico. Apalachee farmers grew an abundance of corn and other crops. Native American traders carried surplus products east along the Camino Real (the royal road) that connected the western anchor of the mission system with St. Augustine. Spanish settlers drove cattle eastward across the St. Johns River and established ranches as far west as Apalachee. Still, Spain held Florida tenuously.<\/p>\n
Farther west, in 1598, Juan de O\u00f1ate led four hundred settlers, soldiers, and missionaries from Mexico into New Mexico. The Spanish Southwest had brutal beginnings. When O\u00f1ate sacked the Pueblo city of Acoma, the \u201csky city,\u201d the Spaniards slaughtered nearly half of its roughly 1,500 inhabitants, including women and children. O\u00f1ate ordered one foot cut off every surviving male over age fifteen, and he enslaved the remaining women and children.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSanta Fe, the first permanent European settlement in the Southwest, was established in 1610. Few Spaniards relocated to the Southwest because of the distance from Mexico City and the dry and hostile environment. Thus, the Spanish never achieved a commanding presence in the region. By 1680, only about three thousand colonists called Spanish New Mexico home.[3]<\/sup><\/a> There, they traded with and exploited the local Puebloan peoples. The region\u2019s Puebloan population had plummeted from as many as sixty thousand in 1600 to about seventeen thousand in 1680.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSpain shifted strategies after the military expeditions wove their way through the southern and western half of North America. Missions became the engine of colonization in North America. Missionaries, most of whom were members of the Franciscan religious order, provided Spain with an advance guard in North America. Catholicism had always justified Spanish conquest, and colonization always carried religious imperatives. By the early seventeenth century, Spanish friars had established dozens of missions along the Rio Grande and in California.<\/p>\n
III. Spain\u2019s Rivals Emerge<\/span><\/h1>\nThe earliest plan of New Amsterdam (now Manhattan),1660. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nWhile Spain plundered the New World, unrest plagued Europe. The Reformation threw England and France, the two European powers capable of contesting Spain, into turmoil. Long and expensive conflicts drained time, resources, and lives. Millions died from religious violence in France alone. As the violence diminished in Europe, however, religious and political rivalries continued in the New World.<\/p>\n
The Spanish exploitation of New Spain\u2019s riches inspired European monarchs to invest in exploration and conquest. Reports of Spanish atrocities spread throughout Europe and provided a humanitarian justification for European colonization. An English reprint of the writings of Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas bore the sensational title \u201cPopery Truly Display\u2019d in its Bloody Colours: Or, a Faithful Narrative of the Horrid and Unexampled Massacres, Butcheries, and all manners of Cruelties that Hell and Malice could invent, committed by the Popish Spanish.\u201d An English writer explained that Native Americans \u201cwere simple and plain men, and lived without great labour,\u201d but in their lust for gold the Spaniards \u201cforced the people (that were not used to labour) to stand all the daie in the hot sun gathering gold in the sand of the rivers. By this means a great number of them (not used to such pains) died, and a great number of them (seeing themselves brought from so quiet a life to such misery and slavery) of desperation killed themselves. And many would not marry, because they would not have their children slaves to the Spaniards.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a> The Spanish accused their critics of fostering a \u201cBlack Legend.\u201d The Black Legend drew on religious differences and political rivalries. Spain had successful conquests in France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands and left many in those nations yearning to break free from Spanish influence. English writers argued that Spanish barbarities were foiling a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of Christianity across the globe and that a benevolent conquest of the New World by non-Spanish monarchies offered the surest salvation of the New World\u2019s pagan masses. With these religious justifications, and with obvious economic motives, Spain\u2019s rivals arrived in the New World.<\/p>\nThe French<\/i><\/h2>\n
The French crown subsidized exploration in the early sixteenth century. Early French explorers sought a fabled Northwest Passage, a mythical waterway passing through the North American continent to Asia. Despite the wealth of the New World, Asia\u2019s riches still beckoned to Europeans. Canada\u2019s St. Lawrence River appeared to be such a passage, stretching deep into the continent and into the Great Lakes. French colonial possessions centered on these bodies of water (and, later, down the Mississippi River to the port of New Orleans).<\/p>\n
French colonization developed through investment from private trading companies. Traders established Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) in 1603 and launched trading expeditions that stretched down the Atlantic coast as far as Cape Cod. The needs of the fur trade set the future pattern of French colonization. Founded in 1608 under the leadership of Samuel de Champlain, Quebec provided the foothold for what would become New France. French fur traders placed a higher value on cooperating with Indigenous people than on establishing a successful French colonial footprint. Asserting dominance in the region could have been to their own detriment, as it might have compromised their access to skilled Native American trappers, and therefore wealth. Few Frenchmen traveled to the New World to settle permanently. In fact, few traveled at all. Many persecuted French Protestants (Huguenots) sought to emigrate after France criminalized Protestantism in 1685, but all non-Catholics were forbidden in New France.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\nThis depiction of New Orleans in 1726 when it was an eight-year-old French frontier settlement. Jean-Pierre Lassus, Ve\u00fce et Perspective de la Nouvelle Orleans, 1726, Centre des archives d\u2019outre-mer, France. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe French preference for trade over permanent settlement fostered more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with Native Americans than was typical among the Spanish and English. Perhaps eager to debunk the anti-Catholic elements of the Black Legend, the French worked to cultivate cooperation with Native Americans. Jesuit missionaries, for instance, adopted different conversion strategies than the Spanish Franciscans. Spanish missionaries brought Natives into enclosed missions, whereas Jesuits more often lived with or alongside Indigenous people. Many French fur traders married Native American women.[7]<\/sup><\/a> The offspring of Native American women and French men were so common in New France that the French developed a word for these children, M\u00e9tis(sage)<\/em>. The Huron people developed a particularly close relationship with the French, and many converted to Christianity and engaged in the fur trade. But close relationships with the French would come at a high cost. The Huron were decimated by the ravages of European disease, and entanglements in French and Dutch conflicts proved disastrous.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Despite this, some Native peoples maintained alliances with the French.<\/p>\nPressure from the powerful Iroquois in the East pushed many Algonquian-speaking peoples toward French territory in the midseventeenth century, and together they crafted what historians have called a \u201cmiddle ground,\u201d a kind of cross-cultural space that allowed for native and European interaction, negotiation, and accommodation. French traders adopted\u2014sometimes clumsily\u2014the gift-giving and mediation strategies expected of Native leaders. Natives similarly engaged the impersonal European market and adapted\u2014often haphazardly\u2014to European laws. The Great Lakes \u201cmiddle ground\u201d experienced tumultuous success throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries until English colonial officials and American settlers swarmed the region. The pressures of European expansion strained even the closest bonds.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe Dutch<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Netherlands, a small maritime nation with great wealth, achieved considerable colonial success. In 1581, the Netherlands had officially broken away from the Hapsburgs and won a reputation as the freest of the new European nations. Dutch women maintained separate legal identities from their husbands and could therefore hold property and inherit full estates.<\/p>\n
Ravaged by the turmoil of the Reformation, the Dutch embraced greater religious tolerance and freedom of the press than other European nations.[10]<\/sup><\/a> Radical Protestants, Catholics, and Jews flocked to the Netherlands. The English Pilgrims, for instance, fled first to the Netherlands before sailing to the New World years later. The Netherlands built its colonial empire through the work of experienced merchants and skilled sailors. The Dutch were the most advanced capitalists in the modern world and marshaled extensive financial resources by creating innovative financial organizations such as the Amsterdam Stock Exchange and the Dutch East India Company. Although the Dutch offered liberties, they offered very little democracy\u2014power remained in the hands of only a few. And Dutch liberties certainly had their limits. The Dutch advanced the slave trade and brought enslaved Africans with them to the New World. Slavery was an essential part of Dutch capitalist triumphs.<\/p>\nSharing the European hunger for access to Asia, in 1609 the Dutch commissioned the Englishman Henry Hudson to discover the fabled Northwest Passage through North America. He failed, of course, but nevertheless found the Hudson River and claimed modern-day New York for the Dutch. There they established New Netherland, an essential part of the Dutch New World empire. The Netherlands chartered the Dutch West India Company in 1621 and established colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. The island of Manhattan provided a launching pad to support its Caribbean colonies and attack Spanish trade.<\/p>\n
Spiteful of the Spanish and mindful of the Black Legend, the Dutch were determined not to repeat Spanish atrocities. They fashioned guidelines for New Netherland that conformed to the ideas of Hugo Grotius, a legal philosopher who believed that Native peoples possessed the same natural rights as Europeans. Colony leaders insisted that land be purchased; in 1626 Peter Minuit therefore \u201cbought\u201d Manhattan from Munsee people.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Despite the seemingly honorable intentions, it is likely the Dutch paid the wrong people for the land (either intentionally or unintentionally) or that the Munsee and the Dutch understood the transaction in very different terms. Transactions like these illustrated both the Dutch attempt to find a more peaceful process of colonization and the inconsistency between European and Native American understandings of property.<\/p>\nLike the French, the Dutch sought to profit, not to conquer. Trade with Native peoples became New Netherland\u2019s central economic activity. Dutch traders carried wampum along Native trade routes and exchanged it for beaver pelts. Wampum consisted of shell beads fashioned by Algonquians on the southern New England coast and was valued as a ceremonial and diplomatic commodity among the Iroquois. Wampum became a currency that could buy anything from a loaf of bread to a plot of land.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn addition to developing these trading networks, the Dutch also established farms, settlements, and lumber camps. The West India Company directors implemented the patroon system to encourage colonization. The patroon system granted large estates to wealthy landlords, who subsequently paid passage for the tenants to work their land. Expanding Dutch settlements correlated with deteriorating relations with local Native Americans. In the interior of the continent, the Dutch retained valuable alliances with the Iroquois to maintain Beverwijck, modern-day Albany, as a hub for the fur trade.[13]<\/sup><\/a> In the places where the Dutch built permanent settlements, the ideals of peaceful colonization succumbed to the settlers\u2019 increasing demand for land. Armed conflicts erupted as colonial settlements encroached on Native villages and hunting lands. Profit and peace, it seemed, could not coexist.<\/p>\nLabor shortages, meanwhile, crippled Dutch colonization. The patroon system failed to bring enough tenants, and the colony could not attract a sufficient number of indentured servants to satisfy the colony\u2019s backers. In response, the colony imported eleven enslaved people owned by the company in 1626, the same year that Minuit purchased Manhattan. Enslaved laborers were tasked with building New Amsterdam (modern-day New York City), including a defensive wall along the northern edge of the colony (the site of modern-day Wall Street). They created its roads and maintained its all-important port. Fears of racial mixing led the Dutch to import enslaved women, enabling the formation of African Dutch families. The colony\u2019s first African marriage occurred in 1641, and by 1650 there were at least five hundred enslaved Africans in the colony. By 1660, New Amsterdam had the largest urban enslaved population on the continent.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nAs was typical of the practice of African slavery in much of the early seventeenth century, Dutch slavery in New Amsterdam was less comprehensively exploitative than later systems of American slavery. Some enslaved Africans, for instance, successfully sued for back wages. When several enslaved people owned by the company fought for the colony against the Munsee, they petitioned for their freedom and won a kind of \u201chalf freedom\u201d that allowed them to work their own land in return for paying a large tithe, or tax, to their enslavers. The children of these \u201chalf-free\u201d laborers remained held in bondage by the West India Company, however. The Dutch, who so proudly touted their liberties, grappled with the reality of African slavery, and some New Netherlanders protested the enslavement of Christianized Africans. The economic goals of the colony slowly crowded out these cultural and religious objections, and the much-boasted liberties of the Dutch came to exist alongside increasingly brutal systems of slavery.<\/p>\n
The Portuguese\u00a0<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Portuguese had been leaders in Atlantic navigation well ahead of Columbus\u2019s voyage. But the incredible wealth flowing from New Spain piqued the rivalry between the two Iberian countries, and accelerated Portuguese colonization efforts. This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.<\/p>\n
Lucrative colonies in Africa and India initially preoccupied Portugal, but by 1530 the Portuguese turned their attention to the land that would become Brazil, driving out French traders and establishing permanent settlements. Gold and silver mines dotted the interior of the colony, but two industries powered early colonial Brazil: sugar and the slave trade. In fact, over the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than in any other colony in the Atlantic World. Gold mines emerged in greater numbers throughout the eighteenth century but still never rivaled the profitability of sugar or slave trading.<\/p>\n
Jesuit missionaries brought Christianity to Brazil, but strong elements of African and Native spirituality mixed with orthodox Catholicism to create a unique religious culture. This culture resulted from the demographics of Brazilian slavery. High mortality rates on sugar plantations required a steady influx of new enslaved laborers, thus perpetuating the cultural connection between Brazil and Africa. The reliance on new imports of enslaved laborers increased the likelihood of resistance, however, and those who escaped slavery managed to create several free settlements, called quilombos.<\/em> These settlements drew from both enslaved Africans and Natives, and despite frequent attacks, several endured throughout the long history of Brazilian slavery.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the arrival of these new Europeans, Spain continued to dominate the New World. The wealth flowing from the exploitation of the Aztec and Incan Empires greatly eclipsed the profits of other European nations. But this dominance would not last long. By the end of the sixteenth century, the powerful Spanish Armada would be destroyed, and the English would begin to rule the waves.<\/p>\n
IV. English Colonization<\/span><\/h1>\nNicholas Hilliard, The Battle of Gravelines, 1588. Wikimedia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nSpain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.<\/p>\n
However, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[16]<\/sup><\/a> The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nNew World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[18]<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.<\/p>\nIn his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThis noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).<\/p>\n
Rather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a> Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.<\/p>\nAn island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[21]<\/sup><\/a> The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.<\/p>\nEnglish colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.<\/p>\n
English colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.<\/p>\nAfter King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.<\/p>\n
V. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\nIncolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), c. 1590. The Encyclopedia Virginia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.<\/p>\nThe English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.<\/p>\n
Jamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a> And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.<\/p>\nJohn Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.<\/p>\n
Powhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nJohn White, \u201cVillage of the Secotan, 1585. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nDespite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a> Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[24]<\/sup><\/a> All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.<\/p>\nLittle improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.<\/p>\n
By the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nTobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.<\/p>\n
In 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.<\/p>\n
Soon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[26]<\/sup><\/a> The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.<\/p>\nEnglish colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.<\/p>\n
Spanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[29]<\/sup><\/a> More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.<\/p>\nAnd yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.<\/p>\n
VI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\nSeal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.<\/p>\n
The term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.<\/p>\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.<\/p>\n
During the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[31]<\/sup><\/a> The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.<\/p>\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.<\/p>\n
Although New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.<\/p>\n
A combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[33]<\/sup><\/a> They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.<\/p>\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[34]<\/sup><\/a> The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.<\/p>\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a> Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d<\/p>\n
VII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.<\/p>\n
- Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of the United States, Vol. I: The Colonial Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Andrew L. Knaut, The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance in Seventeenth Century New Mexico (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2015), 46. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John E. Kicza and Rebecca Horn, Resilient Cultures: America\u2019s Native Peoples Confront European Colonization, 1500\u20131800 (New York: Routledge, 2013), 122. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Knaut, Pueblo Revolt of 1680, 155. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Ponet, A Short Treatise on Political Power: And of the True Obedience Which Subjects Owe to Kings, and Other Civil Governors (London: s.n.), 43\u201344. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Greer, The People of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Susan Sleeper-Smith, Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Carole Blackburn, Harvest of Souls: The Jesuit Missions and Colonialism in North America, 1632\u20131659 (Montreal: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 2000), 116. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650\u20131815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Evan Haefeli, New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 20\u201353. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Allen W. Trelease, Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 36. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Trade, Land, Power: The Struggle for Eastern North America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 101. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Janny Venema, Beverwijck: A Dutch Village on the American Frontier, 1652\u20131664 (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626\u20131863 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alida C. Metcalf, Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil: 1500\u20131600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005). See also James H. Sweet, Recreating Africa: Culture, Kinship, and Religion in the African-Portuguese World, 1441\u20131770 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975), 30. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2006), 131\u2013135. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Christopher Hodgkins, Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 15. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584). https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/discourseonweste02hakl_0<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 9. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Felipe Fern\u00e1ndez-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Smith, Advertisements for the Inexperienced Planters \u2028of New England, or Anywhere or\u2028The Pathway to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: Haviland, 1631), 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- George Percy, \u201cA True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurrents of Moment Which Have Hap\u2019ned in Virginia,\u201d quoted in Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607\u20131617, ed. Edward Wright Haile (Champlain, VA: Round House, 1998), 505. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Eric A. Powell, \u201cChilling Discovery at Jamestown,\u201d Archaeology (June 10, 2013). http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/issues\/96-1307\/trenches\/973-jamestown-starving-time-cannibalism<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Dennis Montgomery, 1607: Jamestown and the New World (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007), 126. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Rebecca Goetz, The Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 57. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 75. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550\u201312 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Ibid., 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, \u201cMyne Owne Ground\u201d: Race and Freedom on Virginia\u2019s Eastern Shore, 1640\u20131676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":158,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-339","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/158"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":646,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions\/646"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
I. Introduction<\/span><\/h1>\nThe Columbian Exchange transformed both sides of the Atlantic, but with dramatically disparate outcomes. New diseases wiped out entire civilizations in the Americas, while newly imported nutrient-rich foodstuffs enabled a European population boom. Spain benefited most immediately as the wealth of the Aztec and Incan Empires strengthened the Spanish monarchy. Spain used its new riches to gain an advantage over other European nations, but this advantage was soon contested.<\/p>\n
Portugal, France, the Netherlands, and England all raced to the New World, eager to match the gains of the Spanish. Native peoples greeted the new visitors with responses ranging from welcoming cooperation to aggressive violence, but the ravages of disease and the possibility of new trading relationships enabled Europeans to create settlements all along the western rim of the Atlantic world. New empires would emerge from these tenuous beginnings, and by the end of the seventeenth century, Spain would lose its privileged position to its rivals. An age of colonization had begun and, with it, a great collision of cultures commenced.<\/p>\n
II. Spanish America<\/span><\/h1>\nSpain extended its reach in the Americas after reaping the benefits of its colonies in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. Expeditions slowly began combing the continent and bringing Europeans into the modern-day United States in the hopes of establishing religious and economic dominance in a new territory.<\/p>\n
Juan Ponce de Le\u00f3n arrived in the area named La Florida in 1513. He found between 150,000 and 300,000 Native Americans. But then two and a half centuries of contact with European and African peoples\u2014whether through war, slave raids, or, most dramatically, foreign disease\u2014decimated Florida\u2019s Indigenous population. European explorers, meanwhile, had hoped to find great wealth in Florida, but reality never aligned with their imaginations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n1513 Atlantic map from cartographer Martin Waldseemuller. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn the first half of the sixteenth century, Spanish colonizers fought frequently with Florida\u2019s Native peoples as well as with other Europeans. In the 1560s Spain expelled French Protestants, called Huguenots, from the area near modern-day Jacksonville in northeast Florida. In 1586 English privateer Sir Francis Drake burned the wooden settlement of St. Augustine. At the dawn of the seventeenth century, Spain\u2019s reach in Florida extended from the mouth of the St. Johns River south to the environs of St. Augustine\u2014an area of roughly 1,000 square miles. The Spaniards attempted to duplicate methods for establishing control used previously in Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Andes. The Crown granted missionaries the right to live among Timucua and Guale villagers in the late 1500s and early 1600s and encouraged settlement through the encomienda<\/em> system (grants of Native labor).[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn the 1630s, the mission system extended into the Apalachee district in the Florida panhandle. The Apalachee, one of the most powerful tribes in Florida at the time of contact, claimed the territory from the modern Florida-Georgia border to the Gulf of Mexico. Apalachee farmers grew an abundance of corn and other crops. Native American traders carried surplus products east along the Camino Real (the royal road) that connected the western anchor of the mission system with St. Augustine. Spanish settlers drove cattle eastward across the St. Johns River and established ranches as far west as Apalachee. Still, Spain held Florida tenuously.<\/p>\n
Farther west, in 1598, Juan de O\u00f1ate led four hundred settlers, soldiers, and missionaries from Mexico into New Mexico. The Spanish Southwest had brutal beginnings. When O\u00f1ate sacked the Pueblo city of Acoma, the \u201csky city,\u201d the Spaniards slaughtered nearly half of its roughly 1,500 inhabitants, including women and children. O\u00f1ate ordered one foot cut off every surviving male over age fifteen, and he enslaved the remaining women and children.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSanta Fe, the first permanent European settlement in the Southwest, was established in 1610. Few Spaniards relocated to the Southwest because of the distance from Mexico City and the dry and hostile environment. Thus, the Spanish never achieved a commanding presence in the region. By 1680, only about three thousand colonists called Spanish New Mexico home.[3]<\/sup><\/a> There, they traded with and exploited the local Puebloan peoples. The region\u2019s Puebloan population had plummeted from as many as sixty thousand in 1600 to about seventeen thousand in 1680.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nSpain shifted strategies after the military expeditions wove their way through the southern and western half of North America. Missions became the engine of colonization in North America. Missionaries, most of whom were members of the Franciscan religious order, provided Spain with an advance guard in North America. Catholicism had always justified Spanish conquest, and colonization always carried religious imperatives. By the early seventeenth century, Spanish friars had established dozens of missions along the Rio Grande and in California.<\/p>\n
III. Spain\u2019s Rivals Emerge<\/span><\/h1>\nThe earliest plan of New Amsterdam (now Manhattan),1660. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nWhile Spain plundered the New World, unrest plagued Europe. The Reformation threw England and France, the two European powers capable of contesting Spain, into turmoil. Long and expensive conflicts drained time, resources, and lives. Millions died from religious violence in France alone. As the violence diminished in Europe, however, religious and political rivalries continued in the New World.<\/p>\n
The Spanish exploitation of New Spain\u2019s riches inspired European monarchs to invest in exploration and conquest. Reports of Spanish atrocities spread throughout Europe and provided a humanitarian justification for European colonization. An English reprint of the writings of Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas bore the sensational title \u201cPopery Truly Display\u2019d in its Bloody Colours: Or, a Faithful Narrative of the Horrid and Unexampled Massacres, Butcheries, and all manners of Cruelties that Hell and Malice could invent, committed by the Popish Spanish.\u201d An English writer explained that Native Americans \u201cwere simple and plain men, and lived without great labour,\u201d but in their lust for gold the Spaniards \u201cforced the people (that were not used to labour) to stand all the daie in the hot sun gathering gold in the sand of the rivers. By this means a great number of them (not used to such pains) died, and a great number of them (seeing themselves brought from so quiet a life to such misery and slavery) of desperation killed themselves. And many would not marry, because they would not have their children slaves to the Spaniards.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a> The Spanish accused their critics of fostering a \u201cBlack Legend.\u201d The Black Legend drew on religious differences and political rivalries. Spain had successful conquests in France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands and left many in those nations yearning to break free from Spanish influence. English writers argued that Spanish barbarities were foiling a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of Christianity across the globe and that a benevolent conquest of the New World by non-Spanish monarchies offered the surest salvation of the New World\u2019s pagan masses. With these religious justifications, and with obvious economic motives, Spain\u2019s rivals arrived in the New World.<\/p>\nThe French<\/i><\/h2>\n
The French crown subsidized exploration in the early sixteenth century. Early French explorers sought a fabled Northwest Passage, a mythical waterway passing through the North American continent to Asia. Despite the wealth of the New World, Asia\u2019s riches still beckoned to Europeans. Canada\u2019s St. Lawrence River appeared to be such a passage, stretching deep into the continent and into the Great Lakes. French colonial possessions centered on these bodies of water (and, later, down the Mississippi River to the port of New Orleans).<\/p>\n
French colonization developed through investment from private trading companies. Traders established Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) in 1603 and launched trading expeditions that stretched down the Atlantic coast as far as Cape Cod. The needs of the fur trade set the future pattern of French colonization. Founded in 1608 under the leadership of Samuel de Champlain, Quebec provided the foothold for what would become New France. French fur traders placed a higher value on cooperating with Indigenous people than on establishing a successful French colonial footprint. Asserting dominance in the region could have been to their own detriment, as it might have compromised their access to skilled Native American trappers, and therefore wealth. Few Frenchmen traveled to the New World to settle permanently. In fact, few traveled at all. Many persecuted French Protestants (Huguenots) sought to emigrate after France criminalized Protestantism in 1685, but all non-Catholics were forbidden in New France.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\nThis depiction of New Orleans in 1726 when it was an eight-year-old French frontier settlement. Jean-Pierre Lassus, Ve\u00fce et Perspective de la Nouvelle Orleans, 1726, Centre des archives d\u2019outre-mer, France. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe French preference for trade over permanent settlement fostered more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with Native Americans than was typical among the Spanish and English. Perhaps eager to debunk the anti-Catholic elements of the Black Legend, the French worked to cultivate cooperation with Native Americans. Jesuit missionaries, for instance, adopted different conversion strategies than the Spanish Franciscans. Spanish missionaries brought Natives into enclosed missions, whereas Jesuits more often lived with or alongside Indigenous people. Many French fur traders married Native American women.[7]<\/sup><\/a> The offspring of Native American women and French men were so common in New France that the French developed a word for these children, M\u00e9tis(sage)<\/em>. The Huron people developed a particularly close relationship with the French, and many converted to Christianity and engaged in the fur trade. But close relationships with the French would come at a high cost. The Huron were decimated by the ravages of European disease, and entanglements in French and Dutch conflicts proved disastrous.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Despite this, some Native peoples maintained alliances with the French.<\/p>\nPressure from the powerful Iroquois in the East pushed many Algonquian-speaking peoples toward French territory in the midseventeenth century, and together they crafted what historians have called a \u201cmiddle ground,\u201d a kind of cross-cultural space that allowed for native and European interaction, negotiation, and accommodation. French traders adopted\u2014sometimes clumsily\u2014the gift-giving and mediation strategies expected of Native leaders. Natives similarly engaged the impersonal European market and adapted\u2014often haphazardly\u2014to European laws. The Great Lakes \u201cmiddle ground\u201d experienced tumultuous success throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries until English colonial officials and American settlers swarmed the region. The pressures of European expansion strained even the closest bonds.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe Dutch<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Netherlands, a small maritime nation with great wealth, achieved considerable colonial success. In 1581, the Netherlands had officially broken away from the Hapsburgs and won a reputation as the freest of the new European nations. Dutch women maintained separate legal identities from their husbands and could therefore hold property and inherit full estates.<\/p>\n
Ravaged by the turmoil of the Reformation, the Dutch embraced greater religious tolerance and freedom of the press than other European nations.[10]<\/sup><\/a> Radical Protestants, Catholics, and Jews flocked to the Netherlands. The English Pilgrims, for instance, fled first to the Netherlands before sailing to the New World years later. The Netherlands built its colonial empire through the work of experienced merchants and skilled sailors. The Dutch were the most advanced capitalists in the modern world and marshaled extensive financial resources by creating innovative financial organizations such as the Amsterdam Stock Exchange and the Dutch East India Company. Although the Dutch offered liberties, they offered very little democracy\u2014power remained in the hands of only a few. And Dutch liberties certainly had their limits. The Dutch advanced the slave trade and brought enslaved Africans with them to the New World. Slavery was an essential part of Dutch capitalist triumphs.<\/p>\nSharing the European hunger for access to Asia, in 1609 the Dutch commissioned the Englishman Henry Hudson to discover the fabled Northwest Passage through North America. He failed, of course, but nevertheless found the Hudson River and claimed modern-day New York for the Dutch. There they established New Netherland, an essential part of the Dutch New World empire. The Netherlands chartered the Dutch West India Company in 1621 and established colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. The island of Manhattan provided a launching pad to support its Caribbean colonies and attack Spanish trade.<\/p>\n
Spiteful of the Spanish and mindful of the Black Legend, the Dutch were determined not to repeat Spanish atrocities. They fashioned guidelines for New Netherland that conformed to the ideas of Hugo Grotius, a legal philosopher who believed that Native peoples possessed the same natural rights as Europeans. Colony leaders insisted that land be purchased; in 1626 Peter Minuit therefore \u201cbought\u201d Manhattan from Munsee people.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Despite the seemingly honorable intentions, it is likely the Dutch paid the wrong people for the land (either intentionally or unintentionally) or that the Munsee and the Dutch understood the transaction in very different terms. Transactions like these illustrated both the Dutch attempt to find a more peaceful process of colonization and the inconsistency between European and Native American understandings of property.<\/p>\nLike the French, the Dutch sought to profit, not to conquer. Trade with Native peoples became New Netherland\u2019s central economic activity. Dutch traders carried wampum along Native trade routes and exchanged it for beaver pelts. Wampum consisted of shell beads fashioned by Algonquians on the southern New England coast and was valued as a ceremonial and diplomatic commodity among the Iroquois. Wampum became a currency that could buy anything from a loaf of bread to a plot of land.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn addition to developing these trading networks, the Dutch also established farms, settlements, and lumber camps. The West India Company directors implemented the patroon system to encourage colonization. The patroon system granted large estates to wealthy landlords, who subsequently paid passage for the tenants to work their land. Expanding Dutch settlements correlated with deteriorating relations with local Native Americans. In the interior of the continent, the Dutch retained valuable alliances with the Iroquois to maintain Beverwijck, modern-day Albany, as a hub for the fur trade.[13]<\/sup><\/a> In the places where the Dutch built permanent settlements, the ideals of peaceful colonization succumbed to the settlers\u2019 increasing demand for land. Armed conflicts erupted as colonial settlements encroached on Native villages and hunting lands. Profit and peace, it seemed, could not coexist.<\/p>\nLabor shortages, meanwhile, crippled Dutch colonization. The patroon system failed to bring enough tenants, and the colony could not attract a sufficient number of indentured servants to satisfy the colony\u2019s backers. In response, the colony imported eleven enslaved people owned by the company in 1626, the same year that Minuit purchased Manhattan. Enslaved laborers were tasked with building New Amsterdam (modern-day New York City), including a defensive wall along the northern edge of the colony (the site of modern-day Wall Street). They created its roads and maintained its all-important port. Fears of racial mixing led the Dutch to import enslaved women, enabling the formation of African Dutch families. The colony\u2019s first African marriage occurred in 1641, and by 1650 there were at least five hundred enslaved Africans in the colony. By 1660, New Amsterdam had the largest urban enslaved population on the continent.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nAs was typical of the practice of African slavery in much of the early seventeenth century, Dutch slavery in New Amsterdam was less comprehensively exploitative than later systems of American slavery. Some enslaved Africans, for instance, successfully sued for back wages. When several enslaved people owned by the company fought for the colony against the Munsee, they petitioned for their freedom and won a kind of \u201chalf freedom\u201d that allowed them to work their own land in return for paying a large tithe, or tax, to their enslavers. The children of these \u201chalf-free\u201d laborers remained held in bondage by the West India Company, however. The Dutch, who so proudly touted their liberties, grappled with the reality of African slavery, and some New Netherlanders protested the enslavement of Christianized Africans. The economic goals of the colony slowly crowded out these cultural and religious objections, and the much-boasted liberties of the Dutch came to exist alongside increasingly brutal systems of slavery.<\/p>\n
The Portuguese\u00a0<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Portuguese had been leaders in Atlantic navigation well ahead of Columbus\u2019s voyage. But the incredible wealth flowing from New Spain piqued the rivalry between the two Iberian countries, and accelerated Portuguese colonization efforts. This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.<\/p>\n
Lucrative colonies in Africa and India initially preoccupied Portugal, but by 1530 the Portuguese turned their attention to the land that would become Brazil, driving out French traders and establishing permanent settlements. Gold and silver mines dotted the interior of the colony, but two industries powered early colonial Brazil: sugar and the slave trade. In fact, over the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than in any other colony in the Atlantic World. Gold mines emerged in greater numbers throughout the eighteenth century but still never rivaled the profitability of sugar or slave trading.<\/p>\n
Jesuit missionaries brought Christianity to Brazil, but strong elements of African and Native spirituality mixed with orthodox Catholicism to create a unique religious culture. This culture resulted from the demographics of Brazilian slavery. High mortality rates on sugar plantations required a steady influx of new enslaved laborers, thus perpetuating the cultural connection between Brazil and Africa. The reliance on new imports of enslaved laborers increased the likelihood of resistance, however, and those who escaped slavery managed to create several free settlements, called quilombos.<\/em> These settlements drew from both enslaved Africans and Natives, and despite frequent attacks, several endured throughout the long history of Brazilian slavery.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the arrival of these new Europeans, Spain continued to dominate the New World. The wealth flowing from the exploitation of the Aztec and Incan Empires greatly eclipsed the profits of other European nations. But this dominance would not last long. By the end of the sixteenth century, the powerful Spanish Armada would be destroyed, and the English would begin to rule the waves.<\/p>\n
IV. English Colonization<\/span><\/h1>\nNicholas Hilliard, The Battle of Gravelines, 1588. Wikimedia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nSpain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.<\/p>\n
However, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[16]<\/sup><\/a> The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nNew World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[18]<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.<\/p>\nIn his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThis noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).<\/p>\n
Rather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a> Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.<\/p>\nAn island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[21]<\/sup><\/a> The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.<\/p>\nEnglish colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.<\/p>\n
English colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.<\/p>\nAfter King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.<\/p>\n
V. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\nIncolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), c. 1590. The Encyclopedia Virginia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.<\/p>\nThe English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.<\/p>\n
Jamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a> And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.<\/p>\nJohn Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.<\/p>\n
Powhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nJohn White, \u201cVillage of the Secotan, 1585. Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nDespite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a> Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[24]<\/sup><\/a> All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.<\/p>\nLittle improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.<\/p>\n
By the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nTobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.<\/p>\n
In 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.<\/p>\n
Soon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[26]<\/sup><\/a> The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.<\/p>\nEnglish colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.<\/p>\n
Spanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[29]<\/sup><\/a> More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.<\/p>\nAnd yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.<\/p>\n
VI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\nSeal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The History Project (UC Davis).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.<\/p>\n
The term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.<\/p>\nPuritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.<\/p>\n
During the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[31]<\/sup><\/a> The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.<\/p>\nWhile the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.<\/p>\n
Although New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.<\/p>\n
A combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThe New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[33]<\/sup><\/a> They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.<\/p>\nAlthough by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[34]<\/sup><\/a> The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.<\/p>\nYet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a> Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nDespite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d<\/p>\n
VII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\nThe fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.<\/p>\n
- Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of the United States, Vol. I: The Colonial Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Andrew L. Knaut, The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance in Seventeenth Century New Mexico (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2015), 46. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John E. Kicza and Rebecca Horn, Resilient Cultures: America\u2019s Native Peoples Confront European Colonization, 1500\u20131800 (New York: Routledge, 2013), 122. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Knaut, Pueblo Revolt of 1680, 155. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Ponet, A Short Treatise on Political Power: And of the True Obedience Which Subjects Owe to Kings, and Other Civil Governors (London: s.n.), 43\u201344. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Greer, The People of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Susan Sleeper-Smith, Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Carole Blackburn, Harvest of Souls: The Jesuit Missions and Colonialism in North America, 1632\u20131659 (Montreal: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 2000), 116. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650\u20131815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Evan Haefeli, New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 20\u201353. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Allen W. Trelease, Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 36. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Trade, Land, Power: The Struggle for Eastern North America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 101. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Janny Venema, Beverwijck: A Dutch Village on the American Frontier, 1652\u20131664 (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626\u20131863 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 21. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alida C. Metcalf, Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil: 1500\u20131600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005). See also James H. Sweet, Recreating Africa: Culture, Kinship, and Religion in the African-Portuguese World, 1441\u20131770 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975), 30. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2006), 131\u2013135. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Christopher Hodgkins, Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 15. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584). https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/discourseonweste02hakl_0<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 9. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Felipe Fern\u00e1ndez-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Smith, Advertisements for the Inexperienced Planters \u2028of New England, or Anywhere or\u2028The Pathway to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: Haviland, 1631), 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- George Percy, \u201cA True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurrents of Moment Which Have Hap\u2019ned in Virginia,\u201d quoted in Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607\u20131617, ed. Edward Wright Haile (Champlain, VA: Round House, 1998), 505. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Eric A. Powell, \u201cChilling Discovery at Jamestown,\u201d Archaeology (June 10, 2013). http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/issues\/96-1307\/trenches\/973-jamestown-starving-time-cannibalism<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Dennis Montgomery, 1607: Jamestown and the New World (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007), 126. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Rebecca Goetz, The Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 57. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Daniel K. Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 75. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550\u201312 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Ibid., 16. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- T. H. Breen and Stephen Innes, \u201cMyne Owne Ground\u201d: Race and Freedom on Virginia\u2019s Eastern Shore, 1640\u20131676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630), first published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series, no. 7: 31\u201348. http:\/\/history.hanover.edu\/texts\/winthmod.html<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin, 2002), 170. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Virginia DeJohn Anderson, New England\u2019s Generation: The Great Migration and the Formation of Society and Culture in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90\u201391. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Increase Mather, A Testimony Against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by Some in New-England (London: s.n., 1687). ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Samuel Sewall, Diary of Samuel Sewall: 1674\u20131729, Vol. 3 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1882), 389. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Diary of Cotton Mather, 1709-724 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912), 146. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":158,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-339","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/158"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":646,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/revisions\/646"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/339\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/americanyawp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Spain extended its reach in the Americas after reaping the benefits of its colonies in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. Expeditions slowly began combing the continent and bringing Europeans into the modern-day United States in the hopes of establishing religious and economic dominance in a new territory.<\/p>\n
Juan Ponce de Le\u00f3n arrived in the area named La Florida in 1513. He found between 150,000 and 300,000 Native Americans. But then two and a half centuries of contact with European and African peoples\u2014whether through war, slave raids, or, most dramatically, foreign disease\u2014decimated Florida\u2019s Indigenous population. European explorers, meanwhile, had hoped to find great wealth in Florida, but reality never aligned with their imaginations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n In the first half of the sixteenth century, Spanish colonizers fought frequently with Florida\u2019s Native peoples as well as with other Europeans. In the 1560s Spain expelled French Protestants, called Huguenots, from the area near modern-day Jacksonville in northeast Florida. In 1586 English privateer Sir Francis Drake burned the wooden settlement of St. Augustine. At the dawn of the seventeenth century, Spain\u2019s reach in Florida extended from the mouth of the St. Johns River south to the environs of St. Augustine\u2014an area of roughly 1,000 square miles. The Spaniards attempted to duplicate methods for establishing control used previously in Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Andes. The Crown granted missionaries the right to live among Timucua and Guale villagers in the late 1500s and early 1600s and encouraged settlement through the encomienda<\/em> system (grants of Native labor).[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In the 1630s, the mission system extended into the Apalachee district in the Florida panhandle. The Apalachee, one of the most powerful tribes in Florida at the time of contact, claimed the territory from the modern Florida-Georgia border to the Gulf of Mexico. Apalachee farmers grew an abundance of corn and other crops. Native American traders carried surplus products east along the Camino Real (the royal road) that connected the western anchor of the mission system with St. Augustine. Spanish settlers drove cattle eastward across the St. Johns River and established ranches as far west as Apalachee. Still, Spain held Florida tenuously.<\/p>\n Farther west, in 1598, Juan de O\u00f1ate led four hundred settlers, soldiers, and missionaries from Mexico into New Mexico. The Spanish Southwest had brutal beginnings. When O\u00f1ate sacked the Pueblo city of Acoma, the \u201csky city,\u201d the Spaniards slaughtered nearly half of its roughly 1,500 inhabitants, including women and children. O\u00f1ate ordered one foot cut off every surviving male over age fifteen, and he enslaved the remaining women and children.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Santa Fe, the first permanent European settlement in the Southwest, was established in 1610. Few Spaniards relocated to the Southwest because of the distance from Mexico City and the dry and hostile environment. Thus, the Spanish never achieved a commanding presence in the region. By 1680, only about three thousand colonists called Spanish New Mexico home.[3]<\/sup><\/a> There, they traded with and exploited the local Puebloan peoples. The region\u2019s Puebloan population had plummeted from as many as sixty thousand in 1600 to about seventeen thousand in 1680.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Spain shifted strategies after the military expeditions wove their way through the southern and western half of North America. Missions became the engine of colonization in North America. Missionaries, most of whom were members of the Franciscan religious order, provided Spain with an advance guard in North America. Catholicism had always justified Spanish conquest, and colonization always carried religious imperatives. By the early seventeenth century, Spanish friars had established dozens of missions along the Rio Grande and in California.<\/p>\n While Spain plundered the New World, unrest plagued Europe. The Reformation threw England and France, the two European powers capable of contesting Spain, into turmoil. Long and expensive conflicts drained time, resources, and lives. Millions died from religious violence in France alone. As the violence diminished in Europe, however, religious and political rivalries continued in the New World.<\/p>\n The Spanish exploitation of New Spain\u2019s riches inspired European monarchs to invest in exploration and conquest. Reports of Spanish atrocities spread throughout Europe and provided a humanitarian justification for European colonization. An English reprint of the writings of Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas bore the sensational title \u201cPopery Truly Display\u2019d in its Bloody Colours: Or, a Faithful Narrative of the Horrid and Unexampled Massacres, Butcheries, and all manners of Cruelties that Hell and Malice could invent, committed by the Popish Spanish.\u201d An English writer explained that Native Americans \u201cwere simple and plain men, and lived without great labour,\u201d but in their lust for gold the Spaniards \u201cforced the people (that were not used to labour) to stand all the daie in the hot sun gathering gold in the sand of the rivers. By this means a great number of them (not used to such pains) died, and a great number of them (seeing themselves brought from so quiet a life to such misery and slavery) of desperation killed themselves. And many would not marry, because they would not have their children slaves to the Spaniards.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a> The Spanish accused their critics of fostering a \u201cBlack Legend.\u201d The Black Legend drew on religious differences and political rivalries. Spain had successful conquests in France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands and left many in those nations yearning to break free from Spanish influence. English writers argued that Spanish barbarities were foiling a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of Christianity across the globe and that a benevolent conquest of the New World by non-Spanish monarchies offered the surest salvation of the New World\u2019s pagan masses. With these religious justifications, and with obvious economic motives, Spain\u2019s rivals arrived in the New World.<\/p>\n The French crown subsidized exploration in the early sixteenth century. Early French explorers sought a fabled Northwest Passage, a mythical waterway passing through the North American continent to Asia. Despite the wealth of the New World, Asia\u2019s riches still beckoned to Europeans. Canada\u2019s St. Lawrence River appeared to be such a passage, stretching deep into the continent and into the Great Lakes. French colonial possessions centered on these bodies of water (and, later, down the Mississippi River to the port of New Orleans).<\/p>\n French colonization developed through investment from private trading companies. Traders established Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) in 1603 and launched trading expeditions that stretched down the Atlantic coast as far as Cape Cod. The needs of the fur trade set the future pattern of French colonization. Founded in 1608 under the leadership of Samuel de Champlain, Quebec provided the foothold for what would become New France. French fur traders placed a higher value on cooperating with Indigenous people than on establishing a successful French colonial footprint. Asserting dominance in the region could have been to their own detriment, as it might have compromised their access to skilled Native American trappers, and therefore wealth. Few Frenchmen traveled to the New World to settle permanently. In fact, few traveled at all. Many persecuted French Protestants (Huguenots) sought to emigrate after France criminalized Protestantism in 1685, but all non-Catholics were forbidden in New France.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The French preference for trade over permanent settlement fostered more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with Native Americans than was typical among the Spanish and English. Perhaps eager to debunk the anti-Catholic elements of the Black Legend, the French worked to cultivate cooperation with Native Americans. Jesuit missionaries, for instance, adopted different conversion strategies than the Spanish Franciscans. Spanish missionaries brought Natives into enclosed missions, whereas Jesuits more often lived with or alongside Indigenous people. Many French fur traders married Native American women.[7]<\/sup><\/a> The offspring of Native American women and French men were so common in New France that the French developed a word for these children, M\u00e9tis(sage)<\/em>. The Huron people developed a particularly close relationship with the French, and many converted to Christianity and engaged in the fur trade. But close relationships with the French would come at a high cost. The Huron were decimated by the ravages of European disease, and entanglements in French and Dutch conflicts proved disastrous.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Despite this, some Native peoples maintained alliances with the French.<\/p>\n Pressure from the powerful Iroquois in the East pushed many Algonquian-speaking peoples toward French territory in the midseventeenth century, and together they crafted what historians have called a \u201cmiddle ground,\u201d a kind of cross-cultural space that allowed for native and European interaction, negotiation, and accommodation. French traders adopted\u2014sometimes clumsily\u2014the gift-giving and mediation strategies expected of Native leaders. Natives similarly engaged the impersonal European market and adapted\u2014often haphazardly\u2014to European laws. The Great Lakes \u201cmiddle ground\u201d experienced tumultuous success throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries until English colonial officials and American settlers swarmed the region. The pressures of European expansion strained even the closest bonds.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n The Netherlands, a small maritime nation with great wealth, achieved considerable colonial success. In 1581, the Netherlands had officially broken away from the Hapsburgs and won a reputation as the freest of the new European nations. Dutch women maintained separate legal identities from their husbands and could therefore hold property and inherit full estates.<\/p>\n Ravaged by the turmoil of the Reformation, the Dutch embraced greater religious tolerance and freedom of the press than other European nations.[10]<\/sup><\/a> Radical Protestants, Catholics, and Jews flocked to the Netherlands. The English Pilgrims, for instance, fled first to the Netherlands before sailing to the New World years later. The Netherlands built its colonial empire through the work of experienced merchants and skilled sailors. The Dutch were the most advanced capitalists in the modern world and marshaled extensive financial resources by creating innovative financial organizations such as the Amsterdam Stock Exchange and the Dutch East India Company. Although the Dutch offered liberties, they offered very little democracy\u2014power remained in the hands of only a few. And Dutch liberties certainly had their limits. The Dutch advanced the slave trade and brought enslaved Africans with them to the New World. Slavery was an essential part of Dutch capitalist triumphs.<\/p>\n Sharing the European hunger for access to Asia, in 1609 the Dutch commissioned the Englishman Henry Hudson to discover the fabled Northwest Passage through North America. He failed, of course, but nevertheless found the Hudson River and claimed modern-day New York for the Dutch. There they established New Netherland, an essential part of the Dutch New World empire. The Netherlands chartered the Dutch West India Company in 1621 and established colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. The island of Manhattan provided a launching pad to support its Caribbean colonies and attack Spanish trade.<\/p>\n Spiteful of the Spanish and mindful of the Black Legend, the Dutch were determined not to repeat Spanish atrocities. They fashioned guidelines for New Netherland that conformed to the ideas of Hugo Grotius, a legal philosopher who believed that Native peoples possessed the same natural rights as Europeans. Colony leaders insisted that land be purchased; in 1626 Peter Minuit therefore \u201cbought\u201d Manhattan from Munsee people.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Despite the seemingly honorable intentions, it is likely the Dutch paid the wrong people for the land (either intentionally or unintentionally) or that the Munsee and the Dutch understood the transaction in very different terms. Transactions like these illustrated both the Dutch attempt to find a more peaceful process of colonization and the inconsistency between European and Native American understandings of property.<\/p>\n Like the French, the Dutch sought to profit, not to conquer. Trade with Native peoples became New Netherland\u2019s central economic activity. Dutch traders carried wampum along Native trade routes and exchanged it for beaver pelts. Wampum consisted of shell beads fashioned by Algonquians on the southern New England coast and was valued as a ceremonial and diplomatic commodity among the Iroquois. Wampum became a currency that could buy anything from a loaf of bread to a plot of land.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In addition to developing these trading networks, the Dutch also established farms, settlements, and lumber camps. The West India Company directors implemented the patroon system to encourage colonization. The patroon system granted large estates to wealthy landlords, who subsequently paid passage for the tenants to work their land. Expanding Dutch settlements correlated with deteriorating relations with local Native Americans. In the interior of the continent, the Dutch retained valuable alliances with the Iroquois to maintain Beverwijck, modern-day Albany, as a hub for the fur trade.[13]<\/sup><\/a> In the places where the Dutch built permanent settlements, the ideals of peaceful colonization succumbed to the settlers\u2019 increasing demand for land. Armed conflicts erupted as colonial settlements encroached on Native villages and hunting lands. Profit and peace, it seemed, could not coexist.<\/p>\n Labor shortages, meanwhile, crippled Dutch colonization. The patroon system failed to bring enough tenants, and the colony could not attract a sufficient number of indentured servants to satisfy the colony\u2019s backers. In response, the colony imported eleven enslaved people owned by the company in 1626, the same year that Minuit purchased Manhattan. Enslaved laborers were tasked with building New Amsterdam (modern-day New York City), including a defensive wall along the northern edge of the colony (the site of modern-day Wall Street). They created its roads and maintained its all-important port. Fears of racial mixing led the Dutch to import enslaved women, enabling the formation of African Dutch families. The colony\u2019s first African marriage occurred in 1641, and by 1650 there were at least five hundred enslaved Africans in the colony. By 1660, New Amsterdam had the largest urban enslaved population on the continent.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n As was typical of the practice of African slavery in much of the early seventeenth century, Dutch slavery in New Amsterdam was less comprehensively exploitative than later systems of American slavery. Some enslaved Africans, for instance, successfully sued for back wages. When several enslaved people owned by the company fought for the colony against the Munsee, they petitioned for their freedom and won a kind of \u201chalf freedom\u201d that allowed them to work their own land in return for paying a large tithe, or tax, to their enslavers. The children of these \u201chalf-free\u201d laborers remained held in bondage by the West India Company, however. The Dutch, who so proudly touted their liberties, grappled with the reality of African slavery, and some New Netherlanders protested the enslavement of Christianized Africans. The economic goals of the colony slowly crowded out these cultural and religious objections, and the much-boasted liberties of the Dutch came to exist alongside increasingly brutal systems of slavery.<\/p>\n The Portuguese had been leaders in Atlantic navigation well ahead of Columbus\u2019s voyage. But the incredible wealth flowing from New Spain piqued the rivalry between the two Iberian countries, and accelerated Portuguese colonization efforts. This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.<\/p>\n Lucrative colonies in Africa and India initially preoccupied Portugal, but by 1530 the Portuguese turned their attention to the land that would become Brazil, driving out French traders and establishing permanent settlements. Gold and silver mines dotted the interior of the colony, but two industries powered early colonial Brazil: sugar and the slave trade. In fact, over the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than in any other colony in the Atlantic World. Gold mines emerged in greater numbers throughout the eighteenth century but still never rivaled the profitability of sugar or slave trading.<\/p>\n Jesuit missionaries brought Christianity to Brazil, but strong elements of African and Native spirituality mixed with orthodox Catholicism to create a unique religious culture. This culture resulted from the demographics of Brazilian slavery. High mortality rates on sugar plantations required a steady influx of new enslaved laborers, thus perpetuating the cultural connection between Brazil and Africa. The reliance on new imports of enslaved laborers increased the likelihood of resistance, however, and those who escaped slavery managed to create several free settlements, called quilombos.<\/em> These settlements drew from both enslaved Africans and Natives, and despite frequent attacks, several endured throughout the long history of Brazilian slavery.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Despite the arrival of these new Europeans, Spain continued to dominate the New World. The wealth flowing from the exploitation of the Aztec and Incan Empires greatly eclipsed the profits of other European nations. But this dominance would not last long. By the end of the sixteenth century, the powerful Spanish Armada would be destroyed, and the English would begin to rule the waves.<\/p>\n Spain had a one-hundred-year head start on New World colonization, and a jealous England eyed the enormous wealth that Spain gleaned. The Protestant Reformation had shaken England, but Elizabeth I assumed the English crown in 1558. Elizabeth oversaw England\u2019s so-called golden age, which included both the expansion of trade and exploration and the literary achievements of Shakespeare and Marlowe. English mercantilism, a state-assisted manufacturing and trading system, created and maintained markets. The markets provided a steady supply of consumers and laborers, stimulated economic expansion, and increased English wealth.<\/p>\n However, wrenching social and economic changes unsettled the English population. The island\u2019s population increased from fewer than three million in 1500 to over five million by the middle of the seventeenth century.[16]<\/sup><\/a> The skyrocketing cost of land coincided with plummeting farming income. Rents and prices rose but wages stagnated. Moreover, movements to enclose public land\u2014sparked by the transition of English landholders from agriculture to livestock raising\u2014evicted tenants from the land and created hordes of landless, jobless peasants that haunted the cities and countryside. One quarter to one half of the population lived in extreme poverty.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n New World colonization won support in England amid a time of rising English fortunes among the wealthy, a tense Spanish rivalry, and mounting internal social unrest. But supporters of English colonization always touted more than economic gains and mere national self-interest. They claimed to be doing God\u2019s work. Many claimed that colonization would glorify God, England, and Protestantism by Christianizing the New World\u2019s pagan peoples. Advocates such as Richard Hakluyt the Younger and John Dee, for instance, drew upon The History of the Kings of Britain<\/em>, written by the twelfth-century monk Geoffrey of Monmouth, and its mythical account of King Arthur\u2019s conquest and Christianization of pagan lands to justify American conquest.[18]<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, promoters promised that the conversion of New World Native Americans would satisfy God and glorify England\u2019s \u201cVirgin Queen,\u201d Elizabeth I, who was seen as nearly divine by some in England. The English\u2014and other European Protestant colonizers\u2014imagined themselves superior to the Spanish, who still bore the Black Legend of inhuman cruelty. English colonization, supporters argued, would prove that superiority.<\/p>\n In his 1584 \u201cDiscourse on Western Planting,\u201d Richard Hakluyt amassed the supposed religious, moral, and exceptional economic benefits of colonization. He repeated the Black Legend of Spanish New World terrorism and attacked the sins of Catholic Spain. He promised that English colonization could strike a blow against Spanish heresy and bring Protestant religion to the New World. English interference, Hakluyt suggested, might provide the only salvation from Catholic rule in the New World. The New World, too, he said, offered obvious economic advantages. Trade and resource extraction would enrich the English treasury. England, for instance, could find plentiful materials to outfit a world-class navy. Moreover, he said, the New World could provide an escape for England\u2019s vast armies of landless \u201cvagabonds.\u201d Expanded trade, he argued, would not only bring profit but also provide work for England\u2019s jobless poor. A Christian enterprise, a blow against Spain, an economic stimulus, and a social safety valve all beckoned the English toward a commitment to colonization.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n This noble rhetoric veiled the coarse economic motives that brought England to the New World. New economic structures and a new merchant class paved the way for colonization. England\u2019s merchants lacked estates, but they had new plans to build wealth. By collaborating with new government-sponsored trading monopolies and employing financial innovations such as joint-stock companies, England\u2019s merchants sought to improve on the Dutch economic system. Spain was extracting enormous material wealth from the New World; why shouldn\u2019t England? Joint-stock companies, the ancestors of modern corporations, became the initial instruments of colonization. With government monopolies, shared profits, and managed risks, these money-making ventures could attract and manage the vast capital needed for colonization. In 1606 James I approved the formation of the Virginia Company (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen).<\/p>\n Rather than formal colonization, however, the most successful early English ventures in the New World were a form of state-sponsored piracy known as privateering. Queen Elizabeth sponsored sailors, or \u201cSea Dogges,\u201d such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake, to plunder Spanish ships and towns in the Americas. Privateers earned a substantial profit both for themselves and for the English crown. England practiced piracy on a scale, one historian wrote, \u201cthat transforms crime into politics.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a> Francis Drake harried Spanish ships throughout the Western Hemisphere and raided Spanish caravans as far away as the coast of Peru on the Pacific Ocean. In 1580 Elizabeth rewarded her skilled pirate with knighthood. But Elizabeth walked a fine line. With Protestant-Catholic tensions already running high, English privateering provoked Spain. Tensions worsened after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Catholic. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain unleashed the fabled Armada. With 130 ships, 8,000 sailors, and 18,000 soldiers, Spain launched the largest invasion in history to destroy the British navy and depose Elizabeth.<\/p>\n An island nation, England depended on a robust navy for trade and territorial expansion. England had fewer ships than Spain, but they were smaller and swifter. They successfully harassed the armada, forcing it to retreat to the Netherlands for reinforcements. But then a fluke storm, celebrated in England as the \u201cProtestant wind,\u201d annihilated the remainder of the fleet.[21]<\/sup><\/a> The destruction of the armada changed the course of world history. It not only saved England and secured English Protestantism, but it also opened the seas to English expansion and paved the way for England\u2019s colonial future. By 1600, England stood ready to embark on its dominance over North America.<\/p>\n English colonization would look very different from Spanish or French colonization. England had long been trying to conquer Catholic Ireland. Rather than integrating with the Irish and trying to convert them to Protestantism, England more often simply seized land through violence and pushed out the former inhabitants, leaving them to move elsewhere or to die. These same tactics would later be deployed in North American invasions.<\/p>\n English colonization, however, began haltingly. Sir Humphrey Gilbert labored throughout the late sixteenth century to establish a colony in Newfoundland but failed. In 1587, with a predominantly male cohort of 150 English colonizers, John White reestablished an abandoned settlement on North Carolina\u2019s Roanoke Island. Supply shortages prompted White to return to England for additional support, but the Spanish Armada and the mobilization of British naval efforts stranded him in Britain for several years. When he finally returned to Roanoke, he found the colony abandoned. What befell the failed colony? White found the word Croatoan<\/em> carved into a tree or a post in the abandoned colony. Historians presume the colonists, short of food, may have fled for a nearby island of that name and encountered its settled native population. Others offer violence as an explanation. Regardless, the English colonists were never heard from again. When Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, no Englishmen had yet established a permanent North American colony.<\/p>\n After King James made peace with Spain in 1604, privateering no longer held out the promise of cheap wealth. Colonization assumed a new urgency. The Virginia Company, established in 1606, drew inspiration from Cort\u00e9s and the Spanish conquests. It hoped to find gold and silver as well as other valuable trading commodities in the New World: glass, iron, furs, pitch, tar, and anything else the country could supply. The company planned to identify a navigable river with a deep harbor, away from the eyes of the Spanish. There they would find a Native American trading network and extract a fortune from the New World.<\/p>\n In April 1607 Englishmen aboard three ships\u2014the Susan Constant<\/em>, the Godspeed<\/em>, and the Discovery<\/em>\u2014sailed forty miles up the James River (named for the English king) in present-day Virginia (named for Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen) and settled on just such a place. The uninhabited peninsula they selected was upriver and out of sight of Spanish patrols. It offered easy defense against ground assaults and was both uninhabited and located close to many Native American villages and their potentially lucrative trade networks. But the location was a disaster. Indigenous people had ignored the peninsula for two reasons: terrible soil hampered agriculture, and brackish tidal water led to debilitating disease. Despite these setbacks, the English built Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the present-day United States.<\/p>\n The English had not entered a wilderness but had arrived amid a people they called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan, or Wahunsenacawh, as he called himself, led nearly ten thousand Algonquian-speaking people in the Chesapeake. They burned vast acreage to clear brush and create sprawling artificial parklike grasslands so they could easily hunt deer, elk, and bison. The Powhatan raised corn, beans, squash, and possibly sunflowers, rotating acreage throughout the Chesapeake. Without plows, manure, or draft animals, the Powhatan produced a remarkable number of calories cheaply and efficiently.<\/p>\n Jamestown was a profit-seeking venture backed by investors. The colonists were mostly gentlemen and proved entirely unprepared for the challenges ahead. They hoped for easy riches but found none. As John Smith later complained, they \u201cwould rather starve than work.\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a> And so they did. Disease and starvation ravaged the colonists, thanks in part to the peninsula\u2019s unhealthy location and the fact that supplies from England arrived sporadically or spoiled. Fewer than half of the original colonists survived the first nine months.<\/p>\n John Smith, a yeoman\u2019s son and capable leader, took command of the crippled colony and promised, \u201cHe that will not work shall not eat.\u201d He navigated Native American diplomacy, claiming that he was captured and sentenced to death but Powhatan\u2019s daughter, Pocahontas, intervened to save his life. She would later marry another colonist, John Rolfe, and die in England.<\/p>\n Powhatan kept the English alive that first winter. The Powhatan had welcomed the English and placed a high value on metal ax-heads, kettles, tools, and guns and eagerly traded furs and other abundant goods for them. With ten thousand confederated natives and with food in abundance, Indigenous people had little to fear and much to gain from the isolated outpost of sick and dying Englishmen.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Despite reinforcements, the English continued to die. Four hundred settlers arrived in 1609, but the overwhelmed colony entered a desperate \u201cstarving time\u201d in the winter of 1609\u20131610. Supplies were lost at sea. Relations with Native Americans deteriorated and the colonists fought a kind of slow-burning guerrilla war with the Powhatan. Disaster loomed for the colony. The settlers ate everything they could, roaming the woods for nuts and berries. They boiled leather. They dug up graves to eat the corpses of their former neighbors. One man was executed for killing and eating his wife. Some years later, George Percy recalled the colonists\u2019 desperation during these years, when he served as the colony\u2019s president: \u201cHaving fed upon our horses and other beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats and mice . . . as to eat boots shoes or any other leather. . . . And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face, that nothing was spared to maintain life and to doe those things which seam incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a> Archaeological excavations in 2012 exhumed the bones of a fourteen-year-old girl that exhibited signs of cannibalism.[24]<\/sup><\/a> All but sixty settlers would die by the summer of 1610.<\/p>\n Little improved over the next several years. By 1616, 80 percent of all English immigrants who had arrived in Jamestown had perished. England\u2019s first American colony was a catastrophe. The colony was reorganized, and in 1614 the marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe eased relations with the Powhatan, though the colony still limped along as a starving, commercially disastrous tragedy. The colonists were unable to find any profitable commodities and remained dependent on Native Americans and sporadic shipments from England for food. But then tobacco saved Jamestown.<\/p>\n By the time King James I described tobacco as a \u201cnoxious weed, . . . loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs,\u201d it had already taken Europe by storm. In 1616 John Rolfe crossed tobacco strains from Trinidad and Guiana and planted Virginia\u2019s first tobacco crop. In 1617 the colony sent its first cargo of tobacco back to England. The \u201cnoxious weed,\u201d a native of the New World, fetched a high price in Europe and the tobacco boom began in Virginia and then later spread to Maryland. Within fifteen years American colonists were exporting over five hundred thousand pounds of tobacco per year. Within forty years, they were exporting fifteen million.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Tobacco changed everything. It saved Virginia from ruin, incentivized further colonization, and laid the groundwork for what would become the United States. With a new market open, Virginia drew not only merchants and traders but also settlers. Colonists came in droves. They were mostly young, mostly male, and mostly indentured servants who signed contracts called indentures that bonded them to employers for a period of years in return for passage across the ocean. But even the rough terms of servitude were no match for the promise of land and potential profits that beckoned English farmers. But still there were not enough of them. Tobacco was a labor-intensive crop and ambitious planters, with seemingly limitless land before them, lacked only laborers to escalate their wealth and status. The colony\u2019s great labor vacuum inspired the creation of the \u201cheadright policy\u201d in 1618: any person who migrated to Virginia would automatically receive fifty acres of land and any immigrant whose passage they paid would entitle them to fifty acres more.<\/p>\n In 1619, the Virginia Company established the House of Burgesses, a limited representative body composed of white landowners that first met in Jamestown. That same year, a Dutch slave ship sold twenty Africans to the Virginia colonists. Southern slavery was born.<\/p>\n Soon the tobacco-growing colonists expanded beyond the bounds of Jamestown\u2019s deadly peninsula. When it became clear that the English were not merely intent on maintaining a small trading post but sought a permanent ever-expanding colony, conflict with the Powhatan Confederacy became almost inevitable. Powhatan died in 1622 and was succeeded by his brother, Opechancanough, who promised to drive the land-hungry colonists back into the sea. He launched a surprise attack and in a single day (March 22, 1622) killed over 350 colonists, or one third of all the colonists in Virginia.[26]<\/sup><\/a> The colonists retaliated and revisited the massacres on Indigenous settlements many times over. The massacre freed the colonists to drive Native Americans off their land. The governor of Virginia declared it colonial policy to achieve the \u201cexpulsion of the savages to gain the free range of the country.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> War and disease tilted the balance of power decisively toward the English colonizers.<\/p>\n English colonists brought to the New World particular visions of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy. Despite starving in the shadow of the Powhatan Confederacy, English colonists nevertheless judged themselves physically, spiritually, and technologically superior to Native peoples in North America. Christianity, metallurgy, intensive agriculture, transatlantic navigation, and even wheat all magnified the English sense of superiority. This sense of superiority, when coupled with outbreaks of violence, left the English feeling entitled to Indigenous lands and resources.<\/p>\n Spanish conquerors established the framework for the Atlantic slave trade over a century before the first chained Africans arrived at Jamestown. Even Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, celebrated for his pleas to save Native Americans from colonial butchery, for a time recommended that Indigenous labor be replaced by importing Africans. Early English settlers from the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America mostly imitated European ideas of African inferiority. \u201cRace\u201d followed the expansion of slavery across the Atlantic world. Skin color and race suddenly seemed fixed. Englishmen equated Africans with categorical blackness and blackness with sin, \u201cthe handmaid and symbol of baseness.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> An English essayist in 1695 wrote that \u201ca negro will always be a negro, carry him to Greenland, feed him chalk, feed and manage him never so many ways.\u201d[29]<\/sup><\/a> More and more Europeans embraced the notions that Europeans and Africans were of distinct races. Others now preached that the Old Testament God cursed Ham, the son of Noah, and doomed Black people to perpetual enslavement.<\/p>\n And yet in the early years of American slavery, ideas about race were not yet fixed and the practice of slavery was not yet codified. The first generations of Africans in English North America faced miserable conditions, but, in contrast to later American history, their initial servitude was not necessarily permanent, heritable, or even particularly disgraceful. Africans were definitively set apart as fundamentally different from their white counterparts and faced longer terms of service and harsher punishments, but, like the indentured white servants whisked away from English slums, these first Africans in North America could also work for only a set number of years before becoming free landowners themselves. The Angolan Anthony Johnson, for instance, was sold into servitude but fulfilled his indenture and became a prosperous tobacco planter himself.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In 1622, at the dawn of the tobacco boom, Jamestown had still seemed a failure. But the rise of tobacco and the destruction of the Powhatan turned the tide. Colonists escaped the deadly peninsula and immigrants poured into the colony to grow tobacco and turn a profit for the Crown.<\/p>\n The English colonies in New England established from 1620 onward were founded with loftier goals than those in Virginia. Although migrants to New England expected economic profit, religious motives directed the rhetoric and much of the reality of these colonies. Not every English person who moved to New England during the seventeenth century was a Puritan, but Puritans dominated the politics, religion, and culture of New England. Even after 1700, the region\u2019s Puritan inheritance shaped many aspects of its history.<\/p>\n The term Puritan<\/em> began as an insult, and its recipients usually referred to each other as \u201cthe godly\u201d if they used a specific term at all. Puritans believed that the Church of England did not distance itself far enough from Catholicism after Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s. They largely agreed with European Calvinists\u2014followers of theologian John Calvin\u2014on matters of religious doctrine. Calvinists (and Puritans) believed that humankind was redeemed by God\u2019s grace alone, and that the fate of an individual\u2019s immortal soul was predestined. The happy minority that God had already chosen to save were known among English Puritans as the Elect. Calvinists also argued that the decoration of churches, reliance on ornate ceremony, and corrupt priesthood obscured God\u2019s message. They believed that reading the Bible was the best way to understand God.<\/p>\n Puritans were stereotyped by their enemies as dour killjoys, and the exaggeration has endured. It is certainly true that the Puritans\u2019 disdain for excess and opposition to many holidays popular in Europe (including Christmas, which, as Puritans never tired of reminding everyone, the Bible never told anyone to celebrate) lent themselves to caricature. But Puritans understood themselves as advocating a reasonable middle path in a corrupt world. It would never occur to a Puritan, for example, to abstain from alcohol or sex.<\/p>\n During the first century after the English Reformation (c. 1530\u20131630) Puritans sought to \u201cpurify\u201d the Church of England of all practices that smacked of Catholicism, advocating a simpler worship service, the abolition of ornate churches, and other reforms. They had some success in pushing the Church of England in a more Calvinist direction, but with the coronation of King Charles I (r. 1625\u20131649), the Puritans gained an implacable foe that cast English Puritans as excessive and dangerous. Facing growing persecution, the Puritans began the Great Migration, during which about twenty thousand people traveled to New England between 1630 and 1640. The Puritans (unlike the small band of separatist \u201cPilgrims\u201d who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620) remained committed to reforming the Church of England but temporarily decamped to North America to accomplish this task. Leaders like John Winthrop insisted they were not separating from, or abandoning, England but were rather forming a godly community in America that would be a \u201cCity on a Hill\u201d and an example for reformers back home.[31]<\/sup><\/a> The Puritans did not seek to create a haven of religious toleration, a notion that they\u2014along with nearly all European Christians\u2014regarded as ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.<\/p>\n While the Puritans did not succeed in building a godly utopia in New England, a combination of Puritan traits with several external factors created colonies wildly different from any other region settled by English people. Unlike those heading to Virginia, colonists in New England (Plymouth [1620], Massachusetts Bay [1630], Connecticut [1636], and Rhode Island [1636]) generally arrived in family groups. Most New England immigrants were small landholders in England, a class contemporary English called the \u201cmiddling sort.\u201d When they arrived in New England they tended to replicate their home environments, founding towns composed of independent landholders. The New England climate and soil made large-scale plantation agriculture impractical, so the system of large landholders using masses of enslaved laborers or indentured servants to grow labor-intensive crops never took hold.<\/p>\n There is no evidence that the New England Puritans would have opposed such a system were it possible; other Puritans made their fortunes on the Caribbean sugar islands, and New England merchants profited as suppliers of provisions and enslaved laborers to those colonies. By accident of geography as much as by design, New England society was much less stratified than any of Britain\u2019s other seventeenth-century colonies.<\/p>\n Although New England colonies could boast wealthy landholding elites, the disparity of wealth in the region remained narrow compared to the Chesapeake, Carolina, or the Caribbean. Instead, seventeenth-century New England was characterized by a broadly shared modest prosperity based on a mixed economy dependent on small farms, shops, fishing, lumber, shipbuilding, and trade with the Atlantic World.<\/p>\n A combination of environmental factors and the Puritan social ethos produced a region of remarkable health and stability during the seventeenth century. New England immigrants avoided most of the deadly outbreaks of tropical disease that turned the Chesapeake colonies into graveyards. Disease, in fact, only aided English settlement and relations to Native Americans. In contrast to other English colonists who had to contend with powerful Native American neighbors, the Puritans confronted the stunned survivors of a biological catastrophe. A lethal pandemic of smallpox during the 1610s swept away as much as 90 percent of the region\u2019s Native American population. Many survivors welcomed the English as potential allies against rival tribes who had escaped the catastrophe. The relatively healthy environment coupled with political stability and the predominance of family groups among early immigrants allowed the New England population to grow to 91,000 people by 1700 from only 21,000 immigrants. In contrast, 120,000 English went to the Chesapeake, and only 85,000 white colonists remained in 1700.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n The New England Puritans set out to build their utopia by creating communities of the godly. Groups of men, often from the same region of England, applied to the colony\u2019s General Court for land grants.[33]<\/sup><\/a> They generally divided part of the land for immediate use while keeping much of the rest as \u201ccommons\u201d or undivided land for future generations. The town\u2019s inhabitants collectively decided the size of each settler\u2019s home lot based on their current wealth and status. Besides oversight of property, the town restricted membership, and new arrivals needed to apply for admission. Those who gained admittance could participate in town governments that, while not democratic by modern standards, nevertheless had broad popular involvement. All male property holders could vote in town meetings and choose the selectmen, assessors, constables, and other officials from among themselves to conduct the daily affairs of government. Upon their founding, towns wrote covenants, reflecting the Puritan belief in God\u2019s covenant with his people. Towns sought to arbitrate disputes and contain strife, as did the Church. Wayward or divergent individuals were persuaded, corrected, or coerced. Popular conceptions of Puritans as hardened authoritarians are exaggerated, but if persuasion and arbitration failed, people who did not conform to community norms were punished or removed. Massachusetts banished Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and other religious dissenters like the Quakers.<\/p>\n Although by many measures colonization in New England succeeded, its Puritan leaders failed in their own mission to create a utopian community that would inspire their fellows back in England. They tended to focus their disappointment on the younger generation. \u201cBut alas!\u201d Increase Mather lamented, \u201cThat so many of the younger Generation have so early corrupted their [the founders\u2019] doings!\u201d[34]<\/sup><\/a> The jeremiad, a sermon lamenting the fallen state of New England due to its straying from its early virtuous path, became a staple of late-seventeenth-century Puritan literature.<\/p>\n Yet the jeremiad could not stop the effects of prosperity. The population spread and grew more diverse. Many, if not most, New Englanders retained strong ties to their Calvinist roots into the eighteenth century, but the Puritans (who became Congregationalists) struggled against a rising tide of religious pluralism. On December 25, 1727, Judge Samuel Sewell noted in his diary that a new Anglican minister \u201ckeeps the day in his new Church at Braintrey: people flock thither.\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a> Previously forbidden holidays like Christmas were celebrated publicly in church and privately in homes. Puritan divine Cotton Mather discovered on Christmas 1711 that \u201ca number of young people of both sexes, belonging, many of them, to my flock, had . . . a Frolick, a reveling Feast, and a Ball, which discovers their Corruption.\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Despite the lamentations of the Mathers and other Puritan leaders of their failure, they left an enduring mark on New England culture and society that endured long after the region\u2019s residents ceased to be called \u201cPuritan.\u201d<\/p>\n The fledgling settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts paled in importance when compared to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. Valued more as marginal investments and social safety valves where the poor could be released, these colonies nonetheless created a foothold for Britain on a vast North American continent. And although the seventeenth century would be fraught for Britain\u2014religious, social, and political upheavals would behead one king and force another to flee his throne\u2014settlers in Massachusetts and Virginia were nonetheless tied together by the emerging Atlantic economy. While commodities such as tobacco and sugar fueled new markets in Europe, the economy grew increasingly dependent on slave labor. Enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic would further complicate the collision of cultures in the Americas. The creation and maintenance of a slave system would spark new understandings of human difference and new modes of social control. The economic exchanges of the new Atlantic economy would not only generate great wealth and exploitation, they would also lead to new cultural systems and new identities for the inhabitants of at least four continents.<\/p>\nIII. Spain\u2019s Rivals Emerge<\/span><\/h1>\n
The French<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Dutch<\/i><\/h2>\n
The Portuguese\u00a0<\/i><\/h2>\n
IV. English Colonization<\/span><\/h1>\n
V. Jamestown<\/span><\/h1>\n
VI. New England<\/span><\/h1>\n
VII. Conclusion<\/span><\/h1>\n