Sorry, New Englanders, Virginia was not only founded first (13 years before Plymouth); had the first publicly proclaimed Thanksgiving (1 year before the Pilgrims arrived); held the first elected representative Assembly (again 1 year before the Pilgrims arrived); but Virginia can also claim the first known colonial trial of a suspected witch (four years before the Puritans under Governor John Winthrop even arrived in 1630). Massachusetts does get the award, though, for the most dramatic presentations: inviting the indigenous people to their Thanksgiving feast and hanging their witches. So how then was witchcraft handled in Virginia? Did Adam Thorowgood or his family have any dealings with suspected witches?
Witches in England and Scotland
Since Biblical times, good Christians had been taught to fear the Devil and his evil spirits, but around the 14th century, suspicions developed that the odd ones living in their communities might have sold their souls to the Devil and contracted to do his biding.1 When inexplicable misfortune hit, it seemed reasonable that one’s disagreeable neighbor, the town’s social misfit, or the eccentric widow who collected herbs by night might be responsible through a witch’s spell.
Witches seemed very real to most of the English and Scots in the 16th and 17th century. Even Shakespeare conjured up three Scottish witches to poison Macbeth’s mind with ambitious prophecies. The problem, though, was how to recognize and catch them.
King James VI of Scotland (who also became King James I of England) was very concerned about witches and, in fact, literally wrote the book on what to do about them. Relying heavily on a 1584 English translation of a popular treatise published by two Dominican friars, Malleus Maleficarum, the King composed his Daemonologie in 1597 with a Protestant twist. When he took the English crown in 1603, he had his book published in England and had witchcraft again made a felony punishable by death under The Witchcraft Statute of James I. That was the law that the colonists brought to Jamestown. 2
The First Colonial Witch Trial: Joan Wright
Sir George Yeardley, twice the Governor of Virginia, had many firsts. In 1619, he convened the first House of Burgesses and purchased some of the first Africans to arrive. When he was later reappointed, he presided in 1626 over the first known trial of a suspected witch in the colonies . The early colonists had been quick to condemn the native Powhatans as Devil worshippers and children of the Devil, but were a bit slower at pointing the finger at each other.
Elizabeth Cittie Parish (formerly called Kecoughtan; now known as Hampton) was one of the early shires in Virginia. Its population increased when it was designated as an area of safety for the settlers after the Powhatan Uprising of 1622. According to the census of Virginia conducted in 1624/5, there were 258 settlers living in that area. Among those were Edward Waters and his servant Adam Thorowgood. Also living there were Robert and Joan (or Jane) Wright, servants to Anthony Bonall, a French silk maker and wine grape cultivator. In 1626, the Wrights moved to Pace’s Paines across from Jamestown (now Surry County), but suspicions followed that Joan had practiced witchcraft in Kecoughtan. Soon thereafter she was formally charged and tried. 3
As the trial was in September, it is unknown whether Adam had returned to England before the trial started. However, having lived in Kecoughtan the previous years as part of Edward Waters’ household, he may well have known the Wrights or at least heard talk of Joan’s suspicious activities. According to the surviving transcript of the trial, charges against Goodwife Wright included causing hens in Kecoughton to die, healthy plants to be drowned, and people to become sick; foretelling deaths; cursing a hunter so that he “for a long time could never kill anything;” and causing an infant to die. 4
Joan Wright had been asked by Lt. Allington, to attend to his pregnant wife as the midwife, but when the wife discovered that Joan was left-handed and heard the rumors about her, she refused her and had another midwife brought. When Goodwife Wright found out, she was upset. The Allingtons believed she therefore cursed them, and consequently, each sequentially became ill (although of different disorders). Even though they all recovered, the infant succumbed after a second illness more than a month after its birth.
In the trial, Mrs. Isabel Perry testified that Mrs Gates said that “she (Wright) was a very bad woman and was accompted a witch amongst all them at Kickotan” and that Dorothy Behethlem had said that Wright had even practiced witchcraft back in Hull, England. Also according to Mrs Perry, when Mrs. Gates confronted Wright, she did not deny being a witch, but rather “replied, god forgive them, and so made light of it.” 5
There obviously was much hearsay testimony and circumstantial evidence brought against Joan Wright. Clearly, she had troubled relationships with her neighbors and may have even enjoyed making them fearful of her. However, illness and death were so common in Virginia that it would have been difficult to prove she caused them, particularly over an extended period of time. Although the transcript of the trial survived, the verdict of Gov. Yeardley did not. It is likely, though, that he took a more reasoned approach to the accusations. If she had been put to death for witchcraft, that certainly would have been remembered or survived in some record. This fall, Jamestown Settlement presented an excellent re-enactment of the trial of Jane/Joan Wright in “ Season of the Witch.”
The Thorowgoods and Virginia Witch Trials
There were at least 22 witch trials in Virginia from 1626 to 1730. Of those, 8 were held in Lower Norfolk County (later Princess Anne County), 3 of which involved the same accused witch, Grace Sherwood. 6 While it may appear that the citizens of this county were particularly superstitious or accursed, the seemingly high proportion of cases is partly because those court records survived, while records of many other counties were destroyed. Lower Norfolk was the county settled by Adam Thorowgood; its first county court was held in his home; and he often presided as a justice at the court until his death in 1640. Although he never tried the case of a witch, his grandsons did.
The Virginia justices found most of the accusations of witchcraft unsubstantiated. The only guilty verdict that remains is for William Harding of the Northern Neck in Virginia, who was accused by his Scottish preacher of witchcraft and sorcery in 1656. The accusations must not have been too serious, for his punishment was only ten lashes and banishment from the county. Nor were the citizens overly concerned, as he was given two months to leave. Katherine Grady was the only suspected witch to be hung, but it was done before she even reached Virginia in 1654 and under the direction of the ship’s captain, not court justices. When the ship encountered a severe storm near the end of its journey, the passengers were convinced that Katherine had caused it through witchcraft. Upon reaching Jamestown, the Captain had to appear before the admiralty court, but its findings have been lost.7
The justices were concerned, however, that reputations and lives were being damaged by casual accusations of witchcraft. In 1655, the Lower Norfolk justices ordered that persons who raised “any such scandal concerning any party whatsoever and shall not be able to prove the same, both upon oath and by sufficient witness” would have to pay 1,000 pounds of tobacco and be censured by the court. 8
This was put to the test in 1698 when John and Ann Byrd sued Charles Kinsey and John Potts for having “falsely and scandalously” defamed them by claiming they were witches and “in league with the Devil.” Kinsey finally admitted to the court that he might have only dreamed that they “had rid him along the Seaside and home” through witchcraft . John Thorowgood, a son of Adam Thorowgood II, was one of the justices on that court which surprisingly did not give a cash award to the Byrds, but rather found for the defendants. However, they chose not to pursue witchcraft charges against the Byrds. 9
The Trials of Grace Sherwood
The hysteria of Salem’s witch trials in 1692-3 might have encouraged Virginians to take a closer look at their neighbors, as there was a modest increase in witch trials from 1694-1706. Lt. Col. Adam Thorowgood III, John’s brother, also served as a justice in the Lower Norfolk County Court. He was part of the famous and complicated 1705/1706 witch trials of Grace Sherwood, “The Virginia Witch” or “The Witch of Pungo.” Like Joan Wright, Grace had a history of contentious relations with her neighbors. It started when a neighbor, Richard Capps, called Grace a witch, and the Sherwoods brought suit against him for defamation. 10
Although that was settled out of court, a few months later several other neighbors began to make accusations that she had bewitched pigs to death, destroyed cotton, and taken Mrs. Barnes on a ride through the keyhole. In 1698, the Sherwoods again brought a defamation suit against those neighbors. Grace Sherwood presented eight witnesses in her behalf, but again the justices decided in favor of the defendants who had made the accusations of witchcraft. Grace Sherwood had to pay the court costs and for the defendant’s nine witnesses. Even so, the court did not pursue charges of witchcraft.
In 1705, Elizabeth Hill, another neighbor, called Grace a witch, and a brawl between them ensued. Grace filed a complaint of trespassing and assault and battery against Elizabeth. Although Grace prevailed, she received little in monetary damages. Elizabeth Hill’s husband then made a formal charge of witchcraft against her. Accusations included that no grass would grow where she had danced in the moonlight, that she had soured the cow’s milk, and that she had made herself small enough to fly in an eggshell to England and back in one night to get rosemary seeds for her garden. However, rosemary was abundant locally and, ironically, often used to protect against witches. 11
The justices, which included Adam Thorowgood III, warned the Hills against making false claims, but agreed to have Grace examined by a jury of women to see if she had any “devil’s marks” (unusual growths or discolorations) on her. The foreman for the women was Mrs. Barnes, one of those Grace had previously tried to sue. They came back with the finding that she did have some unusual marks. Unlike the photo, the exam would have only been conducted by a group of women; nonetheless, it would have been very humiliating.
The Princess Anne justices then passed the case to the General Court in the new Virginia capital of Williamsburg, but that court remanded it back to the county justices for clearer charges. In Princess Anne, the justices ordered another group of women to examine her to confirm the prior findings, but the women refused to come. Another group was asked, and they also refused. It seemed no one wanted to tangle with a possible real witch.
The justices then decided to try the method of “ducking” the accused in a body of water as King James had advocated. As water was considered a pure medium, an innocent person would sink, whereas the water would reject a witch and she would float. A rope was tied around Grace’s waist to pull her up so she would not drown if innocent, and they even postponed the test to a sunny day to not endanger her health. Grace was dressed in a shift, so whether the ropes were tied so air was trapped in her shift or she held her breath or, as some claimed, she untied her ropes and swam around the cove laughing at the observers, Grace did not sink. The results of the physical examination and ducking were taken to indicate she was a witch, but which accusations were considered credible is unknown.
The case was probably sent back to the General Court, but those records burned in 1865, and we do not know the final disposition of the case. Her trial is dramatized in Colonial Williamsburg’s program “Cry Witch.” Grace Sherwood spent some time in jail, but was ultimately released and lived until around 1740. 12
Virginia Beach has erected a kindly statue in honor of this misunderstood woman, and the Governor of Virginia recently pardoned her, even though there is no record of her conviction. Grace seems not to have had the sweet disposition portrayed in the statue, but still she serves as a symbol of those innocent “cunning women” who suffered when their skills with herbal potions and their independent and defiant spirits were misconstrued as evil. The last known witch trial in Virginia was in 1730.
The Witch’s Bottle
It appears that not all the Lower Norfolk/Princess Anne County residents were confident that the justices could keep them safe from witches. In 1979, near the Thorowgood property, a still-sealed witch’s bottle was found buried upside down, as would be expected, possibly dating from the era of the Sherwood trials. 13 Inside one can still see the straight pins intended to harm the witch and a yellowish liquid stain, which might have been urine, to keep the witches away. Someone was worried.
A Modern Dilemma
Witchcraft and the occult are still practiced by some today. While there are those who try to connect with the spirit of the earth and be “good witches,” there are others who have carried out horrific acts. Unfortunately, over the ages, many innocents were sent to their deaths because of the superstitions and suspicions of others. It has been estimated that 85% of those killed in European witch hunts were women. A Puritan preacher of the time, William Perkins, was unapologetic in his explanation: 14
The woman, being the weaker sex, is sooner entangled by the devil’s illusions, with the damnable act, than the man. And in all ages it is found true by experience, that the devil hath more easily and oftener prevailed with women than with men.
Although we may recoil from or laugh at the beliefs and practices of the past, today we also struggle with what to do with individuals who desire to inflict harm. How can we humanely identify and deal with potential terrorists and mass murderers without sweeping up “strange,” but innocent, victims? How can we better prevent and respond to acts of evil and hatred? These challenges are with us still.
Footnotes:
- Hudson, Carson O., Jr., Witchcraft in Colonial Virginia (Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2019), 16. ↩
- Hudson, 55-60. “King James VI and I’s Demonology, 1597,” published online in The British Library: Discovering Literature: Shakespeare and Renaissance collection items. http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/king-james-vi-and-is-demonology-1597. Accessed online 10/22/2019. ↩
- Hudson, 75. Hotten, John Camden, The Original Lists of Persons of Quality (Berryville, VA: Virginia Book Company, 1980), 253. ↩
- Hudson, 75-79. “Transcription from the Original: General Court Hears Case on Witchcraft, 1626,” Encyclopedia of Virginia, accessed online 10/15/2019. ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Hudson, 127-129. ↩
- Hudson, 81. “Witchcraft in Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, 1:3 (January 1893), 127-128. ↩
- Hudson, 89. Turner, Florence Kimberly, Gateway to the New World: A History of Princess Anne County, Virginia, 1607-1824 (Easley, SC: Southern Historical Press, Inc., 1984), 79. ↩
- Hudson, 89. “Witchcraft in Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2:1 (July 1893), 60. McCartney, Martha W., Jamestown People to 1800 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2012), 403. ↩
- Hudson, 90. “Transcription from the Original: The Case of Grace Sherwood (1706),” Enclyclopedia of Virginia, accessed online 10/5/2019. Dorman, John Frederick, Adventurers of Purse and Person, Virginia, 1607-1624/5, 4th ed., vol 3 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co, 2004), 335. ↩
- Hudson, 90-92. Tucker, 79-80. “Transcription from the Original: The Case of Grace Sherwood (1706),” online access. ↩
- Hudson, 92-98. Tucker, 80-81. “Witchcraft in Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, 1:3 (January 1893), 127-128. “Transcription from the Original: The Case of Grace Sherwood (1706),” online access. ↩
- Tucker, 82. ↩
- Hudson, 74. ↩
The Virginia Beach History Museum staff had thoughtfully invited not only the descendants of Adam Thorowgood, but also those with Native or African ancestors who might have lived or worked at the site. Generously, they also offered free admission and birthday cake to anyone else who showed up. I thought surely some of the departed ancestors would come for cake and a chance to see how their descendants turned out. However, if they did, they were most discreet, and any missing cake was attributable to hungry guests.
The party celebrated the 300th birthday of the construction of the house. As noted in my 
To celebrate, there was dancing on the lawn and children’s activities as well as informative presentations by historian Matthew Laird on “Adam and Sarah Thorowgood–Virginia Beach’s First Power Couple” and on “Finding Your 17th Century Ancestor,” by Donald Moore, a professional genealogist. Although I made contact with some friendly, living Adam Thorowgood descendants and experts, I did not meet any of the haunting kind.
Therefore, I decided to take a more direct approach and returned the next week for an evening tour, “Haunted Encounters of the Thoroughgood Kind.” The staff had set the stage for our adventure by serving the guests either witches’ brew or dragon’s blood and cookies while showing the silent movie version of Phantom of the Opera in the waiting area.
As we headed across the grounds, our guide became enveloped in fog before we found our way to the gardens. There we were instructed in the proper techniques and herbs to use to protect our houses from evil spirits. Though the house was quiet that evening, the tales of inexplicable encounters and occurrences experienced by reputable staff and guests gave credence to the earlier stories.
There continue to be accounts of the openings of a door bolted from the inside; of noises and shadowy figures; of the man in the brown suit and the woman in the window. In the dim interiors, the 17th century crackled looking glass (mirror) gave back eerie reflections.
As I left that evening, a full moon was rising over the darkened house. Was there something hidden in those obscure corners, waiting to come out after the noisy intruders left? I didn’t stay to find out.
This was my puzzlement–the curiosity that started my research and blog. How did a twenty-two-year-old young man raised in Norfolk, England, having just spent four years working as an indentured servant in Virginia, suddenly show up in London and, within a year, marry the daughter of a wealthy merchant who was also a granddaughter and great-granddaughter of Lord Mayors of London? In the Big Bang Theory of life, how did these two very different orbits ever come crashing into each other? The marriage of Adam Thorowgood to Sarah Offly was recorded in the parish register of St. Anne’s Blackfriars, London, on July 18, 1627.
William Thorowgood was born around 1560 in Felsted, Essex, but moved to Grimston, Norfolk around 1585 when he married Anne Edwards of Norwich, Norfolk, and accepted the post as the Vicar of St. Boltolph’s Church. All of William’s nine children were born in Grimston. Reverend Thorowgood was honored by being appointed as the commissary for the Bishop of Norwich. William came from an armorial family. Although not needed for his position with the church, he received “a confirmation of this Armes and Crest” in March 1620. 
Robert Offley II and his wife, Anne Osbourne, were both born in London. Robert was a “Turkey merchant” with the Levant Company (traders with the Ottomans) whose first Governor was his father-in-law, Sir Edward Osborne. Osborne had been knighted and had been a Lord Mayor of London (like his father-in -law William Hewitt). The Offleys were also an armorial family, and Robert II’s “step-uncle,” Sir Thomas Offley, had been a Lord Mayor of London. 
It has sometimes been assumed that Adam’s older brother, Sir John Thorowgood of Kensington, brought the families together based on his position in the court of King Charles I and the erroneous belief that he had been serving as the secretary to William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, a significant member of the Virginia Company of London. As 
Sarah and her sisters might have been even more daring than her brothers. They likely had watched with interest as the Virginia Company had recruited “young, handsome, and honestly-educated Maids” to send to the Colony in 1620-21 on “bride ships” to establish families and bring greater stability and order to colonial society. These women were as much “adventurers” as their male counterparts. 
Sarah and Adam would certainly have been familiar with Reverend William Gouge’s famous sermon “Of Domestical Duties” delivered there in 1622 which was considered a “text” on family life in that era. In the hierarchical structure popular in that age, Reverend Gouge saw a wife as above her children, but below her husband who was to be “as a Priest unto his wife…. He is as a king in his owne house.” 
However, in 1623, accusations of mismanagement fueled by the report “Unmasked Face of our Colony in Virginia as it was in the Winter of the Year 1622” by Nathaniel Butler (a Governor of Bermuda who had only briefly visited Virginia), led to an investigation by the King’s Privy Council. That had been a particularly difficult year for the Colony with the unanticipated Powhatan Uprising, and there were deep divisions in the Company. Sir Edwin Sandys who controlled the company at that time had been an outspoken critic of the King. Despite lengthy protests and rebuttals by the Virginia Governor and Councilors, the Crown dissolved the Virginia Company and made Virginia a Royal Colony on May 24, 1624. This was a hostile “take-over,” not a “buyout,” of the investors who had initially provided the capital and absorbed all the risk. In the Company’s dying gasp in 1625, Governor Wyatt protested: “…the business of Virginia, so foiled and wronged by the party opposite and now reduced to extreme terms…wherein our former labors, cares, and expenses had received … the undeserved reward of rebuke and disgrace.”
There were around 40 major outbreaks of plague in London over the next three hundred years, occurring approximately e
Unfortunately, it was not just church bells in London that tolled in mourning that year. Without adequate finances, planning, preparation, provisions, or training of its troops, England agreed to join the fight with the Dutch (Protestant) Republic to lift the siege of the City of Breda by the (Catholic) Army of Flanders/ Hapsburg. When the lengthy siege finally ended and the Dutch were forced to sign articles of capitulation on June 2, 1625, fewer than 600 of the 7,000 (less than 9%) of the English troops had survived. Rather than blaming the commander Mansfield, most put the blame on the Duke of Buckingham “whose military enthusiasm did not include attention to the details of policy or planning.” 
Shakespeare, himself, had his heroine Juliette pose the question, “What is in a name?” (Romeo and Juliette) In this case, the name seems to be the issue on which the verdict hangs. Everyone basically agreed that the sailor Edward Samuel was killed with a shovel by another sailor with the last name of Waters in a dispute shortly after the shipwreck on Bermuda. He then hid on the island and refused to join the other passengers when they finally sailed to Virginia in 1610. 
In the Muster, Edward Waters was living in Elizabeth Cittie and listed as the head of the household. He was reported to have 37 barrels of corn and 1500 dry fish (far more than his neighbors); no livestock (very few had any); 1 boat, 4 houses/buildings, and 1 palisade; 10 pounds of powder, 100 pounds of lead, 11″pieces” (muskets?), 1 pistol, 6 swords, and 4 “armors and coates.” Edward Waters gave his age as 40 and stated he had arrived in Virginia on the Patience, having left England in 1608. He had actually embarked on the SeaVenture in 1609, but with the Julian calendar still in use in England, it would have been only a few months into that new year. 
That does not mean that Edward Waters’ conduct was spotless. He was ready to resort to violence with Edward Chard over disputes regarding the ambergris. He also chose to join the shady voyage to the West Indies for “supplies” which Richard Norwood refused to be part of. That group of 32 from Bermuda were never designated as pirates or privateers, although they did attack and capture a Portuguese vessel while they were “off-course” in the Canary Islands, had an encounter with a French pirate, and later were rescued after another shipwreck on a deserted isle by an unnamed English pirate.
At the end of the first month, the first of the counselors, Caldicott, persuaded thirty-two others, including Edward Waters and Edward Chard, to go with him to the West Indies for “supplies” (loot). Richard Norwood, the surveyor, wrote in his diary: 
That morning the English arose to what they anticipated would be an ordinary day. As a group, they were optimistic about the future of the Virginia Colony. The colony was growing quickly with the frequent arrival of colonists and the expansion of settlements along the James River. Families were established, and hostilities with the local tribes in the Powhatan Chiefdom were reduced. In fact, a college was being prepared for Powhatan young boys to be educated in the ways of the English. Opechancanough ( Powhatan’s brother who seemed to wield the most power after his brother’s death) had encouraged his people to visit, trade, and even live among colonists. Opechancanough even welcomed the missionary George Thorpe and asked to learn about his religion. The English thought the Powhatans were starting to accept the superior English ways, and Thorpe wrote, “they begin more and more to affect English fashion.” 
However, before that day was over, 340+ English settlers were dead, an estimated quarter to a third of the colonists. In a well- coordinated and well-planned attack, Powhatan tribes appeared and quickly and efficiently moved from settlement to settlement, murdering the men, women, and children. Many of those who had traded and lived among the colonists rose up against them. However, a few who had developed personal attachments warned their English associates, sparing some areas, including Jamestown. 
According to the first report sent to the Virginia Company by Edward Waterhouse: 27 were killed at or near the Falling Creeke iron works (Henrico); 25 at or near the College lands by Henrico; 18 at or near Sheffield Plantation; 23 at or near Charles City (Bermuda Hundred); 43 at Berkeley Hundred and nearby Westover; 25 at or near Flowerdieu Hundred; 21 at Weyanoke; 12 at Powle-brooke; 19 at or near Southampton Hundred; 80 at Martin’s Hundred; 54 at Edward Bennett’s Plantation; 6 at Thomas Pierce’s at Mulberry Island; and 5 at Master Waters’. The body of George Thorpe, the hopeful missionary who had promoted the college and the Christianization of the Indians, was mutilated. 
Adam Thorowgood had only been in the Colony a little over 6 months when the March 22 assault took place. He was a 17 year old indentured servant to Edward Waters who lived on land in the vicinity of Blunt/ Blount Point (Newport News) on the James River. Most historians report that there was little harm done to those in the Elizabeth Cittie area that day, but, as noted above, there were five dead or presumed dead from Master Waters’ lands.
Those reported as dead were Edward Waters, his wife, a child, a maid, and a boy. In the 1624 muster, two children (William and Margaret Waters, “bourne in Virgina”) are listed. 
The Nansemond Tribe was part of the Powhatan Confederacy, living southeast of Jamestown on the Nansemond River. There was first conflict between the Nansemonds and English when they resisted selling their corn to John Smith in 1608. Later, John Martin and George Percy selected Dumpling Island in the Nansemond River for English settlers, but it was a sacred site for the tribe. Because the Indians brutally killed the messengers, the English retaliated by burning their houses, desecrating their temples, destroying the corpses of their kings, and taking their precious pearls and adornments. Later, in Governor Dale’s zeal to control the mouth of the James River, he led 100 soldiers in full armor against the Nansemonds who fought fiercely but were not able to overcome the armor advantage. The English burned their town, killed or captured their warriors, and took their corn. The Nansemonds had no reason to be merciful to the English in 1622. They participated in the attack against Edward Bennett’s plantation where so many men and women died. 
That morning the Powhatan warriors had also been optimistic. They hoped that this would be a mortal blow to this strange (overdressed and smelly) people who had come uninvited to their kingdom, taking their lands and demanding their food, even in times of drought when there was not enough for their own people. Perhaps, these strangers would finally acknowledge their incompetence in surviving in this land, and, defeated, return to their own country. When the English ordered their survivors to abandon their lands and settlements and pull back to secured areas after the attack, the wereoance chiefs must have hoped they had succeeded.
Could this conflict have been prevented? As noted above, there are always alternative possibilities. Chief Powhatan himself, knowing the difference between “war and peace better than any” had posed the question to John Smith in 1609, “What will it avail you to take…by force what you may quickly have by love, or to destroy them that provide you food? What can you get by war?” 
Even if such differences could have been accepted, the two groups would never be able to meet each other’s expectations or give what the other wanted most. The English wanted land and subservient, Protestant, Indian subjects of King James I. The Powhatans wanted their lands, English weapons and allies who would work under their Chiefdom to defeat their tribal enemies and protect them. The English considered them false-hearted; to the Powhatans, the English were truce-breakers. 
What should this event be called? For centuries, American textbooks called it the Indian or Jamestown “Massacre.” Recently, recognizing the complexities of the conflicts between the English and Powhatans, it has been preferable to call it the Powhatan Uprising or The Great Assault. By definition, the incident was a massacre, but, using the same standard, so were many of the attacks by the English. The events of that March day were brutal, but they were neither the first, nor the last, horrific act perpetrated by both sides.
What story did the Powhatans tell about this time? Searching for the authentic 17th century Powhatan voice is difficult. There are voids; silences. Some of the tribes no longer exist–killed off by war and disease or absorbed as they were moved off their lands. Native Tribes were forced into submission and their tribal stories and traditions were suppressed, if not forbidden. By the 1800s, their Algonquin language was considered “dead” and most of their lands had been ceded to the English/ Americans.
There have been other attempts to explain the timing of the attack (phases of the moon, the English New Year, etc), but it does not appear there was a symbolic choice of dates. Helen Roundtree suggests that the Powhatans may actually have hoped to carry out the attack the prior year. It does make sense, though, that it would be carried out in the native season of cattapeuk (early spring) after the warriors had returned from their winter hunts where they could have laid plans out of earshot of English spies, and while their women and children were away fishing and foraging, out of the reach of the revengeful English. 
Were the Powhatans and English really engaged in a war? Sometimes history books read more like there were just isolated and random attacks. Today scholars now divide this early period of colonial conflict into the First (1609-1614), Second (1622-1632), and Third Anglo-Powhatan Wars (1644-1646) with periods of truce and relative peace in between. There was no formal declaration of war, but at each point there were egregious acts which “quickly escalated into a bitter, vengeful ‘holy war’ for political hegemony and territorial control that neither side could afford to lose.” Each side became more determined to eliminate the other. 
It is sadly ironic that the first Native People the English encountered have been some of the last to receive tribal recognition. With much effort, Virginia now recognizes the following tribes: Cheroenhaka (Nottaway); Chickahominy ; Eastern Chickahominy; Mattaponi; Monacan; Nansemond; Nottoway; Pamunkey; Patawomeck; Rappahannock; and Upper Mattaponi. In 2016, the Pamunkey tribe (to which Powhatan and Pocahontas belonged) became the first Virginia tribe to receive federal recognition. In 2018, the federal government also granted federal recognition to the Chickahominy; Eastern Chickahominy; Upper Mattaponi; Rappahannock; Nansemond; and Monacan tribes.
Attending the recent Nansemond Firebird Festival, I was reminded that the native nations that live amongst us are our closest 21st century neighbors. Can we finally learn respect and acceptance from our troubled shared history? Hopefully.