Native American Resistance and the Failure of the First Colonisation of Virginia (GCSE Example Answer)

Here is an example answer to the following 16-mark question on whether Native America resistance was the main reason that the first colonisation of Virginia failed under Elizabeth.

The main reason that the first colonisation attempt of Virginia failed under Elizabeth was due to Native American resistance’. How far do you agree?

Marks: 16 marks + 4 marks SPAG

Stimulus = Bad luck / The role of Wingina

[Examiner commentary following each paragraph and at the end is provided in italics]

____________________________________________________

English settlers landed in Virginia in late 1585. By July 1586 all colonists had left Virginia and arrived back in Portsmouth. The failed colonisation of Virginia can be partly attributed to Native American resistance, but the ultimate reason was the lack of planning and organisation that went into the settlement/colonisation of the region, which was caused by a lack of clear leadership once the settlers arrived. Together, this caused the anger of the Native Americans as, originally, they were welcoming and supportive of the settlers.

[The criteria for judgement are well-selected here, combining the role of two factors. This is fine, so long as there is clear explanation as to why the factor mentioned in the question is NOT the most important.]

Certainly, what eventually forced the colonists back to England was the resistance of the Native American people. The local chief, Wingina, believed that the English had supernatural powers from their God to target Native Americans. This is because the English were bringing previously unknown diseases from the country and into Native American territory, which was killing many indigenous people. Without knowledge of the causes of disease, Wingina felt that this was the work of their God. He was therefore distrustful of them. Violent clashes between the natives and the settlers had regularly occurred but in spring 1586, Wingina asked other chiefs to join him in attacking the English. Head of the settlers, Ralph Lane, had heard about the plan and was involved in the killing of Wingina and the English quickly left by July, presumably because clashes with the natives and rejection of the English intensified.

[There is precisely selected detail here, although perhaps a little descriptive in places. This paragraph could benefit from a link back to the question at the end.]

However, resistance by the indigenous population was due to the fact that the English settlers had lost the good will initially given by the local chief Wingina and his Secotan tribe. Due to poor planning, the English had become dependent on the Native Americans for food and had become increasingly reliant on them. Their own disorganisation meant that native resistance was only a matter of time. The real issue lies, therefore, in why the English were so disorganised.

[This paragraph is essential in tying the rest of the answer together as it is what underpins the overall judgement. The crucial linking sentence at the end of this paragraph to the rest of the answer ensures coherence and a logical structure.]

Firstly, the English had arrived in Virginia too late to plant crops, which meant the food they had arrived with had to be rationed but this quickly rotted in the hot, humid conditions. More importantly, unforeseen seawater damage to the Tiger, the ship the colonists travelled on, had ruined other food and seeds, which meant opportunities to become self-sufficient from the outset were destroyed. The seawater had also spoiled the gunpowder needed to shoot/hunt game like pigeon and deer, so the winter had to be dedicated to foraging for food.

In addition, division among the English settlers meant they undermined their own attempts to colonise territory. The merchants and wealthy of England were not prepared to do the hard, manual work in Virginia that was necessary for successful settlement and nor were the farmers from England prepared to work for them. This was after all an opportunity to break the cycle of hierarchy and class order in England. Lastly, ill-discipline among the soldiers who arrived created tension within the settler community as well as antagonism between the English and Native Americans. Lastly, the craftsmen that arrived did not have the necessary raw materials to successfully bake, weave or brew, thus their contribution early on was minimal. This meant that not only were the colonists divided but that Native American patience was running out because they were essentially helping people who could offer nothing in return.

Lastly, division was further created by the fact that Ralph Lane and the other principal leader, Richard Grenville, failed to work together effectively and guide the other settlers. This links further to the fact that the real leader, Sir Walter Raleigh, who was in charge of the colonisation, was forbidden from attending the exploration directly by Elizabeth I. Arguably, Raleigh’s presence would have dealt with these issues more effectively as he commanded respect from all and had greater experience of voyages and exploration. Moreover, he may have been able to oversee a more harmonious and equitable relationship with the Native Americans.

[This paragraph on leadership is highly important as it helps contextualise why the disorganisation of the settlers was so apparent. Plus, the fact that Raleigh was forbidden from taking part in the voyage is a vital fact often ignored by students.]

Overall, a range of factors were responsible for the failed colonisation of Virginia and whilst Native American resistance was instrumental in forcing the English away, the fact that the natives and Wingina were initially welcoming is important. Ultimately, the English settlers themselves had arrived too late, had no contingency plans for the damage to their supplies and were not prepared to work together to turn around the disadvantaged position they found themselves in. Lastly, the absence of Raleigh meant there was no real leadership (as Grenville and Lane themselves were unable to work together) to mitigate these factors, hence a combination of bad planning and poor leadership sowed the seeds of a failed colonisation. Therefore, I disagree with the statement.

Overall Examiner Comments:

Level 4, 13-16 (+3-4 marks SPAG)

The judgement reached is clear and makes a lot of sense – the lack of food and sufficient resources were instrumental to the expedition’s failure. However, the equally important line of argument that effective leadership was detrimental is also crucially highlighted. This answer therefore exhibits wide-ranging knowledge and clear awareness of the full requirements of the question. Historical terminology is superbly applied in this answer to exhibit consistent conceptual focus to the requirements of the question.