The Mayflower

[gilmore]

very late to this interesting thread, and not to take away from anyone's connection to the mayflower voyagers, but i'm reminded of the remarkable early passages of colin woodard's the lobster coast in which he writes about the early fishing colonies of maine inhabited by scotch-irish (funded by english investors) and their predating plymouth rock by roughly a decade.

apologies if this is off topic or has been covered previously.

As I think was mentioned, the Plymouth colony founded by the Mayflower pasengers wasn't the first English or British colony in America. That was Jamestowne, settled in 1607, some 13 years before the Pilgrims' arrival.

[Sionnach]

Just saw this thread today. Ron, I guess we are distant cousins as I also am a direct descendant of the prolific John Alden and Priscilla Mullins. My Utah relatives have always made sure I knew that peice of ancestry, but I just confirmed it for myself yesterday on Ancestry.com.

[macneighill]

The Spanish, French, Dutch, Portuguese and English are attributed to have “attempted” to establish some early colonies in the US. Here is a list of some Early attempts and successes of colonizing America:

• In 1526, Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón founded the colony San Miguel de Guadalupe in present day Georgia or South Carolina (it only lasted a short while before disintegrating). It was also notable for perhaps being the first instance of African slave labor within the present boundaries of the United States.
  
• Pánfilo de Narváez attempted to start a colony in Florida in 1528 (which ended in disaster).
  
• In 1559, the Spanish establish the colony of Pensacola in West Florida (it was destroyed by a hurricane in 1561).
  
• A small group of French troops were left on Parris Island, South Carolina in 1562 to build Charlesfort, but left after a year when they were not resupplied from France.
  
• Fort Caroline established in present-day Jacksonville, Florida in 1564 by the French, lasted only a year before being destroyed by the Spanish from St. Augustine.
  
• The Ajacan Mission (Spanish), founded in 1570, failed the next year, very near the site of the later English colony of Jamestown (actually, it was about 1 ½ - 2 miles from the Jamestown).
  
• "Lost Colony of Roanoke" (North Carolina) was the first attempt of establishing a permanent English colony, which failed. Between 1585 and 1587, groups of colonists were left to make the attempt, all of whom either abandoned the colony or disappeared. There are a few theories that exist. Some of the more agreeable ones are:
  
  1. one theory is, the colony was destroyed by the Spanish.
  2. another theory is, archaeological research has shown that, between 1587 and 1589, the Region suffered the worst drought in an 800 year span (the drought is said to have lasted for 3 years). Which the colonists may have decided to move their colony (accounts show that, Natives told Captain John Smith that, there were people that lived about 50 miles from Jamestown that, dressed, lived, and spoke as the English. It is said that, Chief Powhatan produced several English-made iron implements to back his claim).
  3. another theory is, the colonists somehow intermarried into Native culture.
  4. another theory is, the colonists gave up and, attempted to return to England, starving on the way.
  
  
• In 1604, Saint Croix Island, Maine was the site of a short-lived French colony, much plagued by illness, perhaps scurvy.
  
• Popham Colony (also known as the Sagadahoc Colony), considered the first English colony in New England. It was planted at the mouth of the Kennebec River in the summer of 1607 and lasted for little over a year until it was abandoned in the fall of 1608. There are a few attributes to its demise. One, is the distention between the colonists, another was the uneasy relations with Native Americans, among a couple of other difficulties.
  
• On May 14, 1607, the Virginia Company explorers landed on Jamestown Island, to establish the Virginia English colony on the banks of the James River 60 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. By one account, they landed there because the deep water channel let their ships ride close to shore; close enough, to moor them to the trees. Recent discovery of the exact location of the first settlement and its fort indicates that the actual settlement site was in a more secure place, away from the channel, where Spanish ships, could not fire point blank into the Fort. Almost immediately after landing, the colonists were under attack from what amounted to the on-again off-again enemy, the Algonquian natives. As a result, in a little over a months' time, the newcomers managed to "beare and plant palisadoes" enough to build a wooden fort.
  
• Plymouth Colony (sometimes New Plymouth or The Old Colony) was an English colonial venture in North America from 1620 until 1691.
  
• Fort Saint Louis was established in Texas in 1685, but was gone by 1688.

[gilmore]

OK, to be excrutiatingly precise: Jamestowne was the first PERMANENT British colony in America.

...[*]"Lost Colony of Roanoke" (North Carolina) was the first attempt of establishing a permanent English colony, which failed. Between 1585 and 1587, groups of colonists were left to make the attempt, all of whom either abandoned the colony or disappeared. There are a few theories that exist. Some of the more agreeable ones are:
[LIST=1][*]one theory is, the colony was destroyed by the Spanish.[*]another theory is, archaeological research has shown that, between 1587 and 1589, the Region suffered the worst drought in an 800 year span (the drought is said to have lasted for 3 years). Which the colonists may have decided to move their colony (accounts show that, Natives told Captain John Smith that, there were people that lived about 50 miles from Jamestown that, dressed, lived, and spoke as the English. It is said that, Chief Powhatan produced several English-made iron implements to back his claim).[*]another theory is, the colonists somehow intermarried into Native culture.[*]another theory is, the colonists gave up and, attempted to return to England, starving on the way.
...

There are some hopeful souls, probably with more money than sense, who are attempting to show by DNA testing that they descend from the lost colonists of Roanoke, whom, they assert, followed the third option above. You can find their project at www.familytreedna.com

[Carolina Kiltman]

I have to throw this into the pot too. There is evidence, mostly through the names, that the Lumbee tribe here in NC are descendants of both Native Americans and (at least some) of the lost colonials. Dial, Locklear, Jacobs, just to name a few. So far, the Lumbees have not gotten "official" U.S. Govt. recognition, but they are working on it.

[gilmore]

... So far, the Lumbees have not gotten "official" U.S. Govt. recognition, but they are working on it.

There are reasons for that. My understanding is that DNA testing doesn't support their claims as NA.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

So far, the Lumbees have not gotten "official" U.S. Govt. recognition, but they are working on it.

Well, they certainly have their work cut out for them.

One of the major stumbling blocks seems to be that the other tribes in the so-called Lumbee tribal area flat out refuse to recognize the Lumbees as Indians, and accuse them of being mere opportunists. Until comparatively recent times the Lumbees identified themselves as Croatan Indians, but the "tribe" voted to change its name to reflect its supposed tribal homeland near the Lumber River.

According to spokemen for some of the recognized tribes it is their belief (and DNA testing seems to back up their assertion) that the Lumbees are a predominantly Caucasian/African admixture with at best only a small percentage of Indian blood. They also cite a general lack of understanding of Indian culture, which they assert the Lumbees seem to have derived from Hollywood B westerns.

In actual fact the Lumbees were recognized as Indians by the Federal Government, but were denied access to Federal funding. At the time of their recognition the Lumbees went on record as stating they did not want any Federal money. That position was only recently changed when, I believe in 2002, a few of the Lumbees tried to sign on for Federal money. Since that time they have tried annually to get Congress to fund their "tribe", but thus far with no luck.

As far as is known, the Lumbees have no official tartan, nor do they have any system of heraldry. (Just to keep this on topic.)

[Riverkilt]

Well...having lived in N.C. in Lumbee country I can say for sure they are not folks you wanna mess with. A tough group who delighted in disrupting certain "sheet rallies" back in the 60s. Gotta love 'em whoever they are.

I always get a hoot out of political references to the ideals of the founding fathers...while some of my Mayflower ancestors were for sure merchants bent on making a buck, the Mayflower Compact sure seems like a bit of early commune living...and the Mayflower passengers were brightly dressed and prolific in their love of each other...would fit in well with some 20th century communes...just my opinion...

For sure an opportunity for Mayflower descendents to consider the Dutch Friendship tartan for all the help they got in Leyden.

Ron

[Cerebite]

For sure an opportunity for Mayflower descendents to consider the Dutch Friendship tartan for all the help they got in Leyden.

Ron

Well this Mayflower descendant for one can get on board with an orange tartan

[Matty Ross]

Just to throw my hat into the ring, I am also a Mayflower descendant. I come down from Francis Cooke and Richard Warren. I also trace one line to Richard Howland brother of Arthur Howland
Any cousins out there?