Gracie's Essay

I trust you were as blessed by Sarah's sincere essay as I was. This is Gracie. If I didn't know of the inscrutable sovereignty of Almighty God, I would declare that she was born in the wrong century! What a gift she has as a storyteller! She regales her younger sisters with delightful tales of Celtic history, especially that of Scotland. Well, in this essay, she incorporates that love of history with her desire to see God's truth become known everywhere.

SO NOBLE A WORKE
by Virginia Grace

“The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge, but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness.” Proverbs 15:14

This verse aptly describes many of today’s scholars, historians, and men of wise renown, particularly in regard to their treatment of the beginning of our country – the first successful English colony on American soil – Jamestown, Virginia. Many wish to disgrace and forget that significant milestone in our history through dishonest and deceitful fabrications concerning our founders, their actions and intents, and their treatment of the native tribes. Today’s Americans are resentful and ashamed of the proudly-proclaimed Christianity, vigorous manhood, and devout faith of our fathers. While there were blunders and mistakes made by the Jamestown colonists, these imperfections should only compel us to a more profound gratitude for the mercy of the Lord for allowing Jamestown to survive and for His providence in the lives of these determined forefathers. It is our duty as Christians and Americans to counter these attacks on our nation’s heritage. The world’s warped teachings must be refuted.

One of the most common misunderstandings concerning Jamestown and her people is the motive behind their colonization of Virginia. “Jamestown was marked by failure of commitment and an atmosphere of greed. They were motivated by secular goals of finding gold,” states John Godwin, author of Freedom Works, who is one of the many foes of Jamestown. “Those who founded Jamestown had a pirate mentality. The motivation of those who settled in Jamestown was one of easy wealth” While it is true that the Virginia Company was colonizing as a “joint stockholding company” for the purpose of "making a profit," it was not the colonists’ chief motivation in settling.

The first and foremost purpose mentioned in the 1606 charter was to spread the Christian religion. “Wee, greately commending and graciously accepting of their desires to the furtherance of so noble a worke which may, by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of His Divine Majesty to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God and may in time bring the infidels and salvages (sic) living in those parts to humane civility and to a settled and quiet government…” This passage plainly states the Company’s desire to bring those “as yet live in darkness” into the radiant glory of God. In light of this, the prevalent assumption of the colonists’ greed and materialism as their primary objective is entirely unfounded, and is, in reality, refuted by all substantial and verifiable evidence.

Another flawed belief concerns the character of Captain John Smith. There are those who seek to blemish the high regard with which he has been, in previous years, esteemed. Across America, John Smith is being attacked and condemned; schoolchildren are being taught that this devout, steadfast, and valiant man of God was a merciless dictator who abused and mistreated the American Indian to an alarming degree.
The Daily Press, a Newport News, Virginia-based newspaper, recently presented this query: “In his dealings with Virginia Indians, was John Smith an accomplished trader or a robber?” The answer from The Daily Press: a robber. Their reliable source? A recently published book, The True Story of Pocahontas: The Other Side of History, by Dr. Linwood “Little Bear” Custalow, which opens in a prayer to “the spirit gods,” otherwise known as demons. Custalow states that the Princess Pocahontas was physically abused and foully murdered, in the midst of which shocking handling she was converted to Christianity by force. It portrays Smith as a deceitful, two-faced scoundrel. This is the volume upon which thousands of Americans have based their opinions of one of America’s most influential and heroic founders.

Captain Smith has also been reported to be a “braggart,” a “liar,” and many other such epithets. Nearly all early historians, however, and the majority of his contemporaries, never questioned his honor or truthfulness. In his book of 1992, Did Pocahontas Save Captain John Smith?, author Leo Lemay stated, "Dozens of contemporaries testified that Smith was honest and truthful. Not one critic or enemies (sic) denied it." There are even now some modern writers who choose to follow through with extensive research, and by doing so, stick to the true facts. Phillip Barbour, a modern day defender of Smith, states in his book The Three Worlds of Captain John Smith, “Let it be said that nothing John Smith wrote has yet been found to be a lie.”

Smith’s veracity was first extensively questioned when, in his 1858 History of New England, John Gorham Palfrey was “haunted by incredulity” concerning some of the Captain’s adventures. Charles Deane, Boston merchant and historian, looked further into the matter and decided that Smith was a notorious liar and braggart who had invented the story of his rescue by Pocahontas after the lapse of many years. These, and many others, based their conclusions upon the fact that Smith only made known his extraordinary rescue after the death of Pocahontas, Powhatan, and any others who could have protested against the story. However, this is not, in its entirety, true. Smith wrote of the account in 1617, some years before the death of Princess Pocahontas, in a letter to Queen Anne, begging her to receive Pocahontas in a royal way, stating, as one of his reasons, Pocahontas’ saving of his (Smith’s) life.

The battle over John Smith continued over the centuries until Smith was nearly blotted out by an overseas strike from Hungarian historian and journalist, Lewis L. Kropf. In 1890, Kropf stated that he had researched the people, battles, and locations cited in Smith’s accounts of his Turkish experiences, and that none of them even existed. He asserted that there was not any foundation whatsoever to believe that Smith had ever journeyed to southeast Europe at all, much less been a wartime hero of great renown. Kropf published many original documents disproving Smith’s report; unfortunately, however, each of them appeared in Kropf’s native language, so British and American scholars, unable to re-examine the obscure Hungarian documents Kropf cited, took him at his word. They were stunned and shocked. Their logical reasoning questioned Smith’s account of his colonial narratives. If his pre-Virginian chronicles could be such falsehoods, what cause had they to trust his latter works?

Smith’s admirers shriveled into obscurity with Kropf’s incriminating attack upon their hero. Once more, however, a lady came to the aid of John Smith. Hungarian historian Laura Polanyi Striker vindicated America’s slandered champion. She proved that Smith had not conjured up men, women, and battles for the mere purpose of promoting himself. No, she found, through extensive research, that the truth of the matter was that Smith, like so many Englishmen before and since, had a genius, if not a passion, for misspelling foreign names.

The Lord “Ebersbaught,” who gained him a hearing with “Henry Volda, Earl of Meldritch,” turned out to be one Carl von Herbertsdorf. “Volda” was actually Folta, one of a number of noble families which had been given domains near the place where the battles Smith described were fought. In reality, Smith knew exactly of what he spoke, down to the smallest detail.

To use the logical thinking, which was stated above, in reverse, it would be quite rational to assume that if his writings concerning his southeastern Europe affairs were so detailed and accurate, the same would apply to his Virginia Narratives. Therefore, Captain Smith remains one of America’s greatest heroes and one of the world’s most astounding men.

Children all over the Earth have viewed, enjoyed, and believed the story of Pocahontas, the 1995 Disney production. This movie, however, as well as the common impression of the Princess Matoaka Pocahontas, is, by all accurate and upright standards, an absolute falsehood from beginning to end. Pocahontas begins its errors with portraying Pocahontas as a lovely Indian woman, in the prime of life, at the time of her saving of Smith’s life. In actual fact, she was no more than 13 years old. In his letter to Queen Anne in 1617, Smith writes, “…the king’s most dear and well-beloved daughter, being but a child of twelve or thirteen years of age… hazarded the beating out of her own brains to save mine…”
Likewise, her relationship with John Smith was of a father-daughter character. When Pocahontas crossed paths with Smith in England in the year 1616, she rejoiced at finding her “father,” and when he objected to the title, she defiantly replied: "…I should call you father: I tell you I will, and you shall call mee childe, and so I will be for ever and ever your Countrieman..." There is absolutely no evidence which supports the idea of a romantic relationship between Smith and Pocahontas, contrary to what Pocahontas the movie and countless books, plays, and other productions would have us believe.

Another erroneous belief is quite the reverse of the romantic Pocahontas myth; this is the theory supported in the previously mentioned The True Story of Pocahontas: The Other Side of History. It does bear one similarity, however; both are false. Pocahontas was kidnapped, but even in the midst of that disgraceful seizure, she was treated as the royalty she was. Disregarding that instance, Pocahontas was never ill-treated. Nay, she was loved and cheered by the Englishmen whenever she visited their settlement, and later, in England. The name by which she was called at Jamestown was “Nonpareil,” from the French, its meaning being “unequaled.” The English considered her the savior of their colony; their unequaled champion – Pocahontas.

Another false statement given in The True Story is that, as a stipulation for her freedom, she consented to a marriage with the Englishman, John Rolfe. Many have also questioned Rolfe’s motives in approaching Pocahontas. According to all evidence, however, Pocahontas loved and was loved in return by John Rolfe. In his letter to the governor, requesting his permission to marry the Princess Pocahontas, Rolfe writes, “To whom my heart and best thoughts are, and have a long time bin so intagled, and inthralled in so intricate a laborinth, that I was even awearied to unwinde my selfe thereout… namely, Pokahuntas.” Rolfe was awearied to try to entangle his feelings for Pocahontas, so deep were they. A further section states his assurance of her regard for him. “…Likewise, adding hereunto her great appearance of love to me…”

Later on, Rolfe asserts his good and holy intentions. “…But knowing mine own innocency and godly fervor…” Another place, “Let therefore this, my …protestation, which here I make between God and my own conscience, be a sufficient witness…if my chiefest intent and purpose be not… no way led (so far forth as mans weakness may permit) with the unbridled desire of carnal affection: but for the good of this plantation, for the honour of our country, for the glory of God, for my own salvation, and for the converting to the true knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, an unbelieving creature, namely Pocahontas.”

Virginia's Gov. Dale not only endorsed Rolfe's request, but he blessed the marriage and later sought to marry a converted Indian woman for himself. And so, in the year of our Lord, 1614, two warring nations were joined together, in the persons of John Rolfe and the Princess Matoaka Pocahontas – the Englishman’s Nonpareil.

In conclusion, the fools of whom Proverbs speaks are they who deny our Christian heritage and the rich, godly culture of those Virginian founders. The Jamestown settlers were imperfect, and they had their “warts, bumps, and bruises…,” but, on the whole, God’s Providential Hand was wholly evident in Jamestown. “…for every plantation which our heavenly father hath not planted shall be rooted out.” Our Heavenly Father did plant Jamestown, and, as such, we must preserve it against the attacks of the world and seek out the true knowledge.