Was Smith's gunpowder accident actually a murder plot?
In 1609, Smith suffered from a horrific gunpowder accident that ended his career in Jamestown and sent him, apparently with little hope of survival, back to England. But Smith did survive, and the brief story he told of what happened was just vague enough to ensure that people in the centuries that followed would turn it into an Agatha Christie-style murder mystery that offered no tidy solution.
Smith's account was that while he was asleep on a small boat while returning from an expedition upriver,, a spark of unspecified origin caught his gunpowder bag on fire. The resulting burst of flame burned his body in an area 9 or 10 inches square where his torso meets his thigh (i.e., the groin area), causing him to jump into the river to put the fire out. His companions pulled him out of the river, nearly drowned, and in excruciating pain. He made the long trip back to Jamestown and was relieved of his duties. He was then put on a boat for England, a boat whose departure was purposely delayed for weeks, with Smith receiving inadequate treatment for his wound. He was not expected to live, and the Powhatan Indians were told that he had perished.
The murder plot, in its most speculative version, revolves around the source of the errant spark that caused the fire. Smith, though he accused several settlers of purposely wanting to kill him during his convalescence, made no such accusations about the source of the spark. As far as we can tell from his writings, it appears the fire was accidental. One might speculate the spark came from a pipe, or from the burning fuse that soldiers kept to fire their own guns. It may have come from Smith's own fuse, or from one of the crew. And if you're conspiracy minded, the powder bag may have been set alight intentionally by one of Smith's enemies.
The list of suspects might start with the three men Smith named as wanting to kill him while he waited for the boat to depart for England (see original text below): John Martin, John Ratcliffe and Gabriel Archer. Smith says these three "plotted to have murdered him in his bed." Another possible suspect is George Percy, who took over as president of the colony when Smith became indisposed. None of these people were in the boat with Smith when the gunpowder incident occurred, so one would have to assume the perpetrator had been put up to the task by one or more of the men named.
Historian Mark Summers*, who offers educational tours at the Jamestown Archaearium in Virginia, likes George Percy as a suspect in the planning of Smith's death (since Percy wasn't with Smith at the time of the explosion). Summers points out that Percy had a brother in prison in England for being involved in the notorious 'Gunpowder Plot' (of Guy Fawkes fame) to kill King James.I of England. Summers says that Thomas Percy, who was involved in the gunpowder plot, was a Catholic, so brother George Percy was likely Catholic as well. As such, Percy may have been a natural enemy of Smith, not only because of their difference in social class (Percy was the son of an earl, while Smith was a commoner), but also due to religious differences. John Smith's famous declaration "he who works not, eats not" may, according to Summers, indicate Smith's Puritan leanings, a stance which would naturally put him in the cross hairs of a disgruntled Catholic nobleman.
* I was at the Archaearium in Jamestown in the summer of 2016 and heard Mark Summers discuss his theory.
HIstorian James Horn (A Land as God Made It, 2005) wrote, "The terrible injury was no accident but a deliberate attempt to kill him, this time by the English." p. 169. Horn cited no one in particular for this statement, so we can assume it's Horn's opinion based mainly on Smith:s vague writings. Josepth Kelly, in Marooned (2018) agrees with Horn and provides a fairly compelling argument for the incident being a deliberate assassination attempt.
John Smith biographer, Peter Firstbrook, (A Man Most Driven, 2014) on the other hand, thinks an assassination attempt by gunpowder was unlikely. He writes:
My comments:
For the most part, the historians and writers I've read (Horn and Kelly being the exceptions) do not put much stock in the "gunpowder accident as assassination attempt" theory, or they are not interested enough to re-examine it. However, the possibility is often mentioned on websites and elsewhere, so we may consider this a low-level "controversy." I don't personally have a strong opinion, and without any evidence, and without even Smith's own suspicions or accusations, I don't think the murder attempt theory should be considered 'fact.' Nevertheless, it is an interesting topic gaining traction, and I do have some questions.
Question 1:
If the gunpowder explosion happened as John Smith described, wouldn't that imply that such accidents were an occupational hazard? How often did other soldiers get wounded or die in similar incidents? If it happened fairly regularly, then we should not look at this incident as being highly unusual. If, on the other hand, this is rare, then we may be allowed some reasonable suspicions.
Question 2:
Peter Firstbrook (p. 296) wrote that gunpowder is only explosive when compressed, but not when loose in a powder bag. If so, then why should a potential assassin fear being blown up in the boat? If the presumed assassin knew that only Smith would be in danger, then this method in the dark of night might be as good as any.
Question 3:
When discussing the relative merits of ways to assassinate Smith (Firstbrook quote, above), why should these suspected assassins be presumed to be any smarter than the would-be assassins in the Guy Fawkes gunpowder plot to kill King James I?
Question 4:
Does the delay in allowing Smith to leave for London not indicate a desire to see Smith dispatched once and for all, as Smith himself suspected?
Smith's account was that while he was asleep on a small boat while returning from an expedition upriver,, a spark of unspecified origin caught his gunpowder bag on fire. The resulting burst of flame burned his body in an area 9 or 10 inches square where his torso meets his thigh (i.e., the groin area), causing him to jump into the river to put the fire out. His companions pulled him out of the river, nearly drowned, and in excruciating pain. He made the long trip back to Jamestown and was relieved of his duties. He was then put on a boat for England, a boat whose departure was purposely delayed for weeks, with Smith receiving inadequate treatment for his wound. He was not expected to live, and the Powhatan Indians were told that he had perished.
The murder plot, in its most speculative version, revolves around the source of the errant spark that caused the fire. Smith, though he accused several settlers of purposely wanting to kill him during his convalescence, made no such accusations about the source of the spark. As far as we can tell from his writings, it appears the fire was accidental. One might speculate the spark came from a pipe, or from the burning fuse that soldiers kept to fire their own guns. It may have come from Smith's own fuse, or from one of the crew. And if you're conspiracy minded, the powder bag may have been set alight intentionally by one of Smith's enemies.
The list of suspects might start with the three men Smith named as wanting to kill him while he waited for the boat to depart for England (see original text below): John Martin, John Ratcliffe and Gabriel Archer. Smith says these three "plotted to have murdered him in his bed." Another possible suspect is George Percy, who took over as president of the colony when Smith became indisposed. None of these people were in the boat with Smith when the gunpowder incident occurred, so one would have to assume the perpetrator had been put up to the task by one or more of the men named.
Historian Mark Summers*, who offers educational tours at the Jamestown Archaearium in Virginia, likes George Percy as a suspect in the planning of Smith's death (since Percy wasn't with Smith at the time of the explosion). Summers points out that Percy had a brother in prison in England for being involved in the notorious 'Gunpowder Plot' (of Guy Fawkes fame) to kill King James.I of England. Summers says that Thomas Percy, who was involved in the gunpowder plot, was a Catholic, so brother George Percy was likely Catholic as well. As such, Percy may have been a natural enemy of Smith, not only because of their difference in social class (Percy was the son of an earl, while Smith was a commoner), but also due to religious differences. John Smith's famous declaration "he who works not, eats not" may, according to Summers, indicate Smith's Puritan leanings, a stance which would naturally put him in the cross hairs of a disgruntled Catholic nobleman.
* I was at the Archaearium in Jamestown in the summer of 2016 and heard Mark Summers discuss his theory.
HIstorian James Horn (A Land as God Made It, 2005) wrote, "The terrible injury was no accident but a deliberate attempt to kill him, this time by the English." p. 169. Horn cited no one in particular for this statement, so we can assume it's Horn's opinion based mainly on Smith:s vague writings. Josepth Kelly, in Marooned (2018) agrees with Horn and provides a fairly compelling argument for the incident being a deliberate assassination attempt.
John Smith biographer, Peter Firstbrook, (A Man Most Driven, 2014) on the other hand, thinks an assassination attempt by gunpowder was unlikely. He writes:
- "There have also been suggestions that the explosion on the boat was an attempt on Smith's life, [33; citing Ivor Noel Hume] but this seems far-fetched, for the potential assassin would just as likely have blown himself up in the boat. If anybody was serious about murdering Smith, a musket ball in the back of the head on a deserted forest path would have been a much more reliable solution; or even better, a borrowed bow and arrow would have shifted the blame to the Powhatan. Smith's gunpowder pouch was likely ignited by accident, either from a careless ember from a tobacco pipe, or his own burning taper, which all musketeers carry with them to fire their weapon at short notice." p. 297
My comments:
For the most part, the historians and writers I've read (Horn and Kelly being the exceptions) do not put much stock in the "gunpowder accident as assassination attempt" theory, or they are not interested enough to re-examine it. However, the possibility is often mentioned on websites and elsewhere, so we may consider this a low-level "controversy." I don't personally have a strong opinion, and without any evidence, and without even Smith's own suspicions or accusations, I don't think the murder attempt theory should be considered 'fact.' Nevertheless, it is an interesting topic gaining traction, and I do have some questions.
Question 1:
If the gunpowder explosion happened as John Smith described, wouldn't that imply that such accidents were an occupational hazard? How often did other soldiers get wounded or die in similar incidents? If it happened fairly regularly, then we should not look at this incident as being highly unusual. If, on the other hand, this is rare, then we may be allowed some reasonable suspicions.
Question 2:
Peter Firstbrook (p. 296) wrote that gunpowder is only explosive when compressed, but not when loose in a powder bag. If so, then why should a potential assassin fear being blown up in the boat? If the presumed assassin knew that only Smith would be in danger, then this method in the dark of night might be as good as any.
Question 3:
When discussing the relative merits of ways to assassinate Smith (Firstbrook quote, above), why should these suspected assassins be presumed to be any smarter than the would-be assassins in the Guy Fawkes gunpowder plot to kill King James I?
Question 4:
Does the delay in allowing Smith to leave for London not indicate a desire to see Smith dispatched once and for all, as Smith himself suspected?
Smith bio at Historic Jamestowne, Aug. 2016. "Smith returned to England ... following an accidental gunpowder burn"
Dennis Montgomery, on Colonial Williamsburg's "Captain John Smith" page, writes: "In those days a match was a pyrotechnic cord used to discharge a firelock musket or pistol. The practice was to light it and keep it burning when there was prospect of the need of force. Smith offered no explanation of why anyone attending him would be on the point of firing a weapon."
My comment:
It seems likely to me that someone would have been standing guard while others slept, possibly having a lit fuse. I'm not sure if Montgomery is suspicious of the 'no explanation' or just pointing out the fact of it.
My comment:
It seems likely to me that someone would have been standing guard while others slept, possibly having a lit fuse. I'm not sure if Montgomery is suspicious of the 'no explanation' or just pointing out the fact of it.
|
The American History Podcast has an episode in its Jamestown series that covers the events surrounding the John Smith gunpowder incident. The episode is called "Jamestown 4: Gunpowder." A subtitle for the audio reads "The attempted assassination of John Smith" The podcast audio doesn't actually make the claim, that the explosion was deliberately orchestrated. The way the events leading up to the incident are described, however, suggests that feelings toward Smith were negative enough that an assassination attempt was not out of the question. As James Horn's book, A Land as God Made It, is cited on the website as a reference, I suppose Horn is Sarah Tanksalvala's source for her opinion that it was an assassination attempt, assuming the audio subtitle represents her true thoughts on the matter. A transcript accompanies the audio on the website. The actual gunpowder incident is discussed around the 12:00 minute mark on the audio, which runs 18 minutes total. It's best to listen to the whole episode though for necessary context.
|
Charles Mann in 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created (2011) writes:
My comment:
As much as I love this book, I am irritated about how casually writers make these kinds of assumptions. Mann apparently came to the conclusion that Smith was 'clumsy' based on the fact that the presumably rare incident happened to Smith. That someone else may have been the source of the spark or that it may have been ignited on purpose appear to be out of the question for Mann. On the other hand, I can say that when you're writing history, a little imagination can liven up a dull read. Clearly, it's difficult to be both accurate and compelling as a writer. and authors like Mann have to choose between one or the other.
- "Smith left for medical treatment in England in October 1609. Canny but clumsy, he had suffered terrible burns when he accidentally ignited a bag of gunpowder he'd fastened around his waist." (p. 76)
My comment:
As much as I love this book, I am irritated about how casually writers make these kinds of assumptions. Mann apparently came to the conclusion that Smith was 'clumsy' based on the fact that the presumably rare incident happened to Smith. That someone else may have been the source of the spark or that it may have been ignited on purpose appear to be out of the question for Mann. On the other hand, I can say that when you're writing history, a little imagination can liven up a dull read. Clearly, it's difficult to be both accurate and compelling as a writer. and authors like Mann have to choose between one or the other.
Margaret MacMillan (2020) in her best selling book War - How Conflict Shaped Us writes:
My comment:
This passage seems to answer one of my questions (#1 above) where I wondered if exploding gunpowder supply was a common occurrence. MacMillan says here that it was, though she provides no footnotes or sources for her information. As a result, I can't be 100% sure that John Smith wasn't one of the reasons she believes this to be true. (Ideally, I would want evidence other than Smith's writings.) Smith does not appear in her bibliography, however.
Added April 17, 2021
- "Initially muskets were nearly as dangerous for the soldier, and anyone near him, as they were for the enemy, because the piece of smoldering cord he carried to light the small gunpowder charge often blew up his whole supply." (p. 74)
My comment:
This passage seems to answer one of my questions (#1 above) where I wondered if exploding gunpowder supply was a common occurrence. MacMillan says here that it was, though she provides no footnotes or sources for her information. As a result, I can't be 100% sure that John Smith wasn't one of the reasons she believes this to be true. (Ideally, I would want evidence other than Smith's writings.) Smith does not appear in her bibliography, however.
Added April 17, 2021
Joseph Kelly, in his 2018 book, Marooned, points out that George Percy was also the victim of a gunpowder "accident." The reference Kelly cites from John Smith's Generall Historie is pretty vague, but it's an interesting additional example of this occurring. Kelly implies that this also was an assassination attempt. However, Smith never describes it as such, and since the firing of gunpowder happened twice (i.e., to two different people) one could also read this as a fairly common occurrence among soldiers of the time. This could provide evidence for MacMillan's statement above that carrying gunpowder was inherently dangerous to soldiers. On the other hand, since the reference comes from John Smith, then Smith is the source of both such examples, which is unfortunate. The Kelly passage reads as follows:
The excerpt from Smith's Generall Historie is as follows:
That's it. The he is presumed to refer to Percy, though Smith's writings are haphazard enough to allow for other possibilities. No additional commentary is made on the accident, which may imply a rather common occurrence. So was Percy the victim of an assassination attempt? The likelihood is similar to that of Smith's case. As much as I like the Joseph Kelly book, I don't support his turning this short phrase into yet another conspiracy theory. However, I must admire Kelly's close reading of the John Smith text and commenting on something I hadn't seen before.
- "Percy was unpopular with his men, and he suffered the consequences. A musketeer in those days carried his powder in single wooden cartridges on a leather bandoleer, while he slung from his hip a large pouch of powder from which these cartridges might be refilled. The muskets themselves were matchlocks, which means that they fired when the trigger mechanism touched a lit fuse to the flash pan. A musketeer expecting action kept a live fuse twined in his fingers, ready to be placed in the trigger mechanism. With so much powder dangling about and lit fuses in every soldier's fingers, accidents were certainly possible. But the very possibility of an accident could cover a deliberate attempt to maim or assassinate an unpopular officer. Whether in a true accident or one contrived by his men, Percy was 'burnt sore with gunpowder' and forced to return to Jamestown. [9] citing John Smith's Generall Historie, in Marooned, by Kelly, J., p. 293
The excerpt from Smith's Generall Historie is as follows:
- "To express their loves for 16 days continuance, the Country people brought us (when least) 100 a day, of Squirrels, Turkeys, Deere and other wilde beasts. But this want of come occasioned the end of all our works, it being work sufficient to provide victual. Sixty or eighty with Ensign Laxon was sent down the river to live upon Oysters, and 20 with Lieutenant Percy to try for fishing at Point Comfort. But in six weeks they would not agree once to cast out the net, he being sick and burnt sore with Gunpowder." (from https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/161smith-virginia.html)
That's it. The he is presumed to refer to Percy, though Smith's writings are haphazard enough to allow for other possibilities. No additional commentary is made on the accident, which may imply a rather common occurrence. So was Percy the victim of an assassination attempt? The likelihood is similar to that of Smith's case. As much as I like the Joseph Kelly book, I don't support his turning this short phrase into yet another conspiracy theory. However, I must admire Kelly's close reading of the John Smith text and commenting on something I hadn't seen before.
Marooned (2018) author Joseph Kelly makes his most definitive statement re. the gunpowder incident here:
My comment:
Ultimately, this is still just speculation. I think it's irresponsible to make a definitive statement on this when there is no additional evidence, only a guess based on personal assessment of likelihood. Where is the data re. how many incidences occurred of gunpowder bags lighting on fire in that era? How many of those were lit by accident and how many were assassination attempts? We obviously have no idea. Like many aspects of the Jamestown story, this is another incident that has no definitive explanation. Kelly deserves credit, though, for citing the counter evidence sources.
Added May 21, 2022
- "The General History called this incident an accident. So agreed Smith's undisputed, definitive biographer, Philip Barbour. His version written in 1964, suggests that "somehow a spark from the matches for their muskets or from a tobacco pipe lighted on Smith's powder bag." Till recently that seemed to be the settled opinion of historians. Alden Vaughan, the eminent historian at Columbia University, agreed with Barbour's assessment in his own 1975 monograph, and in 1992, University of Delaware expert J. A. Leo Lemay repeated the presumption in his own book on Smith. But James Horn, who is today the distinguished historian with the Jamestown Rediscovery Foundation, does not accept that interpretation. "The terrible injury," he wrote in 2005, twenty years after Lemay, "was no accident but a deliberate attempt to kill" the president. Smith himself knew only what he was told, because he was asleep when it happened and delirious for days after. It stretches credulity to think that just at this most crucial moment of the struggle for power, the random hand of chance took hold of events. The similarity between Smith's injury and Percy's lends weight to Horn's interpretation. Powder bag fires seem to have played the same role in seventeenth-century warfare that fragmentation grenades played in Vietnam. If anyone were to attempt to kill a superior officer, sparking his powder bag was about the only way he could get away with it. [28]" p. 309, 310
My comment:
Ultimately, this is still just speculation. I think it's irresponsible to make a definitive statement on this when there is no additional evidence, only a guess based on personal assessment of likelihood. Where is the data re. how many incidences occurred of gunpowder bags lighting on fire in that era? How many of those were lit by accident and how many were assassination attempts? We obviously have no idea. Like many aspects of the Jamestown story, this is another incident that has no definitive explanation. Kelly deserves credit, though, for citing the counter evidence sources.
Added May 21, 2022
|
Excerpt from:
THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENGLISH COLONIE IN Virginia since their first beginning from England in the yeare of our Lord 1606, till this present 1612, with all their accidents that befell them in their Journies and Discoveries. Sleeping in his boat, (for the ship was returned 2 daies before,) accidentallie, one fired his powder bag, which tore his flesh from his bodie and thighes, 9. or 10. inches square in a most pittifull manner; but to quench the tormenting fire, frying him in his cloaths he leaped over bord into the deepe river, where ere they could recover him he was neere drownd. In this estat, without either Chirurgion, or chirurgery he was to go neare 100. miles.10 Ariving at James Towne causing all things to bee prepared for peace or warres to obtain provision, whilest those things were providing, Martin, Ratliffe, and Archer, being to have their trials, their guiltie consciences fearing a just reward for their deserts, seeing the President unable to stand, and neare bereft of his senses by reason of his torment, they had plotted to have murdered him in his bed. But his hart did faile him that should have given fire to that mercilesse pistol. So, not finding that course to be the best they joined togither to usurp the government, thereby to escape their punishment, and excuse themselves by accusing him. The President, had notice of their projects: the which to withstand, though his old souldiers importuned him but permit them to take of their heads that would resist his commaund, yet he would not permit them, But sent for the masters of the ships and tooke order with them for his returne for England. Seeing there was neither chirurgion, nor chirur- || gery in the fort to cure his hurt, and the ships to depart the next daie, his commission to be suppressed1 he knew not why, himselfe and souldiers to be rewarded he knew not how, and a new commission graunted they knew not to whom, the which so disabled that authority he had, as made them presume so oft to those mutinies and factions as they did. Besides so grievous were his wounds, and so cruell his torment, few expected he could live, nor was hee able to follow his businesse to regaine what they had lost, suppresse those factions and range the countries for provision as he intended, and well he knew in those affaires his owne actions and presence was as requisit as his experience, and directions, which now could not be; he went presently abord, resolving there to appoint them governours, and to take order2 for the mutiners and their confederates. http://www.virtualjamestown.org/exist/cocoon/jamestown/fha-js/SmiWorks1 |
Relevant Documents
- A True Relation by Captain John Smith, 1608 at Virtual Jamestown
- A Description of New England, 1616 (PDF)
- New England's Trials by Captain John Smith, 1620 (rare first edition, PDF)
- The Generall Historie of Virginia, New-England and the Summer Isles by Captain John Smith (PDF)
- The Complete Works of Captain John Smith at Virtual Jamestown
Return to Controversies page
(C) Kevin Miller 2018
Updated Aug. 8, 2022
Updated Aug. 8, 2022
