The group historical blog Cliopatria and History News Network will soon post an online symposium on the question, "Why has the American national narrative characteristically taken New England/Puritans [first settlements 1620 and 1630] rather than Jamestown/Virginia/Anglicans [first settlement 1607] as its foundation touchstone?"
My first answer is simple: because the North won the Civil War. (Hey, nobody said it had to be a good reason!)
Here's another answer, from Paul Noonan in the comments:
"At Plymouth you have a family-based society of hard working humble folks who seek freedom to worship God in a way their society doesn't tolerate. They persevere in the face of great hardships.
"At Jamestown there are also great hardships, but there you also have an initially non-family based society (the original settlers were all men and for well over a decade the colony was a mostly male frontier society). Their religious sentiments were conventional; their motivations in coming to the New World had to do with economic opportunity (initially a delusional search for precious metals; later the growth of tobacco, an agricultural product with no nutritive value and - as we much later found out - actually deleterious to health). The early settlers were mostly 'gentlemen' who at one point had to be threatened with having their rations withheld in order to get them to do a decent day's work."
If you'd rather think before opining, Cliopatria has links to reading material. And if you prefer books to blogbytes, my fave on Virginia is Edmund S. Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia.





and otherwise. Recently updated blogs are in bold text.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20114
which includes this mordant apercu:
"[T]he first decade of Jamestown was a model of what not to do. Jamestown before 1616, and Virginia for half a century after, resembled a collection of undisciplined work gangs more than a colony. The population was almost exclusively male; there were few actual families; the population grew almost entirely by immigration. Most of the arrivals were male servants, bound for a term of years to whoever paid their passage, until they could grow tobacco on their own account and possibly import more bondservants for themselves. Life expectancy was probably lower than in other colonies and in England throughout the first century. The effect of these imbalances on developing institutions made Jamestown an anomalous society, before and after 1616. Why would anyone have held it up as a model?"
also consider that without new england there'd be no mythological "city on a hill"--and what kind of national swamp would we be in then?
new orleans!
A special bonus for those who read comments days late -- an aerial photograph of the original Jamestown site
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImage...
(h/t Alison)
If only we had a 400-year-old aerial photograph to go with it!