So that is where I started my research. Columbus apparently kept fairly good records of the weather (as you would expect any good sea captain would do). On his first journey in 1492, he made no mention of any strong storms despite sailing through the most active hurricane region in the Atlantic during the peak of the season. That may be a good thing, as a hurricane that year could have changed the course of history immensely. On a subsequent journey in 1494, Columbus does describe a storm which may have been a tropical storm or hurricane, but by all accounts Columbus used the word tempest to describe it. Columbus’ fourth voyage in 1502 was one that likely did see a hurricane. A fleet of 26 ships was reduced to six after ferocious gales struck just two days east of Hispaniola. Still, though, there are no accounts of the word hurricane being used.
Decades later, the New World was settled permanently, first by the Spanish in Florida, then by the English farther north. Throughout the late 1500s and early 1600s, vague accounts of strong storms with winds from all directions dot historical references. Of particular interest (to me at least) is accounts of numerous strong storms along the North Carolina Coast in the 1580s. Some of us know that the colony of Roanoke was “lost” sometime between 1587 and 1590. There are several theories as to why this happened, but should a hurricane perhaps be included in those theories?
John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote impressive accounts of a “tempest” in 1635, detailing 14 foot tidal surges and hundreds of thousands of uprooted trees over a six hour period. The Reverend Increase Mather, a Puritan Minister, civic leader, and author, wrote an account of early natural and supernatural events in New England in 1684. In that work he writes “of no storm more dismal than the great hurricane which was in August 1635”. That appears to be the first literary reference of the word “hurricane” being used in what is now America.