Thanksgiving: The rest of the story

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
The Indians helped the Pilgrims, for which they gave thanks. That is true... but it's not the only thing that happened.

After a very bad start, the Pilgrims also helped themselves... by realizing that their form of government was destroying the colony. And they got rid of it, just in time.

We'll have the usual bevy of liberal socialists insisting that since what the Pilgrims did at first, didn't meet 100% of the dictionary definition of "socialism" (it only achieved 90% ), they don't want us to call it that.

But the fact is, what these liberals are pushing today, has never worked... including the first time it was tried on this continent in 1623. Then, as now, it caused only division, discontent, starvation, and death. Not until they got rid of it, did prosperity begin.

-------------------------------------------

http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/545415.html?nav=5071

Thanksgiving: Deliverance From Socialism

November 21, 2009
By Daniel McLaughlin

In the fall of the year 1623, William Bradford and the pilgrims who resided in Plymouth Plantation sat down for a thanksgiving feast. It was a celebration of a plentiful harvest. It hadn't been so in the preceding couple of years.

They had arrived in the new world in 1620. After the death of John Carver, the first governor of the colony, in April of 1621, Mr. Bradford was chosen as the second governor. From the start of their journey from England, he had kept a diary of their activities. They had early on decided on communal living and agreed to work all together for a common store of provisions and share equally in its use. He wrote that this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent. It retarded employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. "For the young men that were most able and fit for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to worke for other men's wives and children, with out any recompence." The strong and productive didn't get any more food or provisions than the unproductive, and that was thought injustice. The older and weaker thought it indignity and disrespect to them to have to do the same amount of work as the younger and stronger. He wrote, "for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it."

In other words, people produced less and were discontented when they were forced to work for the benefit of others, at the expense of their own well-being. Plymouth Colony had a first hand taste of the effects of socialism on a community. As Bradford described it, few crops were planted or harvested. For a couple of years, the people languished in misery, and many died.

In 1923, they decided to try something different to get a better crop and raise themselves up. The solution was to give each family its own plot of land, and to hold them responsible for their own welfare. The idea was that, if each family was allowed to prosper according to its own efforts, each person would have the incentive to work harder to plant and harvest more. Again in the words of Governor Bradford: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

William Bradford and the colonists had made a profound discovery. They had, in effect, conducted a controlled experiment in political organization. In everything other than property rights and personal responsibility, they continued as before. Under socialism, or communal living, or the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," the community languished. There was little incentive to produce more than the average. Thus the average declined and starvation and deprivation resulted.

Under conditions of private property, where families trusted in their own abilities, and "every man to his own particular," the people began to prosper. Bradford wrote in his journal several decades later that from that time on, they never suffered from deprivation, but rather the community improved and flourished.

That experiment has been conducted many times over the course of centuries, and indeed the whole of human history. The results are always ultimately the same. Where people are free to enjoy the benefits of their own labors and property, there is progress and plenty. Where property is subject to arbitrary confiscation, there is no incentive to produce. There is no incentive to try to accumulate wealth against unforeseen hardships of the future, and there is dependence, degradation and, ultimately, slavery.

This Thanksgiving season is a good time for reflection. Americans are traveling down a road toward the first Plymouth, the collectivism that leads to misery. As for me, I think we should be turning back toward the second Plymouth, toward personal responsibility and the resulting prosperity. Then we can join Governor Bradford in Thanksgiving for deliverance from the catastrophe called socialism.
 
1836654.jpg
 
The Indians helped the Pilgrims, for which they gave thanks. That is true... but it's not the only thing that happened.

After a very bad start, the Pilgrims also helped themselves... by realizing that their form of government was destroying the colony. And they got rid of it, just in time.

We'll have the usual bevy of liberal socialists insisting that since what the Pilgrims did at first, didn't meet 100% of the dictionary definition of "socialism" (it only achieved 90% ), they don't want us to call it that.

But the fact is, what these liberals are pushing today, has never worked... including the first time it was tried on this continent in 1623. Then, as now, it caused only division, discontent, starvation, and death. Not until they got rid of it, did prosperity begin.

-------------------------------------------

http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/545415.html?nav=5071

Thanksgiving: Deliverance From Socialism

November 21, 2009
By Daniel McLaughlin

In the fall of the year 1623, William Bradford and the pilgrims who resided in Plymouth Plantation sat down for a thanksgiving feast. It was a celebration of a plentiful harvest. It hadn't been so in the preceding couple of years.

They had arrived in the new world in 1620. After the death of John Carver, the first governor of the colony, in April of 1621, Mr. Bradford was chosen as the second governor. From the start of their journey from England, he had kept a diary of their activities. They had early on decided on communal living and agreed to work all together for a common store of provisions and share equally in its use. He wrote that this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent. It retarded employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. "For the young men that were most able and fit for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to worke for other men's wives and children, with out any recompence." The strong and productive didn't get any more food or provisions than the unproductive, and that was thought injustice. The older and weaker thought it indignity and disrespect to them to have to do the same amount of work as the younger and stronger. He wrote, "for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it."

In other words, people produced less and were discontented when they were forced to work for the benefit of others, at the expense of their own well-being. Plymouth Colony had a first hand taste of the effects of socialism on a community. As Bradford described it, few crops were planted or harvested. For a couple of years, the people languished in misery, and many died.

In 1923, they decided to try something different to get a better crop and raise themselves up. The solution was to give each family its own plot of land, and to hold them responsible for their own welfare. The idea was that, if each family was allowed to prosper according to its own efforts, each person would have the incentive to work harder to plant and harvest more. Again in the words of Governor Bradford: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

William Bradford and the colonists had made a profound discovery. They had, in effect, conducted a controlled experiment in political organization. In everything other than property rights and personal responsibility, they continued as before. Under socialism, or communal living, or the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," the community languished. There was little incentive to produce more than the average. Thus the average declined and starvation and deprivation resulted.

Under conditions of private property, where families trusted in their own abilities, and "every man to his own particular," the people began to prosper. Bradford wrote in his journal several decades later that from that time on, they never suffered from deprivation, but rather the community improved and flourished.

That experiment has been conducted many times over the course of centuries, and indeed the whole of human history. The results are always ultimately the same. Where people are free to enjoy the benefits of their own labors and property, there is progress and plenty. Where property is subject to arbitrary confiscation, there is no incentive to produce. There is no incentive to try to accumulate wealth against unforeseen hardships of the future, and there is dependence, degradation and, ultimately, slavery.

This Thanksgiving season is a good time for reflection. Americans are traveling down a road toward the first Plymouth, the collectivism that leads to misery. As for me, I think we should be turning back toward the second Plymouth, toward personal responsibility and the resulting prosperity. Then we can join Governor Bradford in Thanksgiving for deliverance from the catastrophe called socialism.

The Indians that saved the Pilgrims lived in a communal society.
 
The Indians helped the Pilgrims, for which they gave thanks. That is true... but it's not the only thing that happened.

After a very bad start, the Pilgrims also helped themselves... by realizing that their form of government was destroying the colony. And they got rid of it, just in time.

We'll have the usual bevy of liberal socialists insisting that since what the Pilgrims did at first, didn't meet 100% of the dictionary definition of "socialism" (it only achieved 90% ), they don't want us to call it that.

But the fact is, what these liberals are pushing today, has never worked... including the first time it was tried on this continent in 1623. Then, as now, it caused only division, discontent, starvation, and death. Not until they got rid of it, did prosperity begin.

-------------------------------------------

http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/545415.html?nav=5071

Thanksgiving: Deliverance From Socialism

November 21, 2009
By Daniel McLaughlin

In the fall of the year 1623, William Bradford and the pilgrims who resided in Plymouth Plantation sat down for a thanksgiving feast. It was a celebration of a plentiful harvest. It hadn't been so in the preceding couple of years.

They had arrived in the new world in 1620. After the death of John Carver, the first governor of the colony, in April of 1621, Mr. Bradford was chosen as the second governor. From the start of their journey from England, he had kept a diary of their activities. They had early on decided on communal living and agreed to work all together for a common store of provisions and share equally in its use. He wrote that this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent. It retarded employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. "For the young men that were most able and fit for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to worke for other men's wives and children, with out any recompence." The strong and productive didn't get any more food or provisions than the unproductive, and that was thought injustice. The older and weaker thought it indignity and disrespect to them to have to do the same amount of work as the younger and stronger. He wrote, "for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it."

In other words, people produced less and were discontented when they were forced to work for the benefit of others, at the expense of their own well-being. Plymouth Colony had a first hand taste of the effects of socialism on a community. As Bradford described it, few crops were planted or harvested. For a couple of years, the people languished in misery, and many died.

In 1923, they decided to try something different to get a better crop and raise themselves up. The solution was to give each family its own plot of land, and to hold them responsible for their own welfare. The idea was that, if each family was allowed to prosper according to its own efforts, each person would have the incentive to work harder to plant and harvest more. Again in the words of Governor Bradford: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

William Bradford and the colonists had made a profound discovery. They had, in effect, conducted a controlled experiment in political organization. In everything other than property rights and personal responsibility, they continued as before. Under socialism, or communal living, or the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," the community languished. There was little incentive to produce more than the average. Thus the average declined and starvation and deprivation resulted.

Under conditions of private property, where families trusted in their own abilities, and "every man to his own particular," the people began to prosper. Bradford wrote in his journal several decades later that from that time on, they never suffered from deprivation, but rather the community improved and flourished.

That experiment has been conducted many times over the course of centuries, and indeed the whole of human history. The results are always ultimately the same. Where people are free to enjoy the benefits of their own labors and property, there is progress and plenty. Where property is subject to arbitrary confiscation, there is no incentive to produce. There is no incentive to try to accumulate wealth against unforeseen hardships of the future, and there is dependence, degradation and, ultimately, slavery.

This Thanksgiving season is a good time for reflection. Americans are traveling down a road toward the first Plymouth, the collectivism that leads to misery. As for me, I think we should be turning back toward the second Plymouth, toward personal responsibility and the resulting prosperity. Then we can join Governor Bradford in Thanksgiving for deliverance from the catastrophe called socialism.

The Indians that saved the Pilgrims lived in a communal society.

Yeah...and those MFs were successful as a mofo.
 
On his father’s death, Bradford received an inheritance, which he later converted into money in 1611.

With this funding he was able to establish himself as a marginally successful businessman. In 1620, financing was secured through a group of English investors, and plans were made to migrate to the new world (McGiffert 362). Three groups participated in the agreement for the financing of the excursion to the new world. The London adventurers provided the majority of the funding for the trip, while the planters and the adventurer planters possessed either one or two shares in the investment by either purchase or labor. Though the London adventurers provided much of the funding, and would hold the other two parties in servitude to repay the debt, they held no civil governing authority over the planters (Magill 75).

Having found some freedom to worship in their own way in Holland, the separatists still did not have an easy life there. They longed for a place where they could not only worship as they chose, but also flourish and prosper as a unified society. Despite the advantages afforded them in Leiden, the Pilgrims wished to avoid the threat of war with Spain, and also desired to find what they considered to be the “pastoral ‘Promised Land’” (Magill 77). The aforementioned patent, which had been obtained, was for a “particular plantation” in southern Virginia. Having little in the way of money themselves, Bradford and the rest of the Puritans were forced to enter into an agreement of servitude with the English investors providing the patent. The goal was to establish a trading post and fishing settlement near the mouth of the Hudson River, through which the settlers could repay their debts to the investors over the course of the following seven years (Morison 55).
William Bradford, The Puritan Ethic, & The Mayflower Compact

Financing & Building the Colony

"I make no question now but that New Plymouth will quickly return your money again. For the most part they are honest and careful men. However, they have had many crosses."

- Emmanuel Altham, 1624

The Mayflower passengers went heavily into debt to come to America, borrowing from a group of English "merchant adventurers." Merchants and passengers together formed a stock company, which held all money, livestock and land. Assets were to be divided after seven years.

The Pilgrims were unlucky in their moneymaking efforts. Ships were lost at sea or captured by pirates. The Pilgrims had to ask for even more money for supplies.

The debt, which quickly became much larger, was renegotiated in 1626. Eight colonists, with four London associates, undertook to repay an agreed portion; these "undertakers" shared the debt with 45 Plymouth householders.

"Therefore they resolved, for sundrie reasons, to take in all amongst them, that were either heads of families, or single yonge men, that were of abillity, and free, (and able to governe them selvs with meete descretion, and their affairs, so as to be helpful in ye comone-welth,) into this partnership or purchass. First, yey considered that they had need of men & strength both for defence and carrying on of bussinesses. 2ly, most of them had borne ther parts in former miseries & wants with them, and therfore (in some sort) but equall to partake in a better condition, if ye Lord be pleased to give it. But cheefly they saw not how peace would be preserved without so doing, but danger & great disturbance might grow to their great hurte & prejudice other wise. Yet they resolved to keep such a mean in distribution of lands, and other courses, as should not hinder their growth in others coming to them.
"So they caled ye company togeather, and conferred with them, and came to this conclusion, that ye trade should be managed as before, to help to pay the debts; and all such persons as were above named should be reputed and inrouled for purchasers; single free men to have a single share, and every father of a familie to be alowed to purchass so many shares as he had persons in his family; that is to say, one for him selfe, and one for his wife, and for every child that he had living with him, one. As for servants, they had none, but what either their maisters should give them out of theirs, or their deservings should obtaine from ye company afterwards. Thus all were to be cast into single shares according to the order abovesaid; and so every one was to pay his part according to his proportion towards ye purchass, & all other debts, what ye profite of ye trade would not reach too; viz. a single man for a single share, a maister of a famalie for so many as he had. This gave all good contente."

- William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation

Plymouth Colony was not a success for the investors. The colonists eventually repaid 1800 pounds; the total invested may have been as high as 7000 pounds.

In order to pay off their debts, the Plymouth colonists grew corn and traded it to Natives in Maine for furs. The furs were shipped to England and sold at auction to hatters. The hatters shaved the wool off the pelt and then felted the wool to produce fashionable and expensive hats such as this. High-crowned hats, usually with decorative bands, were very popular in Western Europe for both men and women.

The Pilgrims' primary trading partner was England. They did not, however, do business with England exclusively. In 1627, Dutch colonists from New Amsterdam first visited the Pilgrims to arrange trade relations.

Pilgrim Hall Museum - About the Pilgrims - Financing & Building the Colony

The Plymouth colonists also traded with other English colonies. In 1630. a thousand Puritans came from England to the Massachusetts Bay Colony north of Plymouth and founded Boston. People from Plymouth Colony traded with the new arrivals, who needed cattle and finished goods.
Through the Mayflower Compact, a government through consensus was formed. Leaders were to be chosen by the majority, and the body politic was to submit to rule by them (Palmer 276). The Pilgrims founded what would essentially be considered to be a Democratic government, ruled by officials elected by majority consensus. Magill asserts that, “the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth in 1620 would have been appalled at the thought of being called democrats.” They did, however, lay the foundation for the future democratic government that would be put in place for the United States in the following century (Magill 76). The Compact was finally put into application following the election of the colony’s first governor, John Carver (Palmer 276). After Carver’s death the following April,

William Bradford, The Puritan Ethic, & The Mayflower Compact

The 1630 Bradford Patent
The Pilgrims had a contract with the company of merchant adventurers: all land and profits accrued to the company for 7 years, at which time the assets would be divided among the shareholders. Most of the Pilgrims held stock.

In 1626, the Pilgrims negotiated a more favorable contract. 53 Plymouth freemen, known as "The Purchasers," agreed to buy out the company over a period of years. In turn, 12 "Undertakers" (8 from Plymouth and 4 from London) agreed to pay off Plymouth’s debts in return for trade benefits.

Renegotiating the contract necessitated a new patent. The Council for New England granted the "Bradford Patent" jointly to Bradford and his associates, The Purchasers, in 1630.

The text of the 1630 Bradford Patent begins:
To all to whom these present shall come greetinge: - Whereas our late sovereigne lord King James for the advancemente of a colonie and plantacon in the cuntry called or knowne by the name of New-Englande in America, by his highnes letters pattents under the greate seale of Englande bearinge date att Westminster the third day of November in the eighteenth yeare of his highnes raigne of England &c. did give graunte and confirme unto the right honorble Lodowicke late lord duek of Lenox, George late lord marques of Buckingham, James Marques Hamilton, Thomas earle of Arundell, Robert earle of Warwicke and Ferdinando Gorges, knight, and divers others whose names are expressed in the said letters pattents and their successors that they should bee one bodie pollitique and corporate perpetually consistinge of forty persons, and that they should have perpetuall succession and one common seale to serve for the said body and that they and their successors should be incorporated called and knowne by the name of the Councell established at Plymouth in the county of Devon for the plantinge ruelinge orderinge and governinge of New Englande in America, and alsoe of his spetiall grace certaine knowledge and meere motion did give graunte and confirme unto the said presidente and councell and their successors forever under the reservations limitations and declaracons in the said letters pattents expressed, all that part and portion of the said cuntry now called New-England in America scituate, lyinge and beinge in breadth from ffourty degrees of northerly latitude from the aquinoctiall line to ffourty eight degrees of the said northerly latitude inclusively, and in length of and in all the breadth aforesaide throughout the maine lande from sea to sea, together alsoe with all the firme landes soyles grounds creeks inletts havens portes seas rivers islands waters fishinges mynes and mineralls...

In witness whereof, the said councell established att Plimouth in the county of Devon for the plantinge ruleinge orderinge and governinge of New England in America have hereunto putt their seale the thirteenth day of January in fifte yeare of the raigne of our Soveraigne Lord Charles by the grace of God, Kinge of Englande Scotland Fraunce and Ireland defender of the ffaithe &c Anno Domi 1629.
[signed] R. WARWICKE

Pilgrim Hall Museum - Collections - Patents

Edward Winslow,
Mourt's Relation:
"our harvest being gotten in, our governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labours ; they foure in one
day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoyt, with some ninetie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine and others. And although it be not always so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God,we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie."
 
Another year has yet passed, and this bullshit is repeated...Saints be praised...
i heard that in some schools, the kids in grades 1-6 are being taught that the white male pilgrims were all racist white crackers and once they settled into plymouth mass in 1620/21, they started making black people pick cotton and hunt down/capture turkeys.
 
Last edited:
Another year has yet passed, and this bullshit is repeated...Saints be praised...

The only ingredient missing is the one jack ass that insists the Pilgrims came straight to this land to escape religious persecution.

It isn't Thanksgiving until someone say that.
 
thank god for President Trump, can you imagine if it was Hillary? then she would order that all history books with the pilgrim story be burned, while Elizabeth Warren writes the true story of why those racist pilgrims came to america
 
Why did we settle America?

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together in a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620."
 
This has always our purpose. Jamestown included (which i highly recomend visiting). The Virginia Charter stated well the reasons for settling America...
Of course a little profit along the way was always welcomed...:)

"We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion 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 Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government: DO, by these our Letters Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intended Desires;" Virginia Charter 1606
 
Every year you tell the exact same lies.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute a single thing you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll scream "LIES!!" without specifying what statements are supposedly wrong, and hope to fool people into thinking I have some point.
 

Forum List

Back
Top