The True Meaning of Thanksgiving: The Birth of Private Enterprise in America

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty sloppy article. The problem with capitalism is it claims hard workers are rewarded while slackers are punished by virtue of being lazy. This is overly simplistic and active abhorrent ignorance. Communism and Socialism suck just as much but for different reasons. The winners write history and ebeling's fallacy is not realizing capitalism has given him the podium but it is not by good virtue, only power.

Ah, the ever-popular leftist "all or nothing" argument. ALL hard workers aren't ALWAYS rewarded, therefore the whole thing is false. Dumbasses.

 

[Dystopia]

We could certainly discuss injustices toward Native Americans, but that's not what this thread is about. This is about how private property rights led to abundance, whereas communal property led to scarcity, hunger, and death. You're trying to look at anything but what this article focuses on and say it wasn't private enterprise, when private property is the backbone of private enterprise.

It looks like Wal-Mart employees being sent on a boat with over half of the people that died the first year without the Mayflower ship coming home with anything of worth. As a private business it was a failure.

 

[Intense]

The First Thanksgiving Proclamation
June 20, 1676

"The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst of his judgements he hath remembered mercy, having remembered his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion, and regard; reserving many of our Towns from Desolation Threatened, and attempted by the Enemy, and giving us especially of late with many of our Confederates many signal Advantages against them, without such Disadvantage to ourselves as formerly we have been sensible of, if it be the Lord's mercy that we are not consumed, It certainly bespeaks our positive Thankfulness, when our Enemies are in any measure disappointed or destroyed; and fearing the Lord should take notice under so many Intimations of his returning mercy, we should be found an Insensible people, as not standing before Him with Thanksgiving, as well as lading him with our Complaints in the time of pressing Afflictions:

The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God's Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and soulds as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ."

The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents: The First Thanksgiving Proclamation

 

[Intense]

The Thanksgiving Proclamation
New York, 3 October 1789
«back | home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction | Transcription | Original* | Editorial Apparatus

Introduction
On 25 September 1789, Elias Boudinot of Burlington, New Jersey, introduced in the United States House of Representatives a resolution "That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness." The House was not unanimous in its determination to give thanks. Aedanus Burke of South Carolina objected that he "did not like this mimicking of European customs, where they made a mere mockery of thanksgivings." Thomas Tudor Tucker "thought the House had no business to interfere in a matter which did not concern them. Why should the President direct the people to do what, perhaps, they have no mind to do? They may not be inclined to return thanks for a Constitution until they have experienced that it promotes their safety and happiness. We do not yet know but they may have reason to be dissatisfied with the effects it has already produced; but whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress have nothing to do; it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us. If a day of thanksgiving must take place, let it be done by the authority of the several States." [1]

Citing biblical precedents and resolutions of the Continental Congress, the proponents of a Thanksgiving celebration prevailed, and the House appointed a committee consisting of Elias Boudinot, Roger Sherman, and Peter Silvester to approach President Washington. The Senate agreed to the resolution on 26 September and appointed William Samuel Johnson and Ralph Izard to the joint committee. On 28 September the Senate committee reported that they had laid the resolution before the president. [2] Washington issued the proclamation on 3 October, designating a day of prayer and thanksgiving.

Whatever reservations may have been held by some public officials, the day was widely celebrated throughout the nation. The Virginia assembly, for example, resolved on 19 November that the chaplain "to this House, be accordingly requested to perform divine service, and to preach a sermon in the Capitol, before the General Assembly, suitable to the importance and solemnity of the occasion, on the said 26th day of November." [3] Most newspapers printed the proclamation and announced plans for public functions in honor of the day. Many churches celebrated the occasions by soliciting donations for the poor. Washington's secretary, Tobias Lear, wrote to John Rodgers, pastor of the two Presbyterian churches in New York City, on 28 November, that "by direction of the President of the United States I have the pleasure to send you twenty five dollars to be applied towards relieving the poor of the Presbyterian Churches. A paragraph in the papers mentioned that a contribution would be made for that purpose on Thanksgiving day; as no opportunity offered of doing it at that time, and not knowing into whose hands the money should be lodged which might be given afterwards--The President of the United States has directed me to send it to you, requesting that you will be so good as to put it into the way of answering the charitable purpose for which it is intended." [4]

Washington enclosed the Thanksgiving Proclamation in his Circular to the Governors of the States, written at New York on 3 October 1789: "I do myself the honor to enclose to your Excellency a Proclamation for a general Thanksgiving which I must request the favor of you to have published and made known in your State in the way and manner that shall be most agreeable to yourself." [5]

The original document used here online is the Library of Congress copy (DS, DLC:GW) of the Thanksgiving Proclamation.

«back | home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes
The above is adapted from the annotation to Washington's Circular to the Governors of the States, 3 October 1789, printed in volume 4 of The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, W. W. Abbot, Dorothy Twohig, et al (University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville and London, 1993; Dorothy Twohig, volume editor), pp. 129-30.

1. Joseph Gales, Sr., compiler. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States; with an Appendix, Containing Important State Papers and Public Documents, and All the Laws of a Public Nature. (Annals of Congress.) 42 vols. Washington, D.C., 1834-1856, pp. 1:949-50.

2. Linda G. De Pauw et al., eds. Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America. 8 volumes to date. Baltimore, 1972--, pp. 1:192, 197; 3:232, 238.

3. Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Begun and Holden in the City of Richmond . . . on Monday, the Nineteenth Day of October, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-nine. Richmond, 1828, p. 70.

4. National Archives, Record Group 59, Miscellaneous Letters. Washington, D.C.

5. W. W. Abbot, Dorothy Twohig, et al, eds. The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series. Charlottesville, 1987--, pp. 4:129-32.

Papers of George Washington

 

[Cecilie1200]

We could certainly discuss injustices toward Native Americans, but that's not what this thread is about. This is about how private property rights led to abundance, whereas communal property led to scarcity, hunger, and death. You're trying to look at anything but what this article focuses on and say it wasn't private enterprise, when private property is the backbone of private enterprise.

It looks like Wal-Mart employees being sent on a boat with over half of the people that died the first year without the Mayflower ship coming home with anything of worth. As a private business it was a failure.

And you just keep outdoing yourself.

 

[Intense]

"This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

"He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future."

Here now, in its entirety, the William Bradford journal, what he wrote about the social experiment after abandoning what essentially was socialism shortly after the Pilgrims had arrived in the United States or in the new world: ......


The true story of Thanksgiving, a clear illustration of why socialism doesn't work.

 

[Dystopia]

Did you READ the article, Mensa Boy? Do you have any historical perspective at all? They were converted to free enterprise by a graphic and fatal demonstration of how frigging STUPID communism is. They did eventually begin trading with other countries, but initially, they only had the capacity to trade with each other, OBVIOUSLY. They were POOR, fool. They didn't have enough of value at that time to make it worth the sea voyages necessary to trade with other countries.

I'm amazed. I wouldn't have though you could sound any more moronic than your first post did, but I stand corrected.

After they landed in November, and the start of the winter, half the people that landed died of scurvy before the start of spring. When the Mayflower went back to England in the spring, they brought back nothing of any wealth for the investors. As an investor, you lost everything.

The argument that it was for property rights, was not the goal for the investors that was in London. In fact, the Plymouth Colony was a failure. The goal was to make a landing in Virginia not Massachusetts, and since the landing was in November there was nothing of any provisions made for a northern winter. There was a Plymouth Colony, but they were to be in Virginia and not Massachusetts, so they had to form an ad hock colony without a charter. Since the colony did not have an agreement with England, the Plymouth Colony was dissolved way before the American Revelation.

So the voyage of the Mayflower produced a failed political system to be replaced with a political system that just overlooked any land rights you so much willing to defend. It lasted until 1691 with the Plymouth Colony, after that any rights granted from the Plymouth Colony was null and void. Sorry …

 

[Intense]

Having to choose between trading Value for Value, or Surrendering everything to the State, I choose Trading Value for Value. Dollars V.S. Chains, Bullets, and Mass Graves ....... Give me a minute..... Talk about failed Logic.

 

[Ravi]

The first Thanksgiving was in 1619 so your silly Libertarian wet dream scenarios are an Epic Fail.

 

[Dystopia]

"He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh?

Could you do something for me? How would you colonies Antarctica with the same amount of people as the Mayflower ship of 1620. Second, how would you take care of the property with the size of Antarctica that has 5.4 million square miles with the population of the Mayflower ship of 1620? Tell me, does your theory hold water.

 

[Intense]

The first Thanksgiving was in 1619 so your silly Libertarian wet dream scenarios are an Epic Fail.

Here is a fun read on the distinctions of Coke and Pepsi. LOL Different brand names, no more in My opinion. Both shared in the Primary Role of bringing down Free Enterprise, or Capitalism.




Socialism and Communism grow apart
by Rit Nosotro

Comparative Essay or Change Over Time essay
How did Socialism and Communism grow apart when they were once used interchangably?

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



Thesis:

Summary: Although the terms socialism and communism were once used interchangeably, these systems have evolved over time to represent two completely different forms of government. Communist and socialist political parties are now bitter enemies in some parts of the world. Communism and socialism were both established to crush the uprising of capitalism in the 1800's. The founders of both forms of government believed that land, factories, and other economic resources should be government owned instead of privately owned. However, communists and socialists began to disagree on many points and they eventually evolved into completely separate ideologies.

One of the main reasons that communism and socialism are closely related is because Karl Marx, a German philosopher in the 1800's, played a large part in developing both forms of government. Marx was born in 1818 in what is now Prussia. In 1835 he attended the University of Bonn to study law, but later decided to study philosophy at the University of Berlin. There he developed radical philosophic ideas which opposed Prussian government. Although Marx's focus and interests changed dramatically throughout his forty years of writing, his basic ideas and philosophy remained constant. He believed that capitalism was an ineffective form of government in which wealth is not distributed fairly or properly. He believed that the working class would eventually overthrow the ruling class and that the working class would then set up a socialist form of government in which the government, not individuals, owned the means of production. Marx believed that this form of government would result in complete freedom with social and economic equality for all people. Marx wrote this philosophy in a short but profound pamphlet called the Communist Manifesto.

However, even though Marx's beliefs are now considered to be socialistic rather than communist, many people consider Marx the father of communism. Communism was developed from the writings of Marx and Vladimir Lenin, a Russian revolutionary leader during the early 1900's. Communism and socialism were very similar until a group of socialists called democratic socialists began to reject the principles of communism. The democratic socialists did not agree with the way the communists used violence and revolution to gain control. Communists began to aim more at government power, while socialists concentrated on fair distribution of products and equality for all classes. Communists thought that all means of production or any material necessary for life should be controlled by the government while socialists left some control in the private sector.

Today both forms of government embody unhealthy extremes. Socialists are now in favor of free education, welfare, and laws to help those who they believe are unable to help themselves. They do not necessarily believe that people should have to work to eat (as instructed in 2 Thess. 3:10), and they want the government to be in charge of the distribution of wealth. While there is a socialist party in almost every country today, nowhere is there a completely socialistic government. This is because socialism is unrealistic and almost impossible to achieve. Socialists try to eliminate certain human attributes such as greed by ending class struggle, and competition for success. Because of the way God made us, it is virtually impossible to have a civilization where people have no control over what they have but are content to let the government hand them what is considered to be fair. Ever since President FD Roosevelt's "New Deal", we see evidence of the United States moving toward a socialistic framework through the focus on free health insurance, minorities, welfare, and political correctness.

In contrast, communism has dominated many countries during the last century. The former Soviet Union was dominated by communism and was a world power until the Cold War ended in 1991 and communism fell causing the Soviet Union to break into the fifteen separate countries as they exist today. As of 2004, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea are under communist rule. Communism today in these countries goes far beyond the equal distribution of wealth. It prevents citizens from having their own religious and moral convictions, and it employs violence to enforce the government's mandates.

Both socialism and communism as they exist today have proved to be ineffective forms of government. Socialists try to achieve for society something that is impossible because of human nature: a utopian society where wealth is not attained by hard work but distributed equally by the government. Communism today is completely different from what it was established to accomplish. Instead of the government working for the good of the people, dictatorships have established fear in their subjects and allowed no personal freedom of thought or actions. These two forms of government are just a few examples of the inadequacy of humans to govern by their own principles. Any form of government that is not based on God's word will not succeed for any length of time. So the struggle for a balanced, well-governed society continues into the twenty-first century.

Socialism and Communism grow apart

 

[Paulie]

The first Thanksgiving was in 1619 so your silly Libertarian wet dream scenarios are an Epic Fail.

Rav, that was the Berkeley Plantation where the colonists dropped and gave thanks to God for a safe arrival. I don't think there's anything written about a dinner during that event.

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Dystopia]

[
The first Thanksgiving dinner wasn't business, numbfuck. It was a PARTY. Celebration. Look it up, and then get someone with some brain cells to proofread your posts before you waste our time with your ignorant drivel.

See you like to represent yourself as a cat. In that case, I hope your master has taken you to the vet to have you fixed. If I was your master, I would go to the cheaper version and taken you to the pig farmer because they castrate their own pigs. Just cut it open, cut out the nuts and feel them to the other pigs. Now that is free eneterpise!

Come, let me take you to the pig farmer!!

 

[Charles Stucker]

Could you do something for me? How would you colonies Antarctica with the same amount of people as the Mayflower ship of 1620. Second, how would you take care of the property with the size of Antarctica that has 5.4 million square miles with the population of the Mayflower ship of 1620? Tell me, does your theory hold water.

Another poster was amazed at the increasing stupidity of your posts. Perhaps you could have saved time and started with this gem.
The Mayflower was a speculative venture as all transcontinental shipping in that period.
The Mayflower failed to yield a return for its investors. FYI - A failed investment is part of capitalism.

The colony was a different matter. They began as a common field association. That common use failed. It was replaced with individual plots of land for individuals to cultivate. Individual use gave far higher crop yields for the society.

Antarctica is a preposterous example as you should know. If you don't then feel free to PM me in order to be added to my ignore list.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[
The first Thanksgiving dinner wasn't business, numbfuck. It was a PARTY. Celebration. Look it up, and then get someone with some brain cells to proofread your posts before you waste our time with your ignorant drivel.

See you like to represent yourself as a cat. In that case, I hope your master has taken you to the vet to have you fixed. If I was your master, I would go to the cheaper version and taken you to the pig farmer because they castrate their own pigs. Just cut it open, cut out the nuts and feel them to the other pigs. Now that is free eneterpise!

Come, let me take you to the pig farmer!!

Let me guess. You went looking for someone with brain cells to proofread your bullshit posts, and not a single person in your family qualified.

FLUSH!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's a shame that so many people have no idea what private enterprise is. I mean do you honestly think under a system of private enterprise friends and family wouldn't share a meal together without paying each other? Utterly ridiculous.

 

[Ravi]

The first Thanksgiving was in 1619 so your silly Libertarian wet dream scenarios are an Epic Fail.

Rav, that was the Berkeley Plantation where the colonists dropped and gave thanks to God for a safe arrival. I don't think there's anything written about a dinner during that event.

Maybe I'm wrong.

What would it matter if they had a dinner or not?

 

[Dystopia]

Could you do something for me? How would you colonies Antarctica with the same amount of people as the Mayflower ship of 1620. Second, how would you take care of the property with the size of Antarctica that has 5.4 million square miles with the population of the Mayflower ship of 1620? Tell me, does your theory hold water.

Another poster was amazed at the increasing stupidity of your posts. Perhaps you could have saved time and started with this gem.
The Mayflower was a speculative venture as all transcontinental shipping in that period.
The Mayflower failed to yield a return for its investors. FYI - A failed investment is part of capitalism.

The colony was a different matter. They began as a common field association. That common use failed. It was replaced with individual plots of land for individuals to cultivate. Individual use gave far higher crop yields for the society.

Antarctica is a preposterous example as you should know. If you don't then feel free to PM me in order to be added to my ignore list.

It is shocking that so many people use CAPITALISM and COMMUNISM predating their organizational accepted theory. During 1620, was before the birth of John Adams and Karl Marx. During the Mayflower crossing of 1620, they were religious refugees that nobody in Europe cared about. England could not tolerate them, and they could not tolerate being in the Netherlands.

People talk about property and making money with the Mayflower crossing during this tread. Fine, but the real people that made money from this Mayflower crossing and the settlement of the Plymouth Colony were in England and mainland Europe. In fact, half the people that made the crossing to the Plymouth Colony half of that population was dead within just a single year.

If you really want a modern idea of the people that came to the new world in 1620 in modern terms, think of the human cargo of illegal aliens that come to America with a mortality rate equal or greater than the crossing of 1620 and the winter of 1621. The only people that made money with the crossing of 1620, was the owners of the Mayflower, the Captain and crew of the Mayflower.

With as much as I understand, only 102 people were settlers of the Plymouth Colony of 1620. Half died within the first year. Within time their culture was assimilated into the established culture of government and their religion that was organized by Richard Clyfton (died 1616) expired without a unified replacement.

You can talk about their property rights, you can talk about the Mayflower Compact. The fact is, as a culture and a religion, they are just a footnote in history.

 

[Charles Stucker]

When the Mayflower went back to England in the spring, they brought back nothing of any wealth for the investors. As an investor, you lost everything.

In fact, the Plymouth Colony was a failure.

So in one post, you claim the venture was a financial failure, while in a later post you claim it was a success.
I suppose you have managed to avoid obscenity, so I won't put you on ignore, but I would recommend consistence in your posting.

 

[Charles Stucker]

People talk about property and making money with the Mayflower crossing during this tread. Fine, but the real people that made money from this Mayflower crossing and the settlement of the Plymouth Colony were in England and mainland Europe..

So in this post the venture was a financial success for the backers.
Do you see the reverse?