What ELSE happened to cause the firstThanksgiving?

[NYcarbineer]

Well, looks like the liberals have been completely unable to refute what was said in the OP. They've come up with nothing more than the usual insults, vague tossed-off one-line cracks, and changes of subject.

That's a pretty common pattern among liberals when they're unable to refute facts. And since the last election, it has become even more common.

Your denialism is not a refutation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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. Or that the dates are wrong, or some other "important" objection that tries hard to miss the real significance.

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/con....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.

You say getting rid of 'socialism' caused the first Thanksgiving?

The first Thanksgiving was in 1621. According to your own post, they changed the system in 1623.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

The truth is, the Pilgrims were not a communist experiment gone bad.

They were part of a capitalist venture from the start:

In at the beginnings of the system that we today know as capitalism, the Pilgrims were true economic pioneers. Their adventure was one of spirituality, of settlement, and of finance.

Most of the Pilgrims were not wealthy. They knew they would need a lot of money if their new colony in America were to be a success: money to rent a ship and crew, money for supplies for the voyage, money to support the colony until it could become economically self-sufficient. And so, the Pilgrims asked some London merchants to invest in the colony. After much negotiation, 70 merchants decided to form a joint stock company with the Pilgrims.

Because this was a risky venture, they were known as "merchant adventurers." We know that the merchant adventurers invested between £1200 and £1600 before the Mayflower sailed. We also know that the Pilgrims were dangerously short of supplies. Shares were issued, each worth £10. The merchant adventurers bought their shares. The adult colonists – who were, after all, putting life and livelihood on the line – were each given one share and given the option to purchase more shares.

For the first 7 years, everything remained in the "common stock," owned by all the shareholders. The common stock would furnish the Pilgrims with food, clothing and tools. At the end of the 7 years, the shareholders (Pilgrims and merchant adventurers alike) would divide equally the capital and profits (lands, houses and goods).

In the meantime, the Pilgrims planned to engage in businesses such as lumbering and fishing, sending wood and fish to England to be sold. In actuality, however, instead of sending back goods, the Pilgrims had to ask the merchant adventurers for even more money, again and again and again.

The Pilgrims’ debt became very large very quickly. The merchant adventurers were NOT happy and the Pilgrims agreed to buy them out. Beginning in 1628, the Pilgrims were to pay the merchants £200 a year until they had paid £1800. By that time, with the extra money invested in the struggling little colony, the debt may have been as high as £7000.

The merchants decided, however, that they would rather be sure of having some of their investment returned, instead of running the risk of losing it all. Three of the merchants (James Sherley, John Beauchamp and Richard Andrews) continued as partners with the Pilgrims as they struggled to pay off their debt. Although the money to be repaid was not nearly as much as they had borrowed, it was still a large amount of money for the Pilgrims.

One of the ways they found to make the money they needed to repay their debt was through the fur trade, particularly the trade in beaver fur.

And where were the best furs to be found? In Maine, where Native Americans had been hunting beaver for generations. By 1625, the Pilgrims had established a fur-trading business in Maine with a permanent trading base on the Kennebec. They then extended operations farther north, moving into the Penobscot area, territory already claimed by the French.

When the Pilgrims received their official boundaries as determined by the Warwick/Bradford Patent of 1629, a significant grant of land in Maine was included. This was as much "Plymouth Colony" as the town of Plymouth itself! The Pilgrims’ venture in fur trading was very successful during the 1630s. And, while it lasted, the fur trade was essential to the success of Plymouth Colony.


http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/pdf/The_Pilgrims_Fur_Trade.pdf

 

[Little-Acorn]

Thanks for confirming the truth of the OP: The Pilgrims tried to engage in an early version of socialism, and as a result didn't produce very much.

From your article:

For the first 7 years, everything remained in the "common stock," owned by all the shareholders. The common stock would furnish the Pilgrims with food, clothing and tools. At the end of the 7 years, the shareholders (Pilgrims and merchant adventurers alike) would divide equally the capital and profits (lands, houses and goods).In the meantime, the Pilgrims planned to engage in businesses such as lumbering and fishing, sending wood and fish to England to be sold. In actuality, however, instead of sending back goods, the Pilgrims had to ask the merchant adventurers for even more money, again and again and again.

The Pilgrims’ debt became very large very quickly.

As the OP described in detail:

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."

 

[Disir]

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

translation of Little Acorn: I do believe in fairies. I do. I do. I do believe in fairies. I do. I do.

 

[Ravi]

Damn. My stock in mcd's is socialism. Who knew?

The Puritans flopped, so sad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thanks for confirming the truth of the OP: The Pilgrims tried to engage in an early version of socialism, and as a result didn't produce very much.

From your article:

For the first 7 years, everything remained in the "common stock," owned by all the shareholders. The common stock would furnish the Pilgrims with food, clothing and tools. At the end of the 7 years, the shareholders (Pilgrims and merchant adventurers alike) would divide equally the capital and profits (lands, houses and goods).In the meantime, the Pilgrims planned to engage in businesses such as lumbering and fishing, sending wood and fish to England to be sold. In actuality, however, instead of sending back goods, the Pilgrims had to ask the merchant adventurers for even more money, again and again and again.

The Pilgrims’ debt became very large very quickly.

As the OP described in detail:

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."

lol, you should learn to read.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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."
."

I hate to break it to you, but what RWnuts call 'socialism' begins at a far lower level of communal living than that describes.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Puritans flopped, so sad.

For the first year, they certainly did. Nearly half of them perished.

That "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" stuff often has that effect when cold reality intrudes.

 

[Ravi]

The Puritans flopped, so sad.

For the first year, they certainly did. Nearly half of them perished.

That "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" stuff often has that effect when cold reality intrudes.

Not for just the first year. Forever.