What were the Pilgrims most thankful for, on that first Thanksgiving?

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% :cuckoo:), 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/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.
 
Every single example of collectivist endeavors have failed. In whatever degree they're attempted, they have never resulted in the sort of prosperity created when people are free to earn as little as they need, or as much as they want.

Some people don't mind living a minimalist lifestyle and that is just fine with me. It's their choice.

Some people are ambitious as can be and want the greatest standard of living that can be bought. It's those people who are the pistons in the free market economic engine and the regressive agenda to retard their efforts is not only ludicrous, it's totally immoral.

I'm not talking about sociopaths either, like democrooks who promote MMGW scams to get rich selling carbon credits to bed wetters.

I'm talking about people who innovate and market ideas and services that not only enrich them, but improve the standard of living for the rest of society. Libtards do nothing but reduce the quality of life for other people.


 
I am sure not getting scalped ran through a few of their minds..
 
I don't know if they were socialist but it is definitely true that when people are free to act in their own economic interest that the economy as a whole improves. I think it is a wonderful idea that any person is free to pursue whatever means they want at whatever level they want. Some people like to have a good job, business, lottery winner, education, or not work at all. Its great we are free to decide how we are going to live.
 
plenty of beer and the kids go back to school monday morning. that's what i'm thankful for. and of course, living in America. :)

images
images
images
images


Did the Pilgrims land on Plymouth Rock because they ran out of beer?
November 25, 2005
Dear Cecil:

Is it true the Mayflower landed at Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620 because the ship ran out of beer? I have been told that barrels of beer were the most voluminous and important item in the hold because water couldn't stay drinkable on a ship for that long.

— James C., Massachusetts

Cecil replies:

You heard right, more or less: The Mayflower colonists decided to settle at Plymouth because they were running low on beer. In an age when so many have lost their moral compass, it's comforting to know that people in the old days had their priorities straight.

Pretty much everything you think you know about the Pilgrims is wrong (including their being called Pilgrims — that term didn't catch on until centuries later), so it's not surprising the beer angle slipped under the radar. Here's the story, assembled with the help of my doughty research assistant Bibliophage:

On November 9, 1620 [November 19 by modern reckoning], after 64 days at sea, the Mayflower sighted Cape Cod. You may inquire: What sort of idiot would sail across the north Atlantic at the height of storm season? The voyagers probably asked themselves the same question. They'd initially left Southampton, England, in August, but one of their two ships, the Speedwell, sprang a leak. Repair attempts failed, and by the time the travelers had consolidated themselves on the Mayflower, a month had passed. Then they spent an extra couple weeks under sail due to bad weather, arriving just in time for winter. That was problem one.

Problem two was that Cape Cod was not where the colonists were supposed to be. Their patent from the Virginia Company of London authorized them to establish a plantation between 38 and 41 degrees north latitude; the tip of Cape Cod was just north of 42 degrees. The group dutifully attempted to sail south, but shoals and contrary winds kiboshed that idea. Some now spoke of splitting up. Contrary to what we imagine, the colonists weren't united by religion. Of the 102 passengers, around 40 were Separatists (i.e., separated from the Church of England), a like number were regular folks recruited by the London merchants who underwrote the expedition, and the balance were hired men, servants, and so on. Finding themselves at odds in a legal no-man's-land, the colonists drafted the Mayflower Compact. The 41 who signed it on November 11 included no women but were otherwise pretty cool, consisting of Seps and non-Seps, masters and servants, all bound by the realization that has animated every republic since: If we don't stick together we're wolf chow.

The question remained exactly where the colonists should set up shop. Looking at the map now, you'd think a little bird would have twittered:Boston! You can found Boston! Apparently not. The choice came down to someplace called Anguum (probably near the present town of Ipswich), or else what the ship's navigator called "Thievish Harbor," in the direction of what's now known as Plymouth Bay. The latter being closer, the colonists headed there and found the location promising, in part because the land had been cleared earlier by Native American farmers who then conveniently died due to European-borne pestilence. The voyagers weren't disposed to be fussy: "We could not now take time for further search or consideration, our victuals being much spent, especially our beer, and it being now the 19th of December" (Mourt's Relation, 1622, commonly attributed to colonists William Bradford and Edward Winslow). Plymouth it was.

Beer was a dietary mainstay in those days. Chances are the beverage in question was "ship's beer," a not-very-alcoholic concoction that, along with the even weaker "small beer," was drunk in formidable quantities during the colonial era (upwards of a quart per day seems to have been a typical ration). Undoubtedly an advantage was that, unlike more perishable foodstuffs, ship's beer would keep during long voyages and, having been boiled, was likely purer than ordinary water.

The colonists used up their beer by Christmas. At first the ship's captain gave them a little out of the crew's supply, but when sickness, possibly scurvy, began felling the travelers (about half died that first winter), things got ugly. "As this calamity fell among the passengers that were to be left here to plant, and were hasted ashore and made to drink water that the seamen might have the more beer, and one in his sickness desiring but a small can of beer, it was answered that if he were their own father he should have none" (Bradford,History of Plymouth Plantation, circa 1650). The captain relented when his own men began getting sick too, evidently not wanting it to be known to history that, in addition to being late, lost, etc, he was the SOB who hogged the beer.

— Cecil Adams
 
Last edited:
Stringent gun registration regulations?

The Indians accepted their green cards?

Bach released his ninth album?
 
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% :cuckoo:), 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/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.


To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism

Of course, Mr Bradford has been reversed by FDR, The Keynesians , and soon, very very soon, Comrade Bernard Sanders.


.
 
plenty of beer and the kids go back to school monday morning. that's what i'm thankful for. and of course, living in America. :)

images
images
images
images


Did the Pilgrims land on Plymouth Rock because they ran out of beer?
November 25, 2005
Dear Cecil:

Is it true the Mayflower landed at Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620 because the ship ran out of beer? I have been told that barrels of beer were the most voluminous and important item in the hold because water couldn't stay drinkable on a ship for that long.

— James C., Massachusetts

Cecil replies:

You heard right, more or less: The Mayflower colonists decided to settle at Plymouth because they were running low on beer. In an age when so many have lost their moral compass, it's comforting to know that people in the old days had their priorities straight.

Pretty much everything you think you know about the Pilgrims is wrong (including their being called Pilgrims — that term didn't catch on until centuries later), so it's not surprising the beer angle slipped under the radar. Here's the story, assembled with the help of my doughty research assistant Bibliophage:

On November 9, 1620 [November 19 by modern reckoning], after 64 days at sea, the Mayflower sighted Cape Cod. You may inquire: What sort of idiot would sail across the north Atlantic at the height of storm season? The voyagers probably asked themselves the same question. They'd initially left Southampton, England, in August, but one of their two ships, the Speedwell, sprang a leak. Repair attempts failed, and by the time the travelers had consolidated themselves on the Mayflower, a month had passed. Then they spent an extra couple weeks under sail due to bad weather, arriving just in time for winter. That was problem one.

Problem two was that Cape Cod was not where the colonists were supposed to be. Their patent from the Virginia Company of London authorized them to establish a plantation between 38 and 41 degrees north latitude; the tip of Cape Cod was just north of 42 degrees. The group dutifully attempted to sail south, but shoals and contrary winds kiboshed that idea. Some now spoke of splitting up. Contrary to what we imagine, the colonists weren't united by religion. Of the 102 passengers, around 40 were Separatists (i.e., separated from the Church of England), a like number were regular folks recruited by the London merchants who underwrote the expedition, and the balance were hired men, servants, and so on. Finding themselves at odds in a legal no-man's-land, the colonists drafted the Mayflower Compact. The 41 who signed it on November 11 included no women but were otherwise pretty cool, consisting of Seps and non-Seps, masters and servants, all bound by the realization that has animated every republic since: If we don't stick together we're wolf chow.

The question remained exactly where the colonists should set up shop. Looking at the map now, you'd think a little bird would have twittered:Boston! You can found Boston! Apparently not. The choice came down to someplace called Anguum (probably near the present town of Ipswich), or else what the ship's navigator called "Thievish Harbor," in the direction of what's now known as Plymouth Bay. The latter being closer, the colonists headed there and found the location promising, in part because the land had been cleared earlier by Native American farmers who then conveniently died due to European-borne pestilence. The voyagers weren't disposed to be fussy: "We could not now take time for further search or consideration, our victuals being much spent, especially our beer, and it being now the 19th of December" (Mourt's Relation, 1622, commonly attributed to colonists William Bradford and Edward Winslow). Plymouth it was.

Beer was a dietary mainstay in those days. Chances are the beverage in question was "ship's beer," a not-very-alcoholic concoction that, along with the even weaker "small beer," was drunk in formidable quantities during the colonial era (upwards of a quart per day seems to have been a typical ration). Undoubtedly an advantage was that, unlike more perishable foodstuffs, ship's beer would keep during long voyages and, having been boiled, was likely purer than ordinary water.

The colonists used up their beer by Christmas. At first the ship's captain gave them a little out of the crew's supply, but when sickness, possibly scurvy, began felling the travelers (about half died that first winter), things got ugly. "As this calamity fell among the passengers that were to be left here to plant, and were hasted ashore and made to drink water that the seamen might have the more beer, and one in his sickness desiring but a small can of beer, it was answered that if he were their own father he should have none" (Bradford,History of Plymouth Plantation, circa 1650). The captain relented when his own men began getting sick too, evidently not wanting it to be known to history that, in addition to being late, lost, etc, he was the SOB who hogged the beer.

— Cecil Adams

They sailed the Atlantic during storm season because of a debt they owed in England delayed their departure until it was paid. They sold off much of their butter stores to satisfy the debt which put them at a real disadvantage. They were relying on the butter to get them through the first winter, the fat of which would provide needed body heat. The Indians loved the taste of rancid butter and eagerly traded goods, skins, and land for it, further cutting them short on their supply.
 
Back to the subject:
The Pilgrims found out the hard way, that if you take from those who work hard and give to those who don't, more and more of the people don't work hard.

Only if you let people keep everything they work for, do they work harder and harder.

Looks like the usual liberals here, want to talk about everything EXCEPT that fact.
 
Back to the subject:
The Pilgrims found out the hard way, that if you take from those who work hard and give to those who don't, more and more of the people don't work hard.

Only if you let people keep everything they work for, do they work harder and harder.

Looks like the usual liberals here, want to talk about everything EXCEPT that fact.
libs like to spend other people's butter.
 
The Pilgrims believed they were living in God's Grace.

They were thankful they survived, 50% of them, that first awful winter, and had a bumper crop, which the Native Americans showed them how to plant care for.
 
The Pilgrims weren't thankful for much. They were too busy trying to stay alive. We celebrate Thanksgiving because on October 3, 1863, President Lincoln set aside the last Thursday in November to be thankful for the preservation of the Union.
 
The Pilgrims weren't thankful for much.
Did they tell you that?

Or did you just make it up out of thin air, to denigrate them?

They were too busy trying to stay alive.
And, BTW, they gave thanks to God regularly. And to the Indians who helped them.

And one of the things that helped them get to the point where they were still alive to give thanks, was the realization that the socialistic economy they tried to put in place, was causing them to starve and freeze to death... and so they threw it out.

Those who neglect history are doomed to repeat it... as modern American liberal fanatics are demonstrating now.
 

Forum List

Back
Top