The True Story of Thanksgiving

The Pilgrims arrived here after an arduous trip across the Atlantic Ocean. They didn’t know why they were, had no idea what to do. They had nothing. The Indians took pity on them. The Indians saw them, and the Indians saved them. The Indians taught ’em how to do things they didn’t know how to do, like grow food, catch beavers, stuff like that.

The Indians saved them, and the Pilgrims thanked them by growing a whole bunch of food and having this big feast. So, the story of Thanksgiving that’s taught is basically how without the Native Americans there wouldn’t be a country because the Pilgrims would have died. At least the Pilgrims were nice enough to pay the Indians back with a big Thanksgiving dinner.

That’s not at all what happened. It’s not even close to what happened, which is why I decided to write about it

Home | Wire | The Great Thanksgiving Hoax
The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

TAGS U.S. History/Monopoly and Competition

11/23/2016 Richard J. Maybury
[Originally published November 20, 1999.]

Each year at this time, schoolchildren all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.

The official story has the Pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America, and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620–21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hard-working or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his History of Plymouth Plantation, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years because they refused to work in the field. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened? After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that were most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a markets, and that was the end of the famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609–10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty. Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a relatively free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth.

Image Source: flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/hankzby/3042714792/sizes/l

What we’ve all been taught is a part of the history: The Pilgrims came, they almost starved, the Indians taught them how to survive, and they had a big feast. All true. But it’s the tip of the iceberg.

The Puritans were being persecuted in Britain by the Church of England. They decided to get out. They first went to the Netherlands. After several years there, they decided to go to the New World for religious liberty.

They found some sponsors for their journey, who made William Bradford, their leader, sign a contract. It provided that every Pilgrim would get one share in a common store and they would all work for the community. (They would own nothing and be happy.)

They arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620. Between the journey and that harsh first winter, about 44 of the original 100 settlers died. Including Governor Bradford’s wife.

The Native Americans taught them how to plant corn and fish, but according to Governor Bradford’s notes, even the most industrious didn’t work very hard at it. After all, why work so hard when you’re only going to get the same amount as the ones who don’t? Why expend all that effort for other people’s families when they’re not willing to expend the effort for themselves? So Governor Bradford changed the system.

Bradford assigned each family a plot of land and told them to work it as they saw fit, and they could keep the proceeds or trade it or sell it or give it away, if they chose. (Does this sound familiar?)

Well, they thrived. They produced an abundance of food and goods. Probably more than they could figure out what to do with. In gratitude to God, they had a big community feast to use and share all they had produced, and they invited the Indigenous to thank them for their help (and as a gesture of friendship.)

The original system in which everyone worked for the collective failed. It almost starved them to death. The new system, which incentivized producing as much as you wanted, produced an abundance they had to share.

Accordingly, one of the things I am grateful for today is Governor Bradford’s decision to abandon the failing collectivism of the original Compact and adopt a system based on incentive, which gave rise to an abundance we still enjoy.

Rush used to tell this story almost every year around Thanksgiving. The Mises Institute has also published content about this early chapter of America. Here is the original source of the text, including an audio book component.

Of Plimoth Plantation, Librivox audio book
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4199166/posts

https://archive.org/details/bradfordshistply00brad/page/116/mode/2up

https://librivox.org/bradfords-history-of-the-plymouth-settlement-by-william-bradford

In the text he writes:
“The failure of this experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, — that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice. The aged and graver men, who were ranked and equalized in labour, food, clothes, etc., with the humbler and younger ones, thought it some indignity and disrespect to them. As for men’s wives who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not brook it. This feature of it would have been worse still, if they had been men of an inferior class. If (it was thought) all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and one was as good as another; and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them. Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.