Posted on 11/29/2013 7:24:57 AM PST by Col. Bob
Pilgrim’s Progress Published in NWFDaily News Nov 13 2011 Published again in NWFDaily News as "The True Story" Nov 28, 2013
As the story goes the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in the winter of 1620. Indians taught them how to fish, hunt, and plant corn, bringing forth an abundant harvest giving rise to the first Thanksgiving.
That however was not quite true. Indians did indeed help the colonists, but harvests weren’t bountiful and many died of starvation and disease.
The problem lay in the Mayflower Compact, which dictated a form of government whereupon property was communally owned and cultivated with the harvest being distributed equally to all from the “common wealth,” anticipating Karl Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
But many chose not work, expecting equal shares from those who did work. Soon the workers no longer labored as hard. They produced harvests that were inadequate to sustain the colony.
Recognizing the dilemma, Governor Bradford and the colonists abolished the Compact, allotting a plot of land to each family, freeing them to cultivate, hunt, fish, and to keep all they could produce or catch, proving that people are more productive when satisfying their own self interests.
Despite a drought, the 1623 harvest was wonderfully bountiful. The pilgrims celebrated and feasted giving prayerful thanks. For each year thereafter, they prospered and grew.
Other colonies experienced the same trials, and came independently to the same, free market capitalist solution, well before Adam Smith’s book “Wealth of Nations” introduced capitalism.
Since then, our country has prospered as no other. This is the true story and significance of the Thanksgiving holiday we celebrate this day.
Robert Lovretich
It did no such thing. The MC was very short and said nothing at all about economic structure of the colony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact#Text
The issue arose not as part of the government, but rather because all the colonists were employees of the London Virginia Company, not independent colonists.
It was a company policy, not one imposed by the government, though of course the two were intimately entwined by the nature of the case.
Here is the text of the Mayflower Compact (modern version):
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 advancements of the Christian faith and honor 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 another, covenant and combine ourselves together into 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 hereunto 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, 1620.
The Miracle of America
from
axes and hoes to high technology;
log cabins to air-conditioned condos;
horsedrawn wagons to autos, planes, and rockets;
scarcity to abundance; &
from tyrannical government rule to individual liberty
HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN?
Most of our history books don’t tell us that, in the beginning, the pilgrims established a communal economic system. Each was to produce according to his ability and contribute his production to a common storehouse from which each was to draw according to his need.
The assurance that they would be fed from the common store, regardless of their contribution to it, had a peculiarly disabling effect on the colonists. Taking property away from some and giving it to others bred discontent and retarded employment. Human nature was the same then as now, and before long, there were more consumers than there were producers, and the pilgrims were near starvation. Governor Bradford, his advisors, and the colonists agreed that in order to increase their crops, each family would be allowed to do as it pleased with whatever it produced. In other words, a free market system was established. In Governor Bradford’s own words:
“This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means ye Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into ye field, and tooke their little-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene though great tiranie and oppression. . . . By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed. . . . and some of ye abler sort and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since this day . . . .” (Wm. Bradford, “Of Plimoth Plantation,” original manuscript, Wright & Potter, Boston, 1901)
Those who, today, favor central government planning, common ownership and redistribution of the earnings of others are advocating a system that Americans tried and rejected over 350 years ago. Their wisdom gave birth to the great American miracle!
Are we as wise today?
You Can Do Something About This!
(This message originally published in the mid-1980’s by a former NC textile firm. For more essays in this series, visit www.ouragelessconstitution.com )
I am currently reading a really interesting historical novel called “The Second Thanksgiving” by Douglas Lloyd McIntosh (free download from Amazon). It explores this exact subject and is reasonably well written. It makes a lot of sense that collectivism is a huge de-motivator and is unsustainable in the best conditions, and utterly disastrous in a marginal situation.
Thank you for the correction. There seems to be nothing in the Compact that specifically dictates a communal style of government. It may be implied in the part of the Compact that states...”do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another covenant and combine ourselves together into 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 as just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought to most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”
As you stated, the colonists were employees of the London Virginia Company, not independent colonists.
The communal style of government appears to be the company’s policy and the phrase, “covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic” seems to lend itself to that style of governance.
Anyway, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Fortunately the colonists changed from a commune to a private ownership style that served them well from then on.
Thanks again for the correction.
Jack: Thanks for the response. As I said to Sherman, there seems to be nothing in the Compact that specifically dictates a communal style of government. It may be implied in the part of the Compact that states...”do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid.”
As he stated, the colonists were employees of the London Virginia Company, not independent colonists.
The communal style of government appears to be the company’s policy and the phrase, “covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic” seems to lend itself to that style of governance.
Anyway, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Fortunately the colonists changed from a commune to a private ownership style that served them well from then on.
You’re welcome.
This story, which has a good deal of validity to it, often gets exaggerated for effect and distorted by the ideologies of today.
What evidence do you have that shows that it was the company that was dictating this?
Another FReeper (I don’t remember who)in a T-day thread last year told me that these colonists were influenced by this style of government based on other Christian groups that were trying it in other parts of the European world.
Five myths about the Pilgrims
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3096632/posts
The Pilgrims’ Mayflower Compact was an early and noteworthy example of American democracy.
Americans have loaded this document with far more significance than it’s worthy of. We read it selectively, zeroing in on the parts where the signers commit to form a “civil body politic” and agree to formulate “just and equal laws ... for the general good of the colony.”
But it is no accident that the compact begins with a description of the signatories as “the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord, King James.” Having been blown off course en route to America, the Pilgrims were about to settle some 200 miles north of the northernmost jurisdiction of the Virginia Company, which was authorized by King James I to coordinate colonial ventures along the Atlantic seaboard. It was quite possible that they were committing an illegal act in the eyes of the crown. So they made a point of assuring James of their unquestioned loyalty.
They also identify him as their king not by virtue of their consent, but “by the grace of God.” This puts the Mayflower Compact closer to an affirmation of the divine right of kings than the right of self-rule.
Oh??
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor 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 another, covenant and combine ourselves together into 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 hereunto 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, 1620.
Communal arrangements seemed to be springing up at that time and seemed like good ideas till they failed, as they did in the Plymouth colony.
I've yet to find a copy of that contract but will keep looking.
So it appears you and others were right. The Mayflower Compact was not the culprit that dictated an communal style of governance.
CULPRIT ALERT!!!
Acts 2:42-47
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.
All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
See Post 13.
Sorry, I meant Post 12.
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.