![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
How could James I grant a charter in 1584 when he wasn't king of england until 1603? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.51.232 ( talk) 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Although he can travel as a king and leave an eir to the throne; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.157.162 ( talk) 14:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I see a plot for the Virginia Company and the Plymouth Company here, but nothing showing the settlement of New Haarlem which was there in 1614, six years before the Plymouth Company. How could this map not show that? It may well be that England didn't recognize it, but I find it hard to believe an English settlement was bound for the "Hudson River" with an existing Dutch fort and all being in place and fully manned. Unless the plan was to try to supplant the Dutch? I've not seen any record to support this idea though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.123.197 ( talk) 12:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
@ Oldperson: You are engaging in a revert war on this article, repeatedly inserting material that is not contained in the source which you cite. Your source [1] does not contain any information for the following statement: "There was the company of knights, gents, merchants and adventurers of London and the company of knights, gents, merchants and adventurers of the city of Bristol, Exeter, and the town of Plymouth." You need to provide a source which verifies this statement if you want the new information included. Either way, you need to stop reverting it. — Dilidor ( talk) 17:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Dilidor It is not a hobby horse and my only agenda is to be faithful to the facts. You reversed an edit that was factual, in favor of a piece of propaganda.
The group of colonists which landed in Massachussets Bay were in fact Puritans, not Catholics, not Jews, but Puritans, and Puritans were Anglicans whose motives were to purifying the Church of England. They weren't called pilgrims until the 19th Century. Apparently you have a visceral need to call them pilgrims, well then call them what they were Puritan pilgrims, which is what I did in the edit you reversed. There is also a myth that they were the first colonists, not true, the Virginia colony preceded them by 13 years. Tell me then, what is the reason for your obsession with labeling them pilgrims, when in fact they were Puritans. A pilgrim is a person who travels to a place or origin of worship. Muslims perform a pilgrimage to Mecca, some Christians perform a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, the Crusades include people making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. I have explained my reasoning, please explain the reasoning behind your obsession.
Oldperson (
talk)
15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|Dildor|| Ok let's continue the discussion.
First Bradfords group were in fact Puritans. The Puritans were more or less three groups of people. The Separatists were a different group. The Puritans were so called because they wanted to Purify the Anglican Church. The Puritans who still believed in the practices of the church settled and formed the Massachusetts Bay colony, and the Separatists settled in the area of Plymouth Rock. Â As time progressed, both groups were responsible for creating religions which are practiced today, the Unitarian and Baptist churches.
Read more: Difference Between Puritans and Separatists | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/religion-miscellaneous/difference-between-puritans-and-separatists/#ixzz5tV8pQ6qB.
I do, in fact, understand the difference between the different classes of puritans. The separatists were originally puritans, but eventually chose to separate themselves from the Anglican church while other congregations chose to stay within and reform from within.
This source describes Bradford and his followers as Puritans. https://earlyuslit.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/puritan-ideology-in-bradfords-of-plymouth-plantationrevised/. When one searches for answers one finds many, and apparently the answers are prejudiced by ones subjection to propaganda (i.e. belief)
For instance some sources claim that the "pilgrims" were the foundation of America. Whereas they arrived in Massachussets bay one year after the "Great Charter" of 1619, a letter of the Virginia Colony of London,that grantedd the Virginia Colony the right of self governance.
Apparently there is a lot of propaganda which either originated founding myths or caused founding myths. A lot of is perpetuated by persons with religious motivations.
Did you know that the reason Ben Franklin left Boston, was to escape the stifling theocracy, and that Massachussets would only be admitted to the union of the 13 Colonies if it abandoned its theocratic government for a democratic republic.
I bet you weren't told that in school (the same schooling that informed you that it was Pilgrims that landed on Plymouth Rock(another myth, they didn't land on a rock.
Did you know that the common man had no interest at all in the revolution. This was more true in Virginia than in the North. The common man of Virginia had to interest in overthrowing one group of elites, for another. At least the London elites were thousands of miles over the ocean.
The Tidewater aristocracy of Cavaliers and Planters (most often one and the same) were not discomfited by taxes, they could well afford to pay duties on imports from the East India Company.
And the Boston Tea Party was not a revolt against taxes, but a revolt against the monopoly of the East India Company, a monopoly granted by the King to the same.
The economy of the north was driven by climate and soil. It was not amenable to plantations, and large scale single crop planting. It's only pracical natural resource was timber and so it became (at least along the Atlantic coast) a ship building economy, building Britains commercial and war vessets.
The King's charter to the East India Company, forbade the colonists from making swords, muskets, china, silver ware, fine clothing and of course they had to import spices, teas and textiles from ships owned by the East India Company, The majority of signatories of the Declaration of Independence from the North were smugglers. John Hancock was a smuggler,and a well known one at that, he knew that if the colonies did not separate he would be hung by the crown.
That;s the meaning behind "We will be hung together or by yourselves". Hanging was their fate, either way. Not so with the Tidewater aristocracy.
The southern aristocracy,had a need to show off their wealth and social status to others oftheir class, one method of proving their wealth and status was to voyage to England, the more trips the better, but on arrival in England, they were treated as country bumpkins, not the toyalty they believed themselves to be,and mostly ignored.
A revolution,in their mind, was a chance to become royalty in America. Alas the common man had no interest in merely exchanging masters, so had to be convinced that the revolution was in their interest.
The first act was for the Virginia legislature to create a committee to keep an eye on the citizenry, to keep them in line, thus they formed The Committee for Public Safety, the name was chosen so as not to alarm the Governor and crown. The committee initially devised ways of penalizing loyalists, but they also needed to convince the people that the fight was right. So they hired pamphleteers like Thomas Paine,who put truth to paper, but the printing was financed by the elites, in the Philadelphia Presses of the likes of Rittenhouse.
I wager you were never taught any of this in school, certainly can't find it onWP,However if you care to advance your knowledge I suggest an Intimate History of Pittsylvania County Virginia in the American Revolution: http://www.mitchellspublications.com/ur/loc/hurtfh/ihar/index.htm and Albion's Seed:Four British Folkways in America.
Thia has been overly long and it would stress you to read it all. Oldperson ( talk) 22:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Dilidor: I was not attempting to censor you but to esstop what was heading towards a non constructive flame war. I read your personal page. You claim to have 30 years experience, and are a ghost writer. Fool me. Your comments are those I expected from some ill informed teen ager. I know that these comments appear inflammatory, and for that I apologize. But I deleted your and my comments because they were non constructive inflammatory and sadly you only get worse.
By the way as regards my comment about Massachussets. True, not well expressed perhaps, lets try this quote:
"Only by remaining secular, the Founders believed, could America preserve its democracy. They were actually so serious about preserving this secular democracy that some of them didn’t want to let Massachusetts into the union because its political system was, for all intents and purposes, a Puritan theocracy." source:
https://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2015/05/57-percent-republicans-want-undo-american-revolution.
By the way were you aware that the Founding Fathers were so inimical of this country becoming a theocracy, that they installed the Goddess Colombia, as a statue on the nations capitol and named it's city after her The Dictrict of Colombia. Oldperson ( talk) 23:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Dilidor: Acccording to the Encycopedia Brittanica https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pilgrim-Fathers Of the 102 colonists, 35 were members of the English Separatist Church (a radical faction of Puritanism) , thus these Separatists were in fact Puritans, and as a group 35/102 is only 34%, a minority, not the majority needed to label the group Pilgrims. It was not "Pilgrims" that founded the Massachussets bay colony but Puritans and I have reservations about capitalizing the word puritan, for Puritans were Anglicans that sought to make pure the Church of England. In 1630, John Winthrop led some 1,000 English Puritans in the initial wave of the Great Migration to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, north of Plymouth. They were fleeing the royal wrath of King Charles I and Bishop William Laud, who were escalating persecution of dissidents. https://www.newsweek.com/whats-difference-between-pilgrim-and-puritan-397974. Thus your pilgrims were actually a minority of emigrants, 34% of the Mayflower contingent.It is thus an error to label all such as "Pilgrims", yet it persists as a national myth, akin to George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. Oldperson ( talk) 16:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Dilidor:Claimed here 16:40, 23 August 2019 Dilidor talk contribs 16,341 bytes -567 Reverted to revision 912137643 by Dilidor (talk): Unexplained removal of template (TW) undothank Tags: Undo PHP7. When in fact it was Dilidor that removed the template here: cur prev 14:09, 23 August 2019 Dilidor talk contribs 16,341 bytes -194 →The Plymouth Company: copy edit; removing template undothank Tag: PHP7
The paragraph that Dilidor reverted has been reverted back in. The paragraph is factual, contributive and supported by a citation linked to Encyclopaedia Britannica Oldperson ( talk) 19:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Dilidor:I didn't think, until today, that I would have to explain that my thanks were sincere. Yours was a good edit, in fact most of your edits are very good, even if I don't understand why, however there is a redundant phrase in Virginia Company, found in the lede and the article. I like it but it is awkward "forming the genesis of democracy in America". Oldperson ( talk) 19:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothing about Poles, who were decisive workers and were crucial for the continuation of the first settlements in the USA.
More... https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/polish-artisans-strike-right-vote-jamestown-virginia-1619#:~:text=By%201608%2C%20just%20a%20year%20after%20the%20founding,played%20a%20significant%20role%20in%20Jamestown%E2%80%99s%20economic%20viability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.52.163 ( talk) 14:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)