Why America is Different

[ClayBarham]

What is the big thing that really divides Americans today? The answer describes legislative and judicial actions and why the different political parties. Our core difference is our divided views on whether community interests or legitimate self-interests are most important, the collective or the individual. In America, pursuing individual legitimate self-interests always worked best. With success, families and communities prospered. Americans wanted no managers, no tyranny, only free and productive actions of free individuals to rule. American’s successful free market and local charitable generosity proved them right. In spite of that evidence, liberal elite question whether free individuals are morally and intellectually capable of existing without guidance, as a parent rules his children. Elite cannot believe free actions of individuals can manage community best. If it “Takes a Village,” and the village has no interests, soul or heart, then forcing the interests of the ruler on everyone is needed.

There are only two world traditions. The first is where a few rule the many, from family, tribe and nation. It is the longest running world tradition. Old World chiefs, kings, and dictators limit growth and prevent change. Rulers had wealth and subjects had poverty. Happiness was for the least number, and misery for the most. Wars, rebellions and famine were common. The second tradition began in North America almost 400 years ago. A small group of immigrants settled on the frontier and had to survive on their own with no help. Individual freedom and acceptance of responsibility to one's family and community, not a ruler, created a new way of life. They had no choice. A moral code defined the limits to behavior. Unbridled individual creativity and ingenuity provided the greatest happiness to the greatest number, and the least misery to the least number. Here are two traditions the world has experienced.

Frederick Bastiat, a French legislator in the mid-1800’s, in his essay “To the Youth of France,” said, “All men’s impulses, when motivated by legitimate self-interest, fall into a harmonious social pattern.” Individual self-interests are, by their very nature and for the most part, harmonious with society. If true, liberty is necessary and no one should prevent or try to redirect those interests. America proved him right! If self-interests are antagonistic, as some feel, society must regulate people’s affairs and opinions. People-control takes many forms, however. Liberals are still trying to decide which, out of all the infinite forms control can assume, is the right one. Auguste Comte agrees that community is the only reality and individuals should not do what each wants to do. He represents Old World, modern liberal and Democrat thinking. Are we capable of running our own lives, or incapable and in need of superior leadership? Is freedom too difficult and dictatorship by a few elite best for us? We must ask those questions.

Some say America began in Jamestown in 1607. Soldiers and profiteers, warring on Native Americans, and introducing African Slaves, characterized Jamestown, an extension of King James’s rule into the New World. America really began in New England in 1620. The king' had less influence in New England. No wars on the Indians, no profiteers scrounged for riches to send to England and no slavery. A group of families as a church resettlement, with the Geneva Bible as its constitution, started New England. People were free to make their own way in a new land. The American dream was born. Ordinary people could own land. They could follow their own interests, talents, skills and aspirations. They could think out of the bubble and live out of the box, not possible anywhere else. New England shaped the American Tradition, not Jamestown.

Neither is America a product of 1700’s European Enlightenment, but an enlightenment of 1620 New England. New England settlers had the Geneva Bible as their constitution. They could own property as well as its product. As pioneers, they moved west and south to build new lives. Circuit riding preachers followed and reminded them of their Christian moral boundaries. They farmed, created, built, manufactured, traded freely and schooled their children. They fashioned local governments to suit their experiences growing out of their own enlightenment. A Free Market grew out of the many willing exchanges between individuals. They never intended government to mediate or intervene into their behaviors, other than preventing injustice. They achieved enormous prosperity because the whims and fashions of rulers did not limit them. Free to think out of the bubble and live out of the box, they changed the world around them. On the other hand, they were not eagles, on their own, foraging to survive. They were both individualistic and social. They strived and reached beyond their grasp, making families, community and selves prosperous. As all three prospered, so did our Nation.

So, which tradition should shape America in this new century? Should we dump our tradition and culture and return to the dictates of the Old World? On the other hand, would America be better off staying the course for continued individual freedom?

[BillyPilgrim]

"America really began in New England in 1620. The king' had less influence in New England. No wars on the Indians, no profiteers scrounged for riches to send to England and no slavery. A group of families as a church resettlement, with the Geneva Bible as its constitution, started New England. People were free to make their own way in a new land. The American dream was born. Ordinary people could own land. They could follow their own interests, talents, skills and aspirations. They could think out of the bubble and live out of the box, not possible anywhere else. New England shaped the American Tradition, not Jamestown."

No, this revisionist nonsense. If you mean by America, a democratic republic it's worse nonsense. The people who came here (my home town) in 1620 were of two groups, those loyal to the English Church and others who had separated from it and to that end moved to Holland. ALL came as part of a joint stock company designed with purely a motive of profit. The Bible (Geneva or authorized version) while important in their daily lives, had NOTHING to do with their organization. People were not "free to make their own way" but were bound by English common law and the "patent" granted by James I to their stock company. There was absolutely NO intent to "think out of the bubble and live out of the box", but rather, for the separatists to live in a "New" England where their children would be away from the influence of the Dutch, particularly this peculiar Dutch notion of "freedom of religion."
War on the local population of Natives began with Massasoit's own son, Mettacomett (King Phillip) just 55 years after landing in New Plimoth.

[ClayBarham]

Did guys like Bradford exist, or is that revisionist nonsense? Also, 55 years after the founding is a big departure from a couple of years in Jamestown, as to antagonisms toward Native Americans. You could add Bonnie and Clyde to that as well, if time means little. The Separatists were escaping the English Church and the patent colony was not where it was supposed to be, in Virginia, but in New England. They tried theocracy and, when it failed, got off of it, first giving members ownership over what they produced and soon after over the land they produced it on. And, if you believe the Geneva Bible had no influence, then I can't help you there. They were a church relocation and the only Bible then was the Geneva Bible, something that pissed off King James and caused him to come up with the "authorized version" and outlawing the Geneva Bible. For some reason or other (sic), the King didn't like the Calvin/Knox commentaries which indicated people need not follow an Earthly monarch, but God in Heaven. Even if you despise Christianity, you cannot say it had no influence then.

[BillyPilgrim]

"Did guys like Bradford exist, or is that revisionist nonsense?"

Please, have you actually read Bradford's "Of Plimoth Plantation"? I have to every year for my job (Museum Teacher and Colonial Interpreter at Plimoth Plantation).

"Also, 55 years after the founding is a big departure from a couple of years in Jamestown, as to antagonisms toward Native Americans. You could add Bonnie and Clyde to that as well, if time means little."

Sorry, this is utter hogwash. Ask the local Wampanoag here what they think about it.


"The Separatists were escaping the English Church"

And went to Leiden in Holland to that end, NOT the new world.


"and the patent colony was not where it was supposed to be, in Virginia, but in New England."

ALL of the east coast from Florida to Maine was Virginia until the colonists received their second patent. Their original destination was the west bank of Hudson's River (now New Jersey). You're only get into bigger trouble trying to preach the history of early 17th century Plymouth MA to me. I know it like the back of my hand.

"They tried theocracy and, when it failed, got off of it,"

No, they didn't. This is utter bullshit. Please read Bradford before spouting this nonsense.


"...first giving members ownership over what they produced and soon after over the land they produced it on."

Soon? First they tried to work in common because half the company died the first winter. Although they could keep what was sufficient for their families, their surplus was given over to the common store. ALL profit and debt was kept within the company until the end of the contract in 1627. And not because of any experiment but that was what the patent always intended. If you'd read the primary sources you wouldn't be so wrong.

"And, if you believe the Geneva Bible had no influence, then I can't help you there."

Well, you can't help yourself either because it had nothing to do with the founding of New Plimoth.

"They were a church relocation and the only Bible then was the Geneva Bible, something that pissed off King James and caused him to come up with the "authorized version" and outlawing the Geneva Bible."

You don't know what you're talking about. Site your sources. James did NOT outlaw the Geneva and both exist in 1627 Plimoth. Half of the people involved were still loyal to the English Church and had nothing to do with the separatists in Holland. So the founding of my town had NOTHING to do with church relocation.


"For some reason or other (sic), the King didn't like the Calvin/Knox commentaries which indicated people need not follow an Earthly monarch, but but God in Heaven. Even if you despise Christianity, you cannot say it had no influence then."

For some reason or another? Site your source on this nonsense. I don't despise Christianity but has no major influence, beyond the piety of the people involved, in the founding of my town. It was strictly an economic venture. I know you guys like this popular myth that somehow Plymouth is the beginning of freedom of religion and democracy and all that. But it simply isn't and you're completely wrong on all counts. Come back when you've read the primary sources.[/align]

[AnnEsthesia]

Thank you, Billy. Very informative and your version matches everything I have read at the time.

As proof of the link with the church of England in the new world, I offer up this passage about my ancestor.


Salem, Essex, Massachusetts, From Moulton Annals:

Robert Moulton landed from England in 1629. With him came his brother James and a son Robert, also grown to manhood. This son was a clergyman of the Church of England.
Of Robert, the elder, we have scraps of reliable history. From a letter to Governor Endicott we learn that Robert Moulton was entrusted with all the shipwright tools and supplies sent to the colony, the letter stipulating that Robert Moulton was to have 'cheife charge.' His brother James settled in what is now the town of Wenham, but was originally part of Salem. Robert the elder went to Charlestown and there acquired real estate, what is known as Moulton's Point, being named for him. There is also a 'Moulton Street' in Charlestown. Robert, the father, lived in the colony from 1629 to 1655. During those years he was active and influentual in the business and public affairs of the new country he had chosen as home.

[BillyPilgrim]

As well, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in 1629 by Puritans (those desiring to reform the English Church from within as opposed to separating away as the congregation from that had emigrated to Leiden and then to Plymouth). Plymouth gets absorbed into the MBC and the Plymouth Church evolves and becomes a part of what we now know as Congregationalism.
It's interesting to note that the Leiden congregation requested of James I to be able to worship in their own manner but were refused. Had the Royal Governor come to New England, the Separatists would have once again been forced to yield to the CofE,

[ClayBarham]

So, should I assume from what you say that the Geneva (Calvinist/Knox) Bible had no influence in the behavior of those who first settled, the Mayflower folks? Are you saying that Bradford did not release those in the first settlement from their contract to the society and allow them to keep and trade what they produced, and later the land on which they produced? And, if he did those things, did they influence what came later as to the self-reliance that, of necessity, became fashionable, not that they failed to care for their neighbors? Just curious if all the history I have absorbed, because I did not live in those days, is no longer fashionable?

[BillyPilgrim]

"So, should I assume from what you say that the Geneva (Calvinist/Knox) Bible had no influence in the behavior of those who first settled, the Mayflower folks?"

Well, you shouldn't assume anything, but rather stick to the facts as they are known. Previous to James 1st authorized version, the Geneva was popular, but not just with the people in question. But understand, not everyone was of a reformed nature. I think you'd find the main differences between these Bibles is that the Geneva kept the marginal notes and the Apocrypha.


"Are you saying that Bradford did not release those in the first settlement from their contract to the society and allow them to keep and trade what they produced, and later the land on which they produced?"

I am saying exactly that. Bradford had no authority to do anything about the patent with the Merchant Adventurers. Indeed, he would have been sued for attempting such a thing. The land was owned by the company and the Planters (which did not include everyone living in the colony) were merely stock holders of that company.

"And, if he did those things, did they influence what came later as to the self-reliance that..."


We need not continue this line of inquiry because he did not do those things.

"...of necessity, became fashionable, not that they failed to care for their neighbors? Just curious if all the history I have absorbed, because I did not live in those days, is no longer fashionable?"

Fashion doesn't play into it. Your assumptions about the events are erroneous. You need only read Bradford's history to right yourself.

[Shintao]

Our core difference is our divided views on whether community interests or legitimate self-interests are most important, the collective or the individual.

How can you call "individualist" legitimate when your Constitution cleary says, "We The Poeple?." And "Promote the general welfare," not the "individualist" welfare?

In America, pursuing individual legitimate self-interests always worked best.

If it had not been for the practice of socialism you wouldn't have made it trhough the first winter. Do you think coming to America was about individual interests? Do you think America's "Thanksgiving"
was about individual interests? The forts of commune and general store houses were about individualist interests? Do you think communing to grow crops was about individual interests? Do you think the militia for forts was about individual interests? I see you critiquing the time element - so when did this individual interest thingy really start?


With success, families and communities prospered.

Indeed, with social "success" the families survived in social "communities" and prospered with the help of Indian Welfare, like meat, corn, turkeys, wood, etc.

Americans wanted no managers, no tyranny, only free and productive actions of free individuals to rule.

And eventually they got a leg to stand on thnaks to socialism, that continues to rescue them to this day.


American’s successful free market and local charitable generosity proved them right.

This must have been like the first merchants in th flea markets and general stores. Maybe you can fill in what you mean about local charity generosity?

In spite of that evidence, liberal elite question whether free individuals are morally and intellectually capable of existing without guidance, as a parent rules his children.

Well of course we wonder, because everytime neocons attempt to stand up and pull themselves up by the garterbelt straps - they fail, and socialism has to rescue them. Starting pilgrimage to America. Financed by the government. Lewis & Clark? Subsidized by the government. The railroad West? Subsidized by the government.

If neocon individualists cannot even rule their own behavior with social laws, what chance have they to do it on the their own?


Elite cannot believe free actions of individuals can manage community best.

Apparently not! The community has always got it's hand out to social loans from the state and federal government, because the individuals can't manage themselves, lil lone a whole community of people.

If it “Takes a Village,” and the village has no interests, soul or heart, then forcing the interests of the ruler on everyone is needed.

Yes indeed. We the people will promote the general welfare for the benefit of all the people, because the individual is incapable of any kind of organized behavior beyond themselves.

:jammin: Need a break,.........another Liberal tradition.

[ClayBarham]

In the non-binding preamble you found all you need to decide the Constitution is a Marxist document and has no relation to the meaning worked out in Philadelphia and the First Ten Amendments, so there is nothing more to discuss.

[Shintao]

In the non-binding preamble you found all you need to decide the Constitution is a Marxist document and has no relation to the meaning worked out in Philadelphia and the First Ten Amendments, so there is nothing more to discuss.


Yeah, the nonbinding welfare clause is repeated for some fascist conservatives in Art. 1, Sec. 8, and there really is no more to discuss, because if we took the socialists bandaid Corporate welfare away from American businesses, the USA could fold it's capitalist tent. There is something about the Goose & the Gander that comes to mind, but I not sure if that was good for, or good to. :madlaugh:

[BillyPilgrim]

Egad, more bullshit being spouted from the mouths of the uninformed.

"If it had not been for the practice of socialism you wouldn't have made it trhough the first winter."

This is nonsense of the highest order. The first winter was spent aboard Mayflower. There was NO socialism.

"Do you think coming to America was about individual interests?"

It was certainly about individual interests. There was a joint stock company formed for the profit of each of its stockholders that would send a group of Englishmen to English soil (sorry Natives) for a purely profit motive.

"Do you think America's "Thanksgiving was about individual interests?"

I assume you speak of the first and ONLY time the harvest was celebrated between the colonists and the Native People. It was about the harvest, nothing more. Thanksgiving had an entirely different meaning in the 17th century church, both CofE and reform.

"The forts of commune and general store houses were about individualist interests?"

Oh man this is just too silly for comment. Both the fort (not built until 1622) and the store houses were common items in any settlement.

"Do you think communing to grow crops was about individual interests?"

Let's see what Bradford says about this excremental idea:

" The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince, the vanity of that conceit of Plato & others ancients, applauded by some of later times; that ye taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community... was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort... The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals & cloths, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter ye other could; this was thought unjust..."

"Do you think the militia for forts was about individual interests? I see you critiquing the time element - so when did this individual interest thingy really start?"

Please attempt to actually read primary sources before spewing such nonsense.

[Shintao]

Egad, more bullshit being spouted from the mouths of the uninformed.

Yeah, all those years wasted on public education.

"If it had not been for the practice of socialism you wouldn't have made it trhough the first winter."

[quote]This is nonsense of the highest order. The first winter was spent aboard Mayflower. There was NO socialism.

Hmm, that must have been the year 1/2 of the new Americans died with capitalism - before the Indians saved them with socialism?

"Do you think coming to America was about individual interests?"

It was certainly about individual interests. There was a joint stock company formed for the profit of each of its stockholders that would send a group of Englishmen to English soil (sorry Natives) for a purely profit motive.

That could be, at that point they were still socialists when arriving in America, not yet pulling themselves up by their garterbelts, dying like flies stuck in buttermilk, and waiting for a hand out from Socialists Indians.

"Do you think America's "Thanksgiving was about individual interests?"

I assume you speak of the first and ONLY time the harvest was celebrated between the colonists and the Native People. It was about the harvest, nothing more. Thanksgiving had an entirely different meaning in the 17th century church, both CofE and reform.

Yeah, typical capitalist had already forgotton the Socialist Indians taught them how to plant corn, sap trees, and hunt for meat. Individualists indeed, communing in a fort for shared everything.

"The forts of commune and general store houses were about individualist interests?"

Oh man this is just too silly for comment. Both the fort (not built until 1622) and the store houses were common items in any settlement.

Common store houses is Socialist - NOT individualists. Get it??? LMAO! :ecstatic:

"Do you think communing to grow crops was about individual interests?"

Let's see what Bradford says about this excremental idea:

" The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince, the vanity of that conceit of Plato & others ancients, applauded by some of later times; that ye taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community... was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort... The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals & cloths, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter ye other could; this was thought unjust..."

He didn't know much I guess, but I notice "community" commonwealth" wasn't missed on the old gieser.

"Do you think the militia for forts was about individual interests? I see you critiquing the time element - so when did this individual interest thingy really start?"


Please attempt to actually read primary sources before spewing such nonsense.


Yeah, that college education was wasted chasing girls. However I didn't spend my time as revisionist of quaking out spinned Pilgrim history on a political board either. :madlaugh:

[BillyPilgrim]

"Hmm, that must have been the year 1/2 of the new Americans died with capitalism - before the Indians saved them with socialism?"


Are you drunk? What the hell are you talking about? Their deaths had absolutely nothing to do with ecomonics. It had everything to do with being aboard a ship for four months ill nourished, scurvious, and arriving to a harsh New England winter. And the natives were NEVER socialist.

"Do you think coming to America was about individual interests?"


"That could be, at that point they were still socialists when arriving in America, not yet pulling themselves up by their garterbelts, dying like flies stuck in buttermilk, and waiting for a hand out from Socialists Indians."

Uh, garter belts? They, nor the Indians, were ever socialists. Please site your source for this horseshit.



"Yeah, typical capitalist had already forgotton the Socialist Indians taught them how to plant corn, sap trees, and hunt for meat. Individualists indeed, communing in a fort for shared everything."

Oh my god, are you really this deranged? Squanto taught them how to plant maize because they had never seen it. No one sapped trees ever in Plymouth Colony and people have been hunting since before the frigging Neanderthals...unbelievable!



"Common store houses is Socialist - NOT individualists. Get it??? LMAO!"

This is absurd to a ridiculous degree. Store houses have nothing to do with economics. That you think so shows your complete lack of historical understanding.

"Do you think communing to grow crops was about individual interests?"

Let's see what Bradford says about this excremental idea:

" The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince, the vanity of that conceit of Plato & others ancients, applauded by some of later times; that ye taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community... was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort... The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals & cloths, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter ye other could; this was thought unjust..."

He didn't know much I guess, but I notice "community" commonwealth" wasn't missed on the old gieser."

Do you have a complete lack of ability to understand the obvious? He is criticizing the idea of communism.


"Yeah, that college education was wasted chasing girls. However I didn't spend my time as revisionist of quaking out spinned Pilgrim history on a political board either."

Sorry bubby, I'm right and you're wrong. And I can prove it by quoting the people who wrote the history. All you have is silly pinko bullshit.

At least Clay finally knew when to quit when he was bested by the facts.

[billysands]

:blah:This is depressing and typical,but you are half right,America was the result of both the enlightenment and the protestant reformation there are greedy white protestants that still think this nation is exclusively theirs and then the rest of US.Your post exhibit a xenophobia and ignorance of someone who has never left the USA,the Demcratic party is NOT a socialist party,in fact if you put it in Europe it would bedead center or to the right of the spectrum,personally i think this nation was at its best WHEN IT HAD A CLEAR SENSE OF COMMUNITY VALUES,under FDR AND THE new deal,its too bad we can't bring that back.

[BillyPilgrim]

Non-sequiter.

[ClayBarham]

And a spot of BS ad infinitum.

[Shintao]

"Hmm, that must have been the year 1/2 of the new Americans died with capitalism - before the Indians saved them with socialism?"


[quote]Are you drunk? What the hell are you talking about? Their deaths had absolutely nothing to do with ecomonics. It had everything to do with being aboard a ship for four months ill nourished, scurvious, and arriving to a harsh New England winter. And the natives were NEVER socialist.

Are you being rude because you lack a means to disprove the message? If you want to debate, fine. If you want to be an asshole, then the debate is over? You decide what you want to do here.

[Shintao]

Ok Pilgrim, dispute the following research and regain your credibility. cough

A Letter from Christopher Columbus to the King & Queen of Spain 1490's

That for the better and more speedy colonization of the said island, no one shall have liberty to collect gold in it except those who have taken out colonists' papers, and have built houses for their abode, in the town in which they are, that they may live united and in greater safety.

That all gold that may be found without the mark of one of the said towns in the possession of any one who has once registered in accordance with the above order shall be taken as forfeited, and that the accuser shall have one portion of it and your Highnesses the other
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/columlet.shtml

The American socialist experiment By Charles F. Wickwire

[You quoted this source - But then were less than honest is giving the whole quote. Shame on you Pilgrim.]

Finally, in 1623, Governor Bradford called a meeting to discuss how to have a more productive growing season and be better prepared for the next winter. Governor Bradford writes:

"All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they [the pilgims] begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length after much debate of things, the Gov. (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set downe every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves... And so assigned to every family a parceel of land.
http://tinyurl.com/33z22h
[So after several socialist tries, the Pilgrims try individualism.]

The Pilgrims, a study in Socialism vs. Capitalism.

When the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower to establish the Plymouth Colony, they did so under the requirement that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed into the "common stock" of the colony and that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their provisions out of the common stock." Sort of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"— Socialism.
Freeper http://tinyurl.com/2u5tbx
[Hey, you know that disgusting neocommie site? Take some medicine.]

In Jamestown, nobody owned property for the first four years, all work was communal, and all the harvest was centralized in a single storehouse, and, as you might expect, since there was no reward for working harder, nobody did. Historians record that after four years, no crops were planted, houses were falling apart, and the prime occupation of the men was bowling in the streets. The Jamestown Colony ultimately failed.
The American Policy Roundtable http://tinyurl.com/2wytev
[Looks like you lose Pilgrim. The Real Pilgrims started the grand socialist experiemnt for FOUR YEARS (4). .]

Economic liberty — 1623

While still in Holland, the Pilgrims sold all they owned, and still didn’t have nearly enough to finance their expedition. They turned to the private investors who demanded that in the New World the Pilgrims own and farm the land in common, put the fruits of their labors each day in a common storehouse, each taking out the same amount, no matter how much — or little — they put in.

The Pilgrims objected on the grounds that it was a mistaken socialist, collectivist arrangement, against God’s principles of private property and economic justice , based on "as ye sow, so shall you reap." But the investors, while not philosophical socialists but pragmatic business men, insisted, on the grounds that it would provide a convenient arrangement for the dividing of the expected profits.

Plymouth Rock Foundation http://www.plymrock.org/who_were_the_pilgrims.htm


Well Pilgrim, your apology for your insults is awaited with anticipation, if you are man enough to stand up and give one here.

[BillyPilgrim]

"Are you being rude because you lack a means to disprove the message? If you want to debate, fine. If you want to be an asshole, then the debate is over? You decide what you want to do here."

Look, I'm a historian. I work at Plimoth Plantation in Plymouth MA. I've not only quoted primary sources to you, but suggested you read them before spouting off your foolish revisionism. We work every day to discount the claims of the right that this colony was the beginning of American manifest destiny. That socialists (who cannot seem to understand what Bradford is saying) will now claim is this story is utterly ridiculous!


"A Letter from Christopher Columbus to the King & Queen of Spain 1490's"

Columbus Has NOTHING to do with the Pilgrim story!

"So after several socialist tries, the Pilgrims try individualism."

NO! After only one try and only out of complete necessity (half of the company had died), and then Bradford condemns it by saying (and again I quote)
"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince, the vanity of that conceit of Plato & others ancients, applauded by some of later times; that ye taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God."

Somehow you missed the real object of your quote which was the second half:
"since there was no reward for working harder, nobody did. Historians record that after four years, no crops were planted, houses were falling apart, and the prime occupation of the men was bowling in the streets. The Jamestown Colony ultimately failed.

"The Real Pilgrims started the grand socialist experiemnt for FOUR YEARS"

Sorry, you again are uniformed. Jamestown was STRICTLY (like Plimoth) an economic venture, no pilgrims in either place. And, like Plimoth, the property was owned by a joint stock company, a purely capitalistic enterprise.

"When the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower to establish the Plymouth Colony, they did so under the requirement that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed into the "common stock" of the colony and that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their provisions out of the common stock." Sort of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Well, of course. Until the contract ended in 1627, even though most owned stock in the company (capitalist) the were hired hands. No socialism there.

"While still in Holland, the Pilgrims sold all they owned, and still didn’t have nearly enough to finance their expedition."

This shows the complete lack of research by your author so that you quote him is irrelevant. The Leiden congregation in no way intended to finance the expedition and indeed were a minority of the original group, but rather were approached by Thomas Weston, a London merchant (kind of has a capitalist ring to it, doesn't it).

From Famous Americans.com
"WESTON, Thomas, adventurer, born in England about 1575; died in England after 1624. He was a successful merchant in London, and went to Leyden about 1619-'20 to negotiate with the merchants of New Amsterdam with regard to the proposed emigration of a colony to northern Virginia. For some reason the Pilgrims showed deference to his advice, and articles of agreement with the London merchants were drawn up, embodying conditions that were proposed by Weston. He advised them to rely neither upon the Dutch nor the Virginia company, assured them that he and others were ready to supply ships and money for such an enterprise, and reminded them that Sir Ferdinando Gorges and others were moving for a new patent in North Virginia, " Unto which," says Bradford, "Mr. Weston and the cheefe of them began to incline it was best for them to goe." A joint-stock company was then formed to continue seven years, with shares of ten pounds each, and John Carver and Robert Cushman were sent to England to collect subscriptions and to make preparations. Cushman conceded certain alterations in the agreement to please the "merchant adventurers," whose part in the scheme was indispensable. About seventy merchants engaged in the enterprise. The latter, having received glowing and deceptive accounts of the English colonists from Captain John Smith, looked upon them as convenient instruments for the establishment of a permanent trading-post in the new country."

"But the investors, while not philosophical socialists but pragmatic business men, insisted, on the grounds that it would provide a convenient arrangement for the dividing of the expected profits.

This is your quote, not mine, and proves my point. Can "dividing up the expected profits" possibly sound like socialism to you?

I notice you quickly dodged your silly assertation that the native people were socialists.

"Well Pilgrim, your apology for your insults is awaited with anticipation, if you are man enough to stand up and give one here."

I stand on every point I've made. I've continued to show you your complete lack of understanding of the world view of the time and the specifics of the Plimoth story. You've used quotes (beyond your own erroneous socialist sources) that only prove my position.
Debate? Try some facts first.

[ClayBarham]

Augustine said; "Belief precedes understanding," and for those of you who were educated in the Marxist venue, your truth is all there is in spite of anything I can say to the contrary. Any citation I make will be condemned by you as BS. I've been around long enough to know there is no debating the all-wise, all powerful limited minds of Marxists (my brother is one). That's why I do not debate ECW or ElRathin and now I can add you two.

[BillyPilgrim]

I'm by no means a Marxist of any stripe. I'm conservative and a (small "L") libertarian. And a fairly strict consitutionalist. Sorry if the facts get in the way with your personal opinions.

[DRK]

What tears America apart is the different viewpoints on freedom. Freedom means something different to everyone. What we forget is that, in a free country, all of those forms should be acceptable, so long as everyone else is not forced to participate. Luckily, we have 50 state governments that should be able to accommodate different preferences.

[BillyPilgrim]

That's fine, as long as no one co opts historical fact for political expediency.

[ClayBarham]

That's as it should be, and if a state like Louisiana wants to elect a man like Huey Long, the great democratic socialist, and he wants to take from those who have and give to those who have not, and drive productive people out of the state, that's fine. It is up to the voters in that state. But, when done on the Federal Level, as is the case now, we drive out business (jobs) and productive people, replacing them with illegal immigrants who never contribute the same, and require taxpayer money to survive, then the nation goes into the toilet. California is a good example of an anti-business, anti-earner state driving its tax base out while attracting taxeaters in.