Jump to content

Talk:Plymouth Colony/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Voyages of the Mayflower

The article talks about the Mayflower leaving for a second time. Was there a first time that it tried to sail to America? This is ambigious... --Clarkbhm 17:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It didn't make it very far from England on the first two attempts. Actually, at the moment, this article isn't very informative at all. Bleh. --iMb~Meow 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

= The charter, and the storms == diana shaoo helped the american to live better life


They had a charter to settle in a different area and were driven by storms to plymouth, the article makes it sound like they planned to land there the whole time, without a charter.

Yeah, I know. The story you mention is one of those things that "everyone knows" because it's what they were taught in school, but there's no basis for it.
Mayflower was by all accounts hired to go to New England (which in those days was everything north of mid-New Jersey), and the Scrooby gang's old patent (which was abandoned after they started to deal with Thomas Weston) didn't cover even the Hudson. The boat was headed to a place where they didn't have a patent, period, no accident, no conspiracy.
I've been filling out the Pilgrims article(IN BEAD!!!!!! with detailed, referenced information about all this. See especially the "Cape Cod conspiracy theories" section there for the usual wacky stories and why they don't add up.
But the most important bit is that Bradford was very clear that Weston told them to go to New England.--iMb~Meow 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
(Not putting this part in any articles, because it's just a musing on my part: I think that the accident/storm thing comes from a well-intentioned attempt to clean up the "pilgrim" story for children. It's inconvenient to suggest that these people did less-than-legal things, but they bribed their way out of England, Bradford was hiding from the law, amd one of the first things they did when they got to America was rob graves and houses. All that is left out of the traditional story too. --iMb~Meow 09:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
File:The history of the united states
the whole history

Superlatives

The "Context" section says: "Plymouth was the second permanent English settlement in the Americas, the first being Jamestown, Virginia. Earlier abandoned settlements include the Popham Colony (present-day Maine), the "Lost Colony" of Roanoke Island (present-day North Carolina), and Cuper's Cove and Bristol's Hope in present-day Newfoundland."

But Jamestown was not the only settlement in Virginia. Plantations in Virginia were settlements, and essentially villages unto themselves, complete with cottages and streets for laborers, stores, taverns, etc. A few pre-1620 permanent English settlements other than Jamestown, which have wikipedia pages, include: Henricus, Shirley Plantation, Berkeley Plantation, Varina, Virginia, Wolstenholme Towne, and Martin's Hundred. There were many others. Some might not quite qualify as "permanent", but some do, and there are many others not on wikipedia.

I've noticed an abundant use of superlatives on wikipedia. It seems like everything has to be the first of something or other, or ranked in a list of superlatives (Plymouth being the second after Jamestown, for example). Usually if one digs a bit deeper, the superlatives turn out false or at best highly qualified. Often they are misleading, as in this case -- suggesting that Jamestown was the only settlement in Virginia before 1620. Pfly 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now the claim is "Plymouth was the third permanent European settlement in the Americas, the first being St. Augustine, Florida, settled by Spain, and Jamestown, Virginia also settled by the English." Which is even less true: Quebec City 1608; Santa Fe, New Mexico 1607-1610; Bermuda 1609; etc, etc. Pfly 17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: fact tag at speedwell's intentional self sabotage

A recent editor added a fact tag at the speculation of Speedwell's self sabotage. The statement WAS REFERNCED twice: once in a contemptoray account (Bradford's "Of Plimoth Plantation") and in a modern account (Philbrick's "Mayflower"). This should have been clear from the Bradford quote and the TWO reference tags after said quote. However, I have added a multireference to make this MORE clear. The Philbrick reference now is directly where the fact tag was, and at the end of the paragraph to indicate that the entire paragraph is also referenced to that citation. If this is inadequate, I can enter the actual quotes from both Bradford and Philbrick in a footnote, though I would think that would be excessive. The Bradford reference specifically has a wikilink to a transcript of Of Plimoth Plantation where the acusations are made. Please, if this is not clear, and I need additional clarification, please let me know so I can dig out more sources on this. Thanks! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That editor was me. That statement about the self-sabotage is just the kind of statement that could be challenged, so it should have its own note. It is hard for a reader to tell from your "end of the paragraph" notes what information was found where. Awadewit 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of two points questioned in the Landings section

  1. The Pilgrims had no patent to settle, so there was question on board the ship of where the authority to govern the colony would come from. The Mayflower Compact was drawn up to establish a principal of government.
  2. The Shallop was brought on board the Mayflower in pieces, having been built in England and dissasembled for transport. They offloaded the pieces, and rebuilt the boat. Since this was not a new boat built from new lumber, but a previously built boat that had been dissassembled, transported, and reassembled, I thought rebuilt was appropriate. I added some bits to clarify this point.

I hope that clears stuff up.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Just add something in to the text to that effect in both cases since it is unclear right now. Awadewit 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Squanto? No. Tisquantum

Why must we continue to use the ridiculously incorrect name Squanto when it is widely held in academic circles that the pronunciation of his name was actually much closer to Tisquantum? Continuing to call this man Squanto amounts to little more than preserving an historical inaccuracy. It seems clear that in order to present material as correctly as possible the name Squanto should be memtioned no more than once, in order simply to address the fact that it was never actually Tisquantum's name. Are we really interested in preserving historical errors? I should hope not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dblecros (talk • contribs) 10:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

All reliable, main stream, historical accounts of him call him Squanto, as do contemporary (i.e. 16th century) accounts as well. While all accounts usually drop the nugget of information that yes, his proper name in the local Wampanoag/Massachusett dialect was Tisquantum, I see no compelling reason not to call him by the name that every historical account does. The same goes for Massasoit (a title but not a name), King Philip (A name he chose himself, see Philbrick, to represent himself in official court procedings, and which historians invariably refer to him as, even though they all in passing mention that his born name was Metacom(et) ), Alexander/Wamsutta, Samoset, John Sassamon (whose Massachusett name escapes me as yet), and for that matter dealing with Miles vs. Myles Standish(for which there is no historical agreement on spelling, so just pick one and stick to it). Again, we can do no more than use the terminology used by reliable, mainstream sources. To report that Squanto's full name was Tisquantum may be appropriate; to ignore that all major historical and contemporary accounts call him Squanto is not.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Map and 3 more towns?

Just a quick note to let folks know I'm working on a map. Based on initial research it looks like the towns of Falmouth, MA and Bristol and Little Compton, RI were incorporated while they were a part of Plymouth. Kmusser 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Rochester was part of Barnstable County from 1685 to 1709. Capehistory (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, because the source used in this article does not note that. If you have a source which does, could you please post that source so that the information can be added to the article and the information corrected. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hurd's History of Plymouth County, Massachusetts page 333.
Freeman's History of Cape Cod, 1:312 and 1:324 also says that Rochester moved counties, but doesn't mention the dates.--Jw 193 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The Hurd's notation makes absolutly no direct mention of dates at all. The Freeman's mention says, and I quote, "Subsequently in 1689...(list of names) removed thither to some place...Rochester was soon set off to Plymouth County." Given that the Colony's history ended in 1690/91, and "soon after 1689" could quite reasonably still be after the end of Plymouth Colony, I am fine with leaving the text as it reads now; with Rochester as part of Barnstable County. The move of Rochester would seem to more properly belong in the article Province of Massachusetts Bay as it appears from evidence that the town was transferred either during or after the reorganization of the charters in 1690/1691. It already notes in the text that the county organization was only done in 1685 as part of the Dominion of New England. The county organization really only applies for the short time period of 1685-1690/91 for this article anyways. I am comfortable leaving Rochester where it is, given the lack of any real evidence to change it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Scratch that. The sources do seem to confirm that Rochester was part of Barnstable county AT LEAST until 1689. I will be fixing the article with the new source. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

After a rather lengthy hiatus (2 months, or about 12 years in terms of Internet age), I have resumed my proofreading of this article. It's in fine shape. I have some questions here, for those of you who are more up on the subject. Please see this diff and the comments therein: [1] thank you. --Otheus 14:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I clarified the points as you requested. Hope this looks better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth, Massachusetts

There should be a prominnet link somewhere in the introduction about the actual settlement and town of Plymouth outside of its listeing as "capital" in the infobox. The Pilgrims formed Plymouth as the original settlement of Plymouth Colony, and the modern town was the location of many of Plymouth Colony's historical events (i.e., Plymouth Rock and Pilgrims' landing, Thanksgiving). Shouldn't there be a link to the article about the town somewhere in the intro, let alone in the article? Raime 17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed; I have added a sentence to the first paragraph of the introduction which clearly provides a link to Plymouth and differentiates it from Plymouth Colony. Raime 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Communism

While this section could become a very important aspect of the article, right now it needs some work. References to the history of the colony and of the life of William Bardford are not needed in detail in this section, as they are covered in previous sections of the article. I have thus removed them. Also, the extremely long quotes from "Of Plymouth Plantation" may not be necessary. The entire article does not have any long quotations such as these, but rather relies on summaries. Perhaps summaries of these quotes, rather than the quotes themselves, should be used. Furthermore, this section is in dire need of referencing and sourcing. While I do not necessarily advocate the removal of the Christian Communism section, it needs a lot of work. Raime 00:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given the utter lack of references, it read like original research as well, and thus it can be removed without prejudice, which I have done. If references can be provided, and reputable historians can be cited in said references, then I have no problem with the section coming back. But as unreferenced original research, I see no reason to keep it at all. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
On further consideration, I believe you have certainly made the right move in removing the section. Raime 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a further note on descriptions of the religious nature of the group: It don't believe it's correct to say that the separatists were a sub-set of the Puritans. This section:

"The Pilgrims themselves were a subset of an English religious movement known as Puritanism, which sought to "purify" the Anglican Church of its secular trappings. The movement sought to return the church to a more primitive state and to practice Christianity as was done by the earliest Church Fathers. Puritans believed that the Bible was the only true source of religious teaching and that any additions made to Christianity, especially with regard to church traditions, had no place in Christian practice. The Pilgrims distinguished themselves from the Puritans in that they sought to "separate" themselves from the Anglican Church, rather than reform it from within.

might want re-writing to reflect what I think to be the more accurate statement that Puritans and Separatists were two kinds of dissenting, or non-conforming Christians in England at the time. When the Puritans left to go to the New World, in a sense they did separate themselves from the C of E physically, but their sense of mission was not to create a new church, as the Separatists held. When the two groups first met and interacted in New England, they carried their "inherited" or latent mutual suspicions with them and were reportedly uneasy or distant with each other at the outset. Shortly thereafter, the amalgam of beliefs that became the Congregational Way subsumed both, but the original relationship between them was not as represented.

I also think the "Christian Communisim" thing might be overstating things a bit, for one thing it's an anachronistic name by about two centuries; for another, the use of Acts 2 as a basis for decisions about property, etc., wasn't fully carried out where the use of Indian lands was concerned--in fact, native practices around sharing some lands was broader.

I would need to pull some references to support any of these statements, made offhand but based on researches into American colonial church and cultural history.168.122.12.202 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is really good information, but it needs sources. I think it could be a relevent addition to the article, as long as it a) has references and b) is kept short enough to not overweigh the other information in the article. The religion section would be a good place to add some of that information if availible. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Dear Jayron32, I have reworked by piece on the communistic nature of the Pilgrims. Here is my attempt with further quotations from Bradford himself...

The the original economic system of Plymouth Plantation, was a form of communism. There was neither private property nor division of labor. Food was grown for the town and distributed equally. According to William Bradford in Of Plymouth Plantation:


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's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.

By 1623, facing starvation Plymouth Plantation's leaders took another course. Upon allotting private land plots it is evident that productivity increased. Again, according to William Bradford in his account:

So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.


I realize that the word communism was not used in 1623, however the system was described by Bradford himself as "common course and condition." I'm not sure how this works so I'll repost my piece pending your review.

Regards,

Agbook (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The quotes are genuine, from Of Plimoth Plantation, Book 2, early in the 1623 chapter. Here it is with Bradford's original spelling, in the 1898 edition, pages 162 and 163. Agbook, you'll need to supply the exact citation from the modern-spelling version you're using (Morison's 1952 edition?).
Bradford provides his own analysis, so you've been wise to let him speak for himself.

While I cringe at the loaded word, I suspect this fits the definition of "communism". You're certainly not the first person to call it that; in a quick search in Google Books, I see that Salisbury called it "communism", and Innes called it a "communal system" and "communal ownership".

Would there be value in emphasizing how brief the communal system lasted? Something like, "For the first two-and-a-half years, the economic system of Plymouth Plantation was a form of ..."?

--Jw 193 (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayron32,

Yes, I took the exact quotations from Morison's 1952 version. Yes, I also thought that Bradford's anaylsis spoke for itself. I have also reworked the first sentence with your suggestion and used the word "communal" rather than the loaded "communism" to describe their economic model.

I'll repost it now.

Regards, Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agbook (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Condensing references

Has the use of {{rp}} been considered to condense the notes section? LaraLove 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of that template only moves the page numbers from the notes to the text; it actually makes it HARDER (in my opinion) to clearly identify the page numbers (since the numbers now float seperately from the reference they belong to) and makes the text sloppier. That template has limited use in cases where one SINGLE book makes up the VAST majority of refs (like 80-90%). In this case, where there are 3 books as major refs, 4-5 books also used, and dozens of websites, it wouldn't markedly reduce the notes section (might remove 20-30 lines) but would instead make the refs harder to follow and the text harder to read. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Other British colonies

I'm trying to find out what articles Wikipedia has on other British colonies in the Americas. I found Thirteen Colonies and Category:Former British colonies, but does anyone know if a list of all the British colonies in the Americas exist? I would be looking for a list that included colonies such as Providence Island (the short-lived colony off the coast of South America). Does anyone know if such a list exists? Or a timeline showing what happened to all the different colonies? Carcharoth 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

British colonization of the Americas is the best I can find. Raime 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That's perfect! Thanks. Carcharoth 02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
PLYMOUTH WAS NEVER A BRITISH COLONY! Britian did not exist until 1702, PLymouth was an ENGLISH colony as it never lasted till 1702. It is catigorized as a British Colony-which is incorrect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.167.119 (talk • contribs)
Yes, you're correct. I guess it is just a common misconception that is widely accepted as truth. Since England became a part of Britain, and British expansion continued, they are just grouped together, however factually incorrect it may be. Rai-me 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, British colonization of the Americas clears up the distinction between English and British fairly well. Rai-me 22:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wessagussett

In the article, is Wessagusset meant to be spelled Wessagussett about half the time and Wessagusset (one 't') the other half? Online references conflict, so it appears the two different spellings are legitimate or reference different entities. Even so, it looks like the versions incorrectly cross context one or more times in the article, as here where a sentence with one 't' spelling is sandwiched in a paragraph between two sentences with a two 't' spelling:

…a house at Wessagussett under the pretense of sharing a meal and making negotiations. Standish and his men then stabbed and killed the two unsuspecting Native Americans. The local sachem, named Obtakiest, was pursued by Standish and his men but escaped with three English prisoners from Wessagusset, whom he then executed.[41] Within a short time, Wessagussett…

Michael Devore 07:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed this. While both spellings are used in different sources, this document should be internally consistent. I went with the two "t" version. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page

Just a suggestion... Editors here should consider nominating this article to be featured on the main page for Thanksgiving! See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. --Midnightdreary 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have LOVED to have done this. But the current request system makes actually MAKING a request impossible. Since only 5 requests are alowed at once, it is dumb luck that you can get a request on once a prior request is taken off. It would be a great idea, but in practice it is impossible to actually make a request any more. Maybe next year! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maps

How does one magnify the maps shown in these articles so they can be read? I tried to save them but the resolution is too low to allow magnification! 76.102.31.185 (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Click on the map, then on the next page click "View full resolution" -- which should take you here. Pfly (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

not bold enough to revert

somebody just deleted the "mayflower voyage" section without comment. was this agreed upon as redundant or something, or is it vandalism? i'll leave it up to whoever's watching here. Gzuckier (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted, was just vandalism. Kmusser (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"many had not left the ship for five months"

69.154.176.247's edit wasn't vandalism. He was right. July 21 to December 21 isn't six months -- it's five months.--Jw 193 (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Squanto

This piece contains this statement about the native American Squanto: "He had returned to New England in 1619, acting as a guide to the explorer Ferdinando Gorges." But the wikipedia article on Sir Ferdinando Gorges states that Gorges never set foot in the New World. Clearly, there's a big discrepancy here. I also believe that Gorges, active as a merchant-adventurer in England's West Country, never came to America. Perhaps the reference is to Gorges' son Robert, who was later involved in the failed colony at Weymouth.[2][3] In any case, this needs to be ironed out. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Squanto article he came back with John Smith which seems more likely - that version is supported at [4] though I doubt that would count as a RS. I also found lots of sources saying that Squanto stayed with Ferdinando Gorges while he was in England which may be part of the confusion. Kmusser (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed possible that Squanto stayed with Ferdinando Gorges in England, and he probably had close dealings with Capt. Christopher Levett, the English explorer of Maine who was involved with Gorges. In any case, there is some confusion here as I know Ferdinando himself never came to the New World, but remained in the West Country, trying to put together an empire (not so successsfully, in the end). Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
That following sentence about Massassoit massacring the crew is also suspicious, I found a bunch of on-line biographies of Squanto, but none of them say anything like that. Kmusser (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I also found this account which has Thomas Dermer returning Squanto to New England. Kmusser (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Scriptures

"at least to be able duly to read the Scriptures"

At this point mentioning which of the Early Modern English Bible translations they were reading would probably help clarify the extent of their studies. The Geneva Bible was popular among Puritans. The Authorized King James Version gained in circulation and popularity in the English Restoration. Was this reflected in Plymouth? Arguments concerning the Book of Common Prayer seemed to also be important for Puritans. Any variants common in the colony? Dimadick (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the John Demos source right now, but from my recollection, he does not go into detail about the specific bible translation or the prayer books in use in the colony. This would be very good information to add to the religion section if we could find reliable sources. There may be some good stuff at the Deetz's website (the University of Virgina Plymouth Archives noted in the External Links section). I do not have time to look through it myself at the moment, but it would be a good place to start one's research. If anyone wants to take the ball and run with this one, please feel free to do so. --Jayron32 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hingham footnote

A footnote in the text says: "Some towns north of the 'Old Colony Line', such as Hull, Wessagussett and Hingham may have been founded by Plymouth settlers or were temporarily administered as part of Plymouth Colony before the boundary with Massachusetts was established in 1644." I cannot speak for Hull or Wessagusett (later Weymouth) but Hingham, not far from Plymouth Colony, was not founded by anyone associated with Plymouth Colony. Hingham was originally part of Suffolk County. Nor was Hingham ever administered as part of Plymouth Colony. The statement needs to be removed unless someone can cite information specifically pertaining to Hingham. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and took it out, when doing research for the map I only encountered Hull and Weymouth. If one of you that has the Deetz book that is cited can confirm that it discusses Hingham feel free to add it back. Kmusser (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It's OK to take it out. The Deetz book had a few other problems with towns which may or may not have been part of Plymouth. For example, the Deetz book counts Natucket and Martha's Vineyard as part of Plymouth colony. The Islands did have a close relationship with Plymouth, but they were always officially part of New York until 1691, when they were appended to the newly reorganized Massachusetts Bay colony, when Plymouth was ended as a seperate entity as well. Only the Deetz source includes Hingham, as well as the Islands, as part of Plymouth, every other reliable source I found counts the Islands as part of New York, so Deetz is probably mistaken, or at least does not have the support of ther sources. --Jayron32 19:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Native American?

It seems ethnocentric to refer to Squanto/Tisquantum as being Native American when the Plymouth Colony is referred to as being English. He is cited as being a Patuxet at Squanto. Is there a reason why he is called a Native American rather than providing his ethnic affiliation? Wakablogger2 (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Most people wouldn't know what Patuxet meant. Even in the article on Squanto he is identified as Native American first in the lede and then qualified. older ≠ wiser 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That still does not seem appropriate. Here are some similar examples that use ethnic affiliations that are also not well known: Jama kaNdaba - Zulu, Chief Joseph - Wal-lam-wat-kain (Wallowa) band of Nez Perce, Sacagawea - Shoshone, Chief Seattle - a Dkhw’Duw’Absh (Duwamish) chief, Ishi - the last member of the Yahi, in turn the last surviving group of the Yana people of California. I think the Squanto article should be modified as well. Wakablogger2 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I reworded it to take the above into account. Thanks for noting the problem, I think it is now much better. --Jayron32 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a really nice way to do that. Thank you! Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Plymouth, Devon

There appears to be no mention of Plymouth, Devon which I assume this colony was named after. Plymouth Rock and Plymouth, Massachusetts both mentioned this, so either I've missed it in the article, for some reason it wasn't named after Plymouth in Devon, or I would have thought it needs to be added? SGGH ping! 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The article actually does mention that it was named "New Plymouth" by the future King Charles I and John Smith. I checked the source again, and it does not explicitly say that "old" Plymouth is Plymouth, Devon. That may be a perfectly valid assumption, but we'd need a source to add it to this article. Do you have a reliable source which indicates explicitly the connection? --Jayron32 19:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Plymouth Colony (or New Plymouth) was certainly named after Plymouth, Devon, where virtually all the merchant adventurers of that age were based, and from whence the Pilgrims had departed. Here is probably the first definitive source on the name, from the well-known "History of the Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts", published by Marsh, Capen & Lyon in Boston in 1832, written by James Thacher (p. 28): [5] "Here, therefore, is fixed the era of their settlement, which in grateful remembrance of the christian friends, whom they left in the last town they visited in their native England, they called New Plymouth." Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT... --Jayron32 19:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, considering other sources, I commented out the section for now. The idea that the colonists themselves decided on the name of New Plymouth and named it after their last port in England seems to be directly contradicted by basics facts of the chronology of the exploration of the area. As already noted in the article, a 1616 text by Captain John Smith was published that already contained detailed maps of the area, and which already uses the name "New Plimoth" as the name for the exact location of the future colony, some 4 years before the colonists showed up. They took the existing name of the place which was already on their maps and charts. See this annotated copy of Bradfords' Of Plimoth Plantation, look at page 96 in the footnotes, which clearly confirms that Smith had named the location already, and that the colonists merely adopted the existing name, and I quote "Plymouth...still bears the name assigned to the place by Smith". --Jayron32 03:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
And, reading along a little further, it DOES state that the colonists kept Smith's name because of the reasons you state. I think we should somehow make it clear that, while the name Plymouth was kept by the colonists because of its connection to Plymouth, Devon, it was not so named by them for that reason. Let me take a crack at a rewrite. --Jayron32 03:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MW2010

I was happy to be able to use this article to tout Wikipedia last week at the Museums and the Web conference. I'm trying to set up a way for Wikipedia users interested in Plymouth and the Plimouth Plantation to work together. Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

grave robbery?

Is there any evidence that the Pilgrims actually robbed/raided any Indian graves? As I understand it, the most detailed firsthand account, that in Mourt's Relation, specifically says that they dug into one grave without realizing what it was, and that when they found a rotting bow and realized that what they were excavating was a grave, they put the bow back and left the site alone. They did dig up caches of corn, but those weren't associated with the graves--and Bradford asserts that they paid the Indians compensation for the corn they took, a few months later. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The source for this when I wrote it was Philbrick's book; I have since returned it to the Library, and its been several years so I forget the exact details of it, but I seem to remember both incidents. If you would like, we can change to read "disturbance of graves" rather than grave robbing. I have some recollection that they actually removed some supplies that had been buried with the corpses, but as I don't have the book right now, I could be mistaken. If we change the wording, would that help? --Jayron32 16:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for responding so quickly. Yes, I think "disturbance of graves" would be more accurate. I've found the passage in question from Mourt's Relation:
When we had refreshed ourselves, we directed our course full south, that we might come to the shore, which within a short while after we did, and there made a fire, that they in the ship might see where we were (as we had direction) and so marched on towards this supposed river. And as we went in another valley we found a fine clear pond of fresh water, being about a musket shot broad and twice as long. There grew also many fine vines, and fowl and deer haunted there; there grew much sassafras. From thence we went on, and found much plain ground, about fifty acres, fit for plow, and some signs where the Indians had formerly planted their corn. After this, some thought it best, for nearness of the river, to go down and travel on the sea sands, by which means some of our men were tired, and lagged behind. So we stayed and gathered them up, and struck into the land again, where we found a little path to certain heaps of sand, one whereof was covered with old mats, and had a wooding thing like a mortar whelmed on the top of it, and an earthen pot laid in a little hole at the end thereof. We, musing what it might be, digged and found a bow, and, as we thought, arrows, but they were rotten. We supposed there were many other things, but because we deemed them graves, we put in the bow again and made it up as it was, and left the rest untouched, because we thought it would be odious unto them to ransack their sepulchers.
(This text from a modernized-spelling version here; it can also be found with the original spelling here. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done Changed language to better reflect the above source. Thanks for helping out with that! --Jayron32 21:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
On further research, the matter is more complicated than I thought. Mourt's Relation goes on to describe a later incident in which the Pilgrims dug up what turned out to be graves, taking various articles away with them:
When we had marched five or six miles into the woods and could find no signs of any people, we returned again another way...we found a place like a grave, but it was much bigger and longer than any we had yet seen. It was also covered with boards, so as we mused what it should be, and resolved to dig it up, where we found, first a mat, and under that a fair bow, and there another mat, and under that a board about three quarters long, finely carved and painted, with three tines, or broaches, on the top, like a crown. Also between the mats we found bowls, trays, dishes, and such like trinkets. At length we came to a fair new mat, and under that two bundles, the one bigger, the other less. We opened the greater and found in it a great quantity of fine and perfect red powder, and in it the bones and skull of a man. The skull had fine yellow hair still on it, and some of the flesh unconsumed; there was bound up with it a knife, a packneedle, and two or three old iron things. It was bound up in a sailor's canvas cassock, and a pair of cloth breeches. The red powder was a kind of embalment, and yielded a strong, but not offensive smell; it was as fine as any flour. We opened the less bundle likewise, and found of the same powder in it, and the bones and head of a little child. About the legs and other parts of it was bound strings and bracelets of fine white beads; there was also by it a little bow, about three quarters long, and some other odd knacks. We brought sundry of the prettiest things away with us, and covered the corpse up again. After this, we digged in sundry like places, but found no more corn, nor any thing else but graves.
There was variety of opinions amongst us about the embalmed person. Some thought it was an Indian lord and king. Others said the Indians have all black hair, and never any was seen with brown or yellow hair. Some thought it was a Christian of some special note, which had died amongst them, and they thus buried him to honor him. Others thought they had killed him, and did it in triumph over him.
The behavior described here is very hard to explain, even given the Pilgrims' uncertainty as to whether the grave contained European or Native remains. Why, if they'd shown scruples about disturbing the first graves they found, would they feel OK about doing so two weeks later? This is, frankly, baffling. In any case, maybe we should re-reconsider the wording in the article. It seems clear that at least some of the Pilgrims did rob graves on at least one occasion, and it's likely (given the ochre and the beads) that the graves were Native graves, not European ones, notwithstanding the yellow hair, the "iron things," and the cloth garments. Perhaps the iron and cloth articles were acquired by trade with Europeans? Perhaps the yellow hair was the result of a chemical reaction with the ochre? (I'm no chemist.) Or perhaps the grave contained remains of a European who jumped ship and joined the Indians, who later buried him in their own fashion. Sorry if I led you astray. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Except that "disturbance" is a more inclusive term, which can also include robbery, after all robbery is a form of disturbing them. So I think the more inclusive term is OK. Or, we can seperately describe both instances. If you want to take a crack at this, that'd be cool. --Jayron32 17:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Origins

After Hugh Brogan, the Separatists originated from Lincolnshire, and neighbouring Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire; their leaders were educated people. Brogan insists that he is quoting William Bradford (ed 1966, NY ). After the Hampton Court Conference Richard Bancroft (nicknamed Policeman) began persecution: (the interval is unspecified) "some were taken and clapped up in prison, others had their houses beset and watched night and day, and hardly escaped their hands; and the most were fain to flee and leave their houses and habitations, and the means of their livelihood". So, wasn't Scrooby a temporary gathering, posterior to the beginning of the persecution ? I have read somewhere that their plan had been leaving to America before they went to Holland already. --Askedonty (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

First winter

In the First winter section, it says " Massasoit and Governor Martin established a formal treaty of peace." It was on March 22, 1621. However, Governor Martin was replaced by John Carver by the end of January, and he died on January 8 (see List of Mayflower passengers who died in the winter of 1620–1621). I think "Governor Carver" did that. --Ryuhaku05:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good catch. I agree that it does seem a bit contradictory, but I don't currently have access to the book I used as a reference when I was writing that section. I am on vacation right now. When I get back home, I will look into the reference, and see what I can do about correcting the contradition. --Jayron32 15:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Monarchy or Independent Republic?

Should Plymouth Colony really be considered a monarchy? I can understand the justification in the case of most of the other American colonies. All of the other colonies seem to have acknowledged in some way the sovereignty of the English monarch either by a charter stating as much, through the monarch's direct administration of the colony through a royal governor or indirectly through a proprietor who himself was effectively a vassal of the monarch. Plymouth Colony doesn't seem to have acknowledged the monarch's sovereignty through any of those means. Did it acknowledge his sovereignty at all through taxes or the like? If not then factually (if not legally) Plymouth was an independent state. And judging from the description of the government it would be best described as a republic or even a theocratic republic. And if Plymouth was an independent state prior to being subsumed into the Dominion of New England I think that would be an extremely interesting point to include in the article. Yankeedoodles85 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

They didn't like the king and were largely self-governing, but they were still operating under a charter. The first year their legality was somewhat questionable as their grant was via the London Company but they settled outside the companies territory, but in 1621 they got a grant from the Plymouth Council for New England. Kmusser (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that the signing of the Mayflower Compact would tend to negate the idea that it was thought to be a monarchy. Mugginsx (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
They were still subjects of the British Crown, regardless of how they organized their local governance. --Jayron32 16:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
True, an interesting question, yours. Mugginsx (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a very nice article

I hate tags, and this is a beautiful article but it needs some more references at the top in particular. Mugginsx (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Some recent inaccuracies now fixed

Recent editors have mixed up Jamestown and Plymouth Colony. They were not both in New England. Also, there were both English and Dutch born passengers on the Mayflower who settled New Plimouth. Plymouth was NOT part of the Colony of Virginia. The reason is that the Mayflower was forced off-course and because they were starving and the ship was leaking they landed at an unexplored area which they called New Plimouth. This was the reason for the Mayflower Compact since they realized they were, at that point, their own governing power.

The first settlement at Jamestown was no where near New Plymouth. It was also not, at first, a successful colony as was implied in the article, nor was it explored beforehand by Capt. John Smith. Look at the Jamestown article and other sites and you will see that: Despite the early leadership of explorer Captain John Smith, most of the colonists and their replacements died within the first five years. Two-thirds of the settlers died before arriving ships brought supplies and experts from Poland and Germany in the next year, 1608[1]

  1. ^ ^ "list of settlers in 1608 expedition". Apva.org. Retrieved 2009-09-22.
None of the text you changed said any of that. The text made clear distinctions about the difference between Jamestown and Plymouth, and your changes introduced inaccuracies. Also, the text clearly stated that John Smith had explored the land where Plymouth was sited, which he did. It was not confusing. --Jayron32 22:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Plymouth"

The usage of Plymouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Plymouth -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Plymouth Colony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Englhilip's War!?

Da hell is Englhilip's War!? TheEsb (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism. No one would have stopped you from fixing it. --Jayron32 22:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Plymouth Colony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plymouth Colony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plymouth Colony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Puritan =/= Brownist

My understanding is that both were groups in the English dissenters spectrum, but separate. I made changes to this article pertaining to this delicate matter.Ernio48 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The Brownists were Puritan separatists. The separatists did not hope to change the Anglican church from within, which was the reason that they left England in the first place. —Dilidor (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Communal ownership

  • Skrabec, Quentin R., Jr. (May 4, 2012). "Privatization of the Plymouth Colony (1623)". The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-313-39863-6. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Skimmed the article and didn't see any coverage of how property worked in the colony. For all the extra detail in some other areas, would seem to be a noteworthy omission for a FA, no? (Or perhaps it's time for another review since it's been a decade?) Citation above. czar 18:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

All the Nason/ Varney (Massachusetts Gazetteer 1890) references, in Notes 137 through 158, appear to have lapsed into dead links. This leaves a substantial part of the article without appropriate references. Can this source be linked elsewhere? - Eebahgum (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Dilidor I have made good faith edits to this article, and related articles, and I have cited the source. Time after time you revert those edits, forcing me to restore them ,then you revert again. My edits are facts, contributory facts, and not vandalism. Your constant reverts are vandalism. Is there a personal reason that yourevert my good faith edits? The reasons mentioned in your edit summaries are either inaccurate or obfuscatory.Do my edits conflict with your version of reality? You do not have ownership of any WP article, but appear to act as such. Is this article part of a grammar school curriculum in which you have interest? Unless you wish to take this to the administrative notice board over edit warring, please respond, If you don’t I will restore the parts you reverted, and take this to the noticeboard.Oldperson (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Time after time you simply re-paste statements which demonstrate your own miscomprehension, such as "These people called themselves saints" which is true on a literal level but demonstrates an ignorance (willful or otherwise) of what they meant by it. You re-paste typographical errors such as "John Alden", "thaseed", "constitutionThe other", and so forth. You re-paste blatant misinformation, such as "radical faction sect of Puritanism called Separatists". We go round and round and round addressing these same issues again and again. I have several times attempted to untwist your edits into well-written and accurate contributions, but too often it is not worth the work. And I have avoided these discussions because of the frequent times when you have become belligerent and offensive—as I have explained to you time and time again. —Dilidor (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
((reply to|Dilidor}} On the contrary you have been reverting my good faith edits, and apparently stalking me. It started with my edits on the Virginia Company in particular my mention of the Great Charter as being the foundation of self governance in America. This of course conflicted with your opinion that "the seed" of democracy was sown in the Plymouth Colony. You were not born in that era thus you have no idea at all why those people considered themselves saints,and their motivation is irrelevant to the facts. WP deals in facts and I have made edits of supported facts which you consistently revert because, apparently they do not accord with your personal POV. Typo's I admit to, but if all you did was correct TYPO's we would not be having this discussion, but you use as a flimsy excuse, typo's to revert sentences and paragraphs. I am not belligerent but, nor are my comments and questions on talk pages belligerent. You might take offense because I happen to have the temerity to question or challenge you.

This dustup could have been forestalled if you had simply discussed with me on the appropriate talk page, the reason for your revert. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring instead of simply reverting good faith edits, using specious and inappropriate edit summaries. Per the above link reversions because one disagrees with the content and subject are inappropriate and should be resolved on the talk page. You have consistently reverted good faith edits sans discussion and of course an editor will get annoyed with such behavior. FYI I am not stalking you, as regards your constant accusations against me and others, such as having an agenda, perhaps we are dealing with a case of projection. I have certain pages, that interest me, on my watchlist, and apparently our interests overlap at some points.Oldperson (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: And now you're stalking me, using my contributions page to follow me from edit to edit! This is positively the final time that I will have any discourse with you. I am formally warning you for the last time to stop stalking me. —Dilidor (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Dilidor: Stalking you? Because we have the same interests and constantly collide does not mean I am stalking you. I resent the accusation. As I stated on the Admin notice board you've been reverting my edits from the Virginia Company to Plymouth Colony. So who is stalking who? Shall we tcommunicate and resolve differences as adults or continue this game onto the Administrative Noticeboard. Again you do not adddress the issue I raise but change the subject by accusing me of stalking (this time). I've raised other issues before but you refuse to discuss them and change the subject by accusing me of something.Oldperson (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: You mentioned on a Plymouth Colony edit summary that you were trying to work with me. I replied on your user talk page, I replied on my talk page in an attempt to actually work with you and put this dust up behind us.I really would like to work with you and have a discussion as to why you insist that the Mayflower compact was THE seed of American Democracy, when in fact it was A seed, as the Great Charter of the Virginia Company preceded the Mayflower compact. I've tried many times to engage you. But you ignore me, I take that as permission to edit/revert and then you revert again making false claims and issuing "warnings" I will admit my first clumsy attempts were angry and accusatory, for that I apologize, however I would like to discuss with you some issues. I am asking respectfully. When you failed to reply I take your silence as assent and permission. WP policy requires that editors work out their diff's on talk pages. I am trying to comply with that policy. I sincerely hope that you likewise engage.Oldperson (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

invaluable?

"The delays had significant consequences; the cost of the repairs and port fees required that the colonists sell some of their invaluable provisions."

Really? Then how did they sell them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.198.219 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Original Land Patent

The current section is confusing or cannot be accurate: "The congregation obtained a land patent from the Plymouth Company in June 1619. They had declined the opportunity to settle south of Cape Cod in New Netherland because of their desire to avoid the Dutch influence.[6] This land patent allowed them to settle at the mouth of the Hudson River. They sought to finance their venture through the Merchant Adventurers, a group of businessmen who principally viewed the colony as a means of making a profit. Upon arriving in America, the Pilgrims began working to repay their debts.[7]"

The mouth of the Hudson would have been the New Netherland patent that they declined--not the one they accepted. I'll do more research on the patent before updating. User:cglenn3932:cglenn3932 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.209.86 (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with cglenn3932. This paragraph does not make sense. The mouth of the Hudson River is far southwest of Cape Cod, in what is now New York City. That location was in the heart of the New Netherland Colony. According to the Wikipedia article on New Netherland, the Dutch Republic claimed land from southwestern Cape Cod to Pennsylvania and the Delmarva Peninsula. New Amsterdam, which became New York City, and the Hudson Valley were in the heart of Dutch influence.
Also, according to that article, the New Netherland Colony "was conceived by the Dutch West India Company (WIC) in 1621". This is after the Plymouth land grant was obtained according to this article, and is after the Plymouth Colony was actually established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland.
I am a newbie to participating in the Talk function. I do not mean to make an actual edit here. The instructions are extensive and technical and I apologize if I have done things incorrectly. m.m (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the issue here, but that is my problem. I do know this thatThe Virginia Company was composed of two separate companies The One was theVirginia Company of London, whose "adventurers" (stockholders) sought to settle that area of the New World from basically two hundred miles south of the James River (Point/Cape Comfort) to the mouth of the Hudson river (41 degrees north)
The First charter of 1606 mentions between 34 degrees north and 41degess north , the Virginia Company of London, what we call Virginia. The second was the Virginia Company of Plymouth whose adventurers (stockholders) sought to settle that area of the New World from 38 degrees north to 45 degrees north. At first the entire area from Spanish Florida to Maine was called Virginia, more specifically the area from 34 degrees north to 45 degrees north was called Virginia. There were three degrees of overlap between the two companiesThe Virginia Comany of Plymouth was a failure and was disbanded by 1619. The "adventurers"lost their investment. In 1620 a group of Puritans left Holland, stopped at Playmouth, England for replenishment and continued onto their destination which was the vicinity of the Hudson River. They ran out of potable liquid and had to put into land early to resupply, as they were scouring the coast heading to their destination, they decided to set ashore at what is now mythically claimed to be Plymouth rock. They encountered another civilization which was engaged in farming and decided to stay.The Mayflower was sent back to obtain more supplies and settlers
In 1620 a New Charter was given to theCouncil for New England. The [Dutch colonization of the Americas|Dutch[ established a trading post near Albany in 1615, the first colonists didn't arrive until 1624 Oldperson (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Margaret.miz:I forgot to ping you to the aboveOldperson (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Questionable sentence about Squanto

The article says:

[Squanto] had returned to New England in 1619, acting as a guide to explorer Capt. Robert Gorges, but Massasoit and his men had massacred the crew of the ship and had taken Squanto.

The articles on Squanto and Thomas Dermer say that Squanto sailed with Dermer, not with Robert Gorges. Dermer's crew was indeed attacked by natives, but none of the articles mention that the attack was carried out by Massasoit. Furthermore, according to the Squanto article, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that Squanto was ever a prisoner of Massasoit. AxelBoldt (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Squanto/Gorges error

Article states that Tisquantum (Squanto) was returned to Plymouth in 1619 by Robert Gorges. Incorrect. He was returned by Dermer. Dermer himself was sponsored by Ferdinando Gorges (Robert's father), who was Governor of the Plymouth Fort and who also sponsored John Smith's 1614 trip to New England. Gorges shared Dermer's letter with the Pilgrims just before they left Plymouth, England. Jonathan Ames Fuller (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Opening Section

This sentence needs to be reworked. Aside from being unclear, and something of a run-on sentence, it seems antagonistic.

"Most of the citizens of Plymouth were fleeing religious persecution and searching for a place to worship as they saw fit, while wanting the groups around them to adhere to their beliefs, rather than being entrepreneurs like many of the settlers of Jamestown in Virginia."

I am not an expert; but I suggest that, if I correctly understand what this is trying to say, the following might be more clear, and more neutral:

|Unlike the settlers of the Jamestown colony in Virginia, most of the citizens of Plymouth were fleeing religious persecution and seeking a place to live and worship as they saw fit. They also sought to spread their Christian faith to the native peoples of the land they would settle.| — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRBirch922 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
First sentence good. Second incorrect. There is no evidence of proselytizing for at least the first decade. By 1670, there were many "Praying Indians", several hundred, perhaps a thousand. But they were all genocidally enslaved during King Philip's War. The French tried conversion a lot, but the English only rarely. Jonathan Ames Fuller (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The central clause was the problem; the solution was simple. —Dilidor (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Most of the citizens of Plymouth were fleeing religious persecution and searching for a place to worship as they saw fit, also wanting the groups around them be cooperant into building a coherent ideological web, thus not primarily favoring entrepreneurs like were most of the settlers of Jamestown in Virginia." --Askedonty (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Emigrate

@Dilidor:: You edits changing 'immigrate' to 'emigrate' are incorrect. Please see the section on your talk page, User talk:Dilidor#Immigrate/emigrate, and look up the usage difference between 'emigrate' and 'immigrate'. Generally speaking, 'emigrate' takes the preposition 'from', and 'immigrate' takes 'to'. Clause in question reads '...and _________ed to the Netherlands...', so the correct answer is pretty clear cut. CoatGuy2 (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Emigrate vs. Immigrate

Emigrate means "to move out of" one place, from assimilated form of ex "out" (see ex-) + migrare "to move". Immigrate means to "move into" a new place, from assimilated form of in- "into, in, on, upon" + migrare "to move". So the Pilgrims were moving into Amsterdam. If the sentence was saying that they were moving out of England, then "emigrate" would be correct. But as it stands now, the sentence says that they were moving into Amsterdam, and therefore "immigrate" is correct. — Dilidor (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

So why did you change it back to 'emigrate'? CoatGuy2 (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Pardon me, I was misremembering the sentence. It reads "the congregation left England". They moved "out of" England, meaning that they emigrated. ―Dilidor (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The bit about leaving England is the first of two predicates in a compound sentence, and the context to decide the immigrate/emigrate question is the following italicised prepositional phrase in the second predicate: '...and _________ed to the Netherlands...' It would be perfectly acceptable for you to rewrite the sentence as 'In 1608, the congregation emigrated from England to the Netherlands, settling first in Amsterdam and then in Leiden.' But what you have now is incorrect. CoatGuy2 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plymouth_Colony/Archive_1&oldid=1229183261"