Talk:Thomas Morton (colonist)

Jack Dempsey

Does anyone have a source for more information about the historian Jack Dempsey and the editing of the republished version of New Canaan? I tried looking for it but unfortunately searching for 'Jack Dempsey' returns information about the boxer of the same name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4A7F:2920:7006:6F0F:AAF7:D591 (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Merrymount as treated in MILTON IN AMERICA, By Peter Ackroyd

Perhaps this could be added to the "In literature" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.21.248 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Devon vs. Devonshire

It is my understanding that township of Devonshire is not used, but instead simply "Devon," England. I was listening to an NPR spot awhile back, and they made mention of this common misuse of Devonshire. Something to the affect that it is redundant.

Anyone else on this?

It's not a "township", but a county. Probably either can be used in a historical context. AnonMoos 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I cannot help but feel this is a very one-sided account in favor of Morton. Not that I'm a fan of Bradford, but it seems to take the most positive view of Morton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.63.141 (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an extremely simplistic account of events as it ENTIRELY ignores the conspiracy attempt of THE NATIVES to kill Morton and his men who were known for stealing corn from the Indians. The Puritans saw this is a national security issue since Morton was supplying them with weapons in exchange for furs. This bio needs major editing.68.175.66.95 (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed both one-sided and simplistic, part of a pattern of recent years that looks to re-write the history of the English settlement of New England by flipping the traditional vision of noble settlers and savage natives to the equally inaccurate and simplistic one of savage settlers and noble natives - just in this case casting Morton as the hero who (unlike, we are to think, any of his contemporaries) respected the native culture and suffered at the hands of the oppressive, narrow-minded "Puritans" because of his devotion to liberty. I would have been more impressed if the author had not shown ignorance of the difference between "Puritans" and "separatists" and had not committed the frequent but still major boner of equating Plymouth with Boston. (I did get a chuckle out of how the author quickly glossed over and dismissed the charge of selling arms to the natives, referring to it as "technically" illegal. It was illegal. Nothing technical about it and no, not "everyone" did it.) On another point, though, about "the conspiracy attempt of the natives to kill Morton." I think you may be confusing Thomas Morton with Thomas Weston, whose attempt to establish a plantation about 30 miles north of Plymouth in 1622 did lead to those events.75.67.210.51 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have studied Thomas Morton and while not agreeing with everything in this article, found it in essence sound. Let me quote William Bradford,

"Morton immigrated to the New World sometime in the 1620s. He succeeded in convincing a group of indentured servants to rebel against their master in order to set up a slightly different sort of Utopia. Morton encouraged drinking, erected a maypole, and “maintained a school of Atheism” (Page 72) and "the Indians brought him food and drink, “so full of humanity were these infidels before those Christians.”

Source: - Bradford, William. "Of Plymouth Plantation." The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Nina Baym. Shorter 7th Edition. Vol. I. New York: Norton, 2008.

If anything, more should be said about Morton's atheist beliefs. He is important to American history, in that he reminds us that the roots of this country were not just puritan in nature. Mrfh (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a relative of Thomas Morton and I find this article basically rings true. It agrees with what I have heard in my family and also with what I have read over the years. He was certainly not an atheist but was a High Church Englishman. He was a scholar and linguist who studied the Indians and their language and customs and use of herbs and everything and wrote perhaps the first comprehensive book about Native American culture. Most importantly he was their friend. He gave them guns to hunt when they were starving due to a famine, among other things, and he lived among them with respect for their way of life. The Pilgrims in Plymouth were a bigotted bunch of religious fanatics who didn't like his style (don't worry I have family among them too) and besides which they didn't want him interfering with their business of selling guns to the Indians...and by the way "Puritans" were "Separatists" and so were "Pilgrims"--in other words they were not Established Church, neither Catholic nor C. of E. that's all. As for the bit about the indentured servants, he freed his own and offered them the opportunity to share equally in a community, a settlement, for commerce, etc. These are all simply facts. There is no attempt here to make Thomas Morton look better than he was. Read His New English Canaan and Bradford's History and you will see it all for what it was. There are a couple of other corrections that I would make such as he was a full member of Furnival's Inn at Court, a practicing barrister not a student (although he obviously was a student at some point as is every professional) but I will leave any other comments to another time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharreni Jessie Morton (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome. Do you have any sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS for these corrections so we can add them? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia Mess

Aside from being largely citation-free in the manner of a personal essay, this article suddenly includes a briefer article-within-the-article about Morton at the end. What's up with that? Is it some vestige of the original article posted by someone else? How sloppy can an article be without anyone apparently noticing? Well, Wikipedia is an experiment testing such limits.... 76.23.157.102 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Also, that birth date must be pretty approximate if he managed to die at age 71, only 68 years after being born. 24.60.70.75 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Elegy

I came to this article, because of Ben Kingsley's account in the couple of minutes of Elegy (film). I found the writing sloppy, but rather lively. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs citations

If all this is true, where are the citations? It's cruising for a bruising. Citations would do something to mitigate the allegations of this being non-neutral. If Bradford can testify, let's include him. Markdf10825 (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What a stinker

If you don't know the difference between Plymouth Pilgrim separatists and Boston Puritans, where do you get the nerve to contribute to an encyclopedic article?

MarkinBoston (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

boy, isn't that the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clio85718 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

removing POV template without ongoing discussion per Template:POV instructions

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Works

I was fumbling around doing my usual troping bit at ATT and decided on a whim to see if Wikisource had anything on ol' Thomas - and it turns out they do! Mildly curious as to why none of those works are listed here, though it's very likely just an oversight somewhere (which is understandable if true). Disregard, I'm an actual idiot. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)