Talk:Virginia Company

1584?

How could James I grant a charter in 1584 when he wasn't king of england until 1603? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.51.232 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Although he can travel as a king and leave an eir to the throne; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.157.162 (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dutch East India Company Settlement of New Amsterdam?

I see a plot for the Virginia Company and the Plymouth Company here, but nothing showing the settlement of New Haarlem which was there in 1614, six years before the Plymouth Company. How could this map not show that? It may well be that England didn't recognize it, but I find it hard to believe an English settlement was bound for the "Hudson River" with an existing Dutch fort and all being in place and fully manned. Unless the plan was to try to supplant the Dutch? I've not seen any record to support this idea though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.123.197 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to the above unsigned and undated. The Dutch had not made a presence until AFTER the Crown issued patents in 1606 and 1609. And that is what the map represents, the original charters.

On another subject: Reading the charters there is no mention of a Virginia Company of London or Plymouth

It wasn't until the Charter (patent) of 1609 that the Joint Stock enterprise was given a name: to wit:"called and incorporated by the name of The Tresorer and Companie of Adventurers and Planters of the Citty of London for the Firste Collonie in Virginia. " Charter. Modern references to Virginia Company of London and Virginia Company of Plymouth are not validated by the charters, but are terms introduced and used in the modern era for differentation. The whole coast of north America from 38 degrees north to 45 degrees north were called by the Crown and referred to by the English as Virginia. I am sure that the French, Spanish, Dutch, Swedes and other countries had other ideasOldperson (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)16:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Revert warring

@Oldperson: You are engaging in a revert war on this article, repeatedly inserting material that is not contained in the source which you cite. Your source does not contain any information for the following statement: "There was the company of knights, gents, merchants and adventurers of London and the company of knights, gents, merchants and adventurers of the city of Bristol, Exeter, and the town of Plymouth." You need to provide a source which verifies this statement if you want the new information included. Either way, you need to stop reverting it. —Dilidor (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: I will not get into verbal fisticuffs with you. There is something about this website (American History: Revolution to Reconstruction. Go to the link on the left hand side are links to subpages, click on Charter of 1609 read down and you will see the verbage written in old King's English.

Let me try this link.I've tried this before but it defaults to the 1606 charter this is to the 1609 charter which does mention knights, gents, merchants and adventurers of London — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: Another issue with you. You deleted two paragraphs. With the same claim that the reference does not contain information validating the claim. Problem is that you have not read the reference is a book The Colonial Background of the American Revolution pages 32-34. I consider your action to be arbitrary, lazy, ill thought or vandalism as the information apparently does not conform to your particular system of beliefOldperson (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to leave your edit as-is for now. I will endeavor to fix it tomorrow, if no other editor sees it and steps in to fix it. Because presently the intro is a hash. That info is good, now that it's properly cited—but it does not belong in the intro. It needs to be elucidated in the body of the article. —Dilidor (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: Thank you, now we can collaborate without stepping on toes. I inserted a heading "Difference Between Companies, to separate out the mish mash which you correctly noted. The Virginia Company and it's two subsets The "London" Company and the "Plymouth" Company seem to have become an interest to me. I have developed, during my research, quite a bit of references which can back up all statements. In reviewing the article I find no discrepancies, but perhaps it needs some citations, which if pointed out I can provide. I enjoy collaboration. It is a positive social outlet, discord and warring raise my triglycerides and I prefer to elevate my endorphins, triglycerides adversely effect the healing process, endorphins facilitate it. My lung tumor, under treatment of Pembrolizumab has decreased from the size of an orange to that of the first joint of my thumb (even smaller)Oldperson (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I've done a heavy copy edit, and I think it reads well now. Overall it's a positive addition to the article, and it now includes a direct quotation from the King's original charter. Thanks for your efforts. —Dilidor (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor:Thanks looks great, much better article now. FYI, some time ago I "got in trouble" with an user who is either a senior editor or admin, for using blockquotes of such a length. So I have become quote shyOldperson (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor It is not a hobby horse and my only agenda is to be faithful to the facts. You reversed an edit that was factual, in favor of a piece of propaganda.
The group of colonists which landed in Massachussets Bay were in fact Puritans, not Catholics, not Jews, but Puritans, and Puritans were Anglicans whose motives were to purifying the Church of England. They weren't called pilgrims until the 19th Century. Apparently you have a visceral need to call them pilgrims, well then call them what they were Puritan pilgrims, which is what I did in the edit you reversed. There is also a myth that they were the first colonists, not true, the Virginia colony preceded them by 13 years. Tell me then, what is the reason for your obsession with labeling them pilgrims, when in fact they were Puritans. A pilgrim is a person who travels to a place or origin of worship. Muslims perform a pilgrimage to Mecca, some Christians perform a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, the Crusades include people making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. I have explained my reasoning, please explain the reasoning behind your obsession.Oldperson (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Seems to me that we've discussed these points before, but we can go over it again. First, nobody disputes that the Pilgrims were Puritans. Nor does anyone claim that they were Catholics or Jews or anything else; I have no idea where you're getting that notion. However: you are incorrect in stating that the Pilgrims "were Anglicans whose motives were to purifying the Church of England". They were separatist Puritans, which is why they left England in the first place—to separate themselves from the Anglican church. They had no agenda to purify the Anglican church; they wanted to get away from it.

Yes yes yes, I know that they did not collectively refer to themselves as "Pilgrims". That name was applied collectively later, but it was drawn from the writings of William Bradford, who did use it to refer to himself in his trek to the New World. All of that is utterly irrelevant; the fact remains that today the Mayflower Pilgrims are referred to as such; everyone knows what it means and whom it refers to. It's just an easy way of alluding and linking to those people and the Plymouth Colony.

Finally, your understanding is deeply flawed concerning the etymology of "pilgrim". You must grasp a very basic and important fact first: the person who first used the word in reference to the Mayflower Puritans was William Bradford—one of the Mayflower Puritans! It was not invented in the 19th century; 19th century persons were alluding to the writings of William Bradford. And Bradford was alluding to Hebrews 11:13—"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." The word does not mean "someone who is travelling to a religious shrine"; it refers to sojourners, "strangers in a strange land", a sense which Bradford embraced for himself and his fellow Mayflower passengers. It is not a modern myth; it was a concept which William Bradford embraced!

Adding "Puritan" to "the Pilgrims" is not necessarily incorrect. It is redundant, at best, because "Mayflower Pilgrims" refers specifically to one unique group of people—all of whom were Puritans. (The non-Puritan passengers are not included in the term "Pilgrim", with the exception of Miles Standish.) But you also tend to misunderstand that the Pilgrims were separatist Puritans, very different from the non-separatist Puritans who came during the Great Migration and established Massachusetts Bay Colony. They did not share the same convictions.

I do hope that I have adequately clarified this time. —Dilidor (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|Dildor|| Ok let's continue the discussion.

First Bradfords group were in fact Puritans. The Puritans were more or less three groups of people. The Separatists were a different group. The Puritans were so called because they wanted to Purify the Anglican Church. The Puritans who still believed in the practices of the church settled and formed the Massachusetts Bay colony, and the Separatists settled in the area of Plymouth Rock. Â As time progressed, both groups were responsible for creating religions which are practiced today, the Unitarian and Baptist churches.

Read more: Difference Between Puritans and Separatists | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/religion-miscellaneous/difference-between-puritans-and-separatists/#ixzz5tV8pQ6qB.

I do, in fact, understand the difference between the different classes of puritans. The separatists were originally puritans, but eventually chose to separate themselves from the Anglican church while other congregations chose to stay within and reform from within.

This source describes Bradford and his followers as Puritans.https://earlyuslit.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/puritan-ideology-in-bradfords-of-plymouth-plantationrevised/. When one searches for answers one finds many, and apparently the answers are prejudiced by ones subjection to propaganda (i.e. belief)

For instance some sources claim that the "pilgrims" were the foundation of America. Whereas they arrived in Massachussets bay one year after the "Great Charter" of 1619, a letter of the Virginia Colony of London,that grantedd the Virginia Colony the right of self governance.

Apparently there is a lot of propaganda which either originated founding myths or caused founding myths. A lot of is perpetuated by persons with religious motivations.

Did you know that the reason Ben Franklin left Boston, was to escape the stifling theocracy, and that Massachussets would only be admitted to the union of the 13 Colonies if it abandoned its theocratic government for a democratic republic.

I bet you weren't told that in school (the same schooling that informed you that it was Pilgrims that landed on Plymouth Rock(another myth, they didn't land on a rock.

Did you know that the common man had no interest at all in the revolution. This was more true in Virginia than in the North. The common man of Virginia had to interest in overthrowing one group of elites, for another. At least the London elites were thousands of miles over the ocean.

The Tidewater aristocracy of Cavaliers and Planters (most often one and the same) were not discomfited by taxes, they could well afford to pay duties on imports from the East India Company.

And the Boston Tea Party was not a revolt against taxes, but a revolt against the monopoly of the East India Company, a monopoly granted by the King to the same.

The economy of the north was driven by climate and soil. It was not amenable to plantations, and large scale single crop planting. It's only pracical natural resource was timber and so it became (at least along the Atlantic coast) a ship building economy, building Britains commercial and war vessets.

The King's charter to the East India Company, forbade the colonists from making swords, muskets, china, silver ware, fine clothing and of course they had to import spices, teas and textiles from ships owned by the East India Company, The majority of signatories of the Declaration of Independence from the North were smugglers. John Hancock was a smuggler,and a well known one at that, he knew that if the colonies did not separate he would be hung by the crown.

That;s the meaning behind "We will be hung together or by yourselves". Hanging was their fate, either way. Not so with the Tidewater aristocracy.

The southern aristocracy,had a need to show off their wealth and social status to others oftheir class, one method of proving their wealth and status was to voyage to England, the more trips the better, but on arrival in England, they were treated as country bumpkins, not the toyalty they believed themselves to be,and mostly ignored.

A revolution,in their mind, was a chance to become royalty in America. Alas the common man had no interest in merely exchanging masters, so had to be convinced that the revolution was in their interest.

The first act was for the Virginia legislature to create a committee to keep an eye on the citizenry, to keep them in line, thus they formed The Committee for Public Safety, the name was chosen so as not to alarm the Governor and crown. The committee initially devised ways of penalizing loyalists, but they also needed to convince the people that the fight was right. So they hired pamphleteers like Thomas Paine,who put truth to paper, but the printing was financed by the elites, in the Philadelphia Presses of the likes of Rittenhouse.

I wager you were never taught any of this in school, certainly can't find it onWP,However if you care to advance your knowledge I suggest an Intimate History of Pittsylvania County Virginia in the American Revolution: http://www.mitchellspublications.com/ur/loc/hurtfh/ihar/index.htm and Albion's Seed:Four British Folkways in America.

Thia has been overly long and it would stress you to read it all.Oldperson (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: You are both rude ("Thia has been overly long and it would stress you to read it all") and ignorant ("Massachussets would only be admitted to the union of the 13 Colonies if it abandoned its theocratic government for a democratic republic"). Attempting to conduct a civilized discussion is pointless, so this is my last post to you. —Dilidor (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: I was not attempting to censor you but to esstop what was heading towards a non constructive flame war. I read your personal page. You claim to have 30 years experience, and are a ghost writer. Fool me. Your comments are those I expected from some ill informed teen ager. I know that these comments appear inflammatory, and for that I apologize. But I deleted your and my comments because they were non constructive inflammatory and sadly you only get worse.

By the way as regards my comment about Massachussets. True, not well expressed perhaps, lets try this quote:
"Only by remaining secular, the Founders believed, could America preserve its democracy. They were actually so serious about preserving this secular democracy that some of them didn’t want to let Massachusetts into the union because its political system was, for all intents and purposes, a Puritan theocracy." source: https://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2015/05/57-percent-republicans-want-undo-american-revolution.

By the way were you aware that the Founding Fathers were so inimical of this country becoming a theocracy, that they installed the Goddess Colombia, as a statue on the nations capitol and named it's city after her The Dictrict of Colombia.Oldperson (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Puritans vs Pilgrims

@Dilidor: Acccording to the Encycopedia Brittanica https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pilgrim-Fathers Of the 102 colonists, 35 were members of the English Separatist Church (a radical faction of Puritanism) , thus these Separatists were in fact Puritans, and as a group 35/102 is only 34%, a minority, not the majority needed to label the group Pilgrims. It was not "Pilgrims" that founded the Massachussets bay colony but Puritans and I have reservations about capitalizing the word puritan, for Puritans were Anglicans that sought to make pure the Church of England. In 1630, John Winthrop led some 1,000 English Puritans in the initial wave of the Great Migration to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, north of Plymouth. They were fleeing the royal wrath of King Charles I and Bishop William Laud, who were escalating persecution of dissidents.https://www.newsweek.com/whats-difference-between-pilgrim-and-puritan-397974. Thus your pilgrims were actually a minority of emigrants, 34% of the Mayflower contingent.It is thus an error to label all such as "Pilgrims", yet it persists as a national myth, akin to George Washington chopping down a cherry tree.Oldperson (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: The context is not Massachusetts Bay Colony at all, but Plymouth Colony. The link is deliberately to the Puritans who settled Plymouth and are referred to as "the Pilgrims"--always capitalized. Your link to the Puritan migration is an overall, generic reference to the 40-year migration which essentially settled Massachusetts Bay; the sentence is speaking specifically about the Mayflower Puritans. That is why I restored it. —Dilidor (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: Except that your beloved pilgrims were only 34% of the Mayflower Manifest, Ergo those who landed at Plymouth Rock (if that is where they really landed. I can't see them stepping off a rowboat onto a rock, were Puritans. The Separatist Puritans, aka pilgrims,were a minority. Thus the article is in errorOldperson (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Once again, you become hostile, belligerent, abusive, and offensive. This conversation is ended. Never again post an offensive diatribe on my user's page as you did recently, lest you want to be banned from Wikipedia. —Dilidor (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: That comment was neither offensive nor a diatribe, it certainly was not belligerent and abusive. It is factual, the only mistake I made was mentioning your "Beloved Pilgrims", and that statement was based on your apparent obsession with said group. I apologize for call them your "beloved", the rest of the post is factual. Pilgrims were only 34% of the manifest of the Mayflower see https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pilgrim-Fathers. I am interested in facts not myths. And you are in no position to command me or ban me from wikipedia. If you wish to discuss on Administrators Notice Board I am ready, but no threats.I believe that threatening editors as you jave just done meets the criteria for disciplinary action It would behoove yo uand demonstrate food faith if you addressed the issues anbd facts raised rather than respond emotionally and threateningly..Oldperson (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Template Removal

@Dilidor:Claimed here 16:40, 23 August 2019‎ Dilidor talk contribs‎ 16,341 bytes -567‎ Reverted to revision 912137643 by Dilidor (talk): Unexplained removal of template (TW) undothank Tags: Undo PHP7. When in fact it was Dilidor that removed the template here: cur prev 14:09, 23 August 2019‎ Dilidor talk contribs‎ 16,341 bytes -194‎ →‎The Plymouth Company: copy edit; removing template undothank Tag: PHP7

The paragraph that Dilidor reverted has been reverted back in. The paragraph is factual, contributive and supported by a citation linked to Encyclopaedia BritannicaOldperson (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edit

@Dilidor:I didn't think, until today, that I would have to explain that my thanks were sincere. Yours was a good edit, in fact most of your edits are very good, even if I don't understand why, however there is a redundant phrase inVirginia Company, found in the lede and the article. I like it but it is awkward "forming the genesis of democracy in America".Oldperson (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Poles and Wirginia Company

Nothing about Poles, who were decisive workers and were crucial for the continuation of the first settlements in the USA.

More... https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/polish-artisans-strike-right-vote-jamestown-virginia-1619#:~:text=By%201608%2C%20just%20a%20year%20after%20the%20founding,played%20a%20significant%20role%20in%20Jamestown%E2%80%99s%20economic%20viability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.52.163 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)