Posted on 11/22/2009 7:10:58 AM PST by Korah
Article Ping for One Vike’s Sunday Message.
I hope I am doing this right. OV is in Sacramento with his wife. I guess she had a setback in her recovery from neck surgery. He asked if I would post his Sunday message and ping his Freep-mail list.
If I accidentally pinged you and you are not on his article list I apologize.
Well keep him and his wife in your prayers.
This week he wrote about Thanksgiving, I think the article is great, and I am sure you will enjoy it also.
Again I apologize if I messed this up.
Thanks for the ping.
"America became a place of opportunity and freedom for poor, oppressed people from all over the world without the kind of central planning advocated by the Democrats and some Republicans today. The progress was remarkable, and it was based on what Madison called a "benign" government that left citizens free to work, earn, invest, and prosper. The world view of those in power today is the problem. It is not akin to the Founders' ideas, which led to liberty and prosperity. The model Obama is seeking to impose leads to oppressive government and tyranny wherever it has been tried.
"Just think about -
The Miracle of America
from
axes and hoes to high technology;
log cabins to air-conditioned condos;
horsedrawn wagons to autos, planes, and rockets;
scarcity to abundance; &
from tyrannical government rule to individual liberty
HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN?
Most of our history books don’t tell us that, in the beginning, the pilgrims established a communal economic system. Each was to produce according to his ability and contribute his production to a common storehouse from which each was to draw according to his need.
The assurance that they would be fed from the common store, regardless of their contribution to it, had a peculiarly disabling effect on the colonists. Taking property away from some and giving it to others bred discontent and retarded employment. Human nature was the same then as now, and before long, there were more consumers than there were producers, and the pilgrims were near starvation. Governor Bradford, his advisors, and the colonists agreed that in order to increase their crops, each family would be allowed to do as it pleased with whatever it produced. In other words, a free market system was established. In Governor Bradford’s own words:
“This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means ye Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into ye field, and tooke their little-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene though great tiranie and oppression. . . . By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed. . . . and some of ye abler sort and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since this day . . . .” (Wm. Bradford, “Of Plimoth Plantation,” original manuscript, Wright & Potter, Boston, 1901)
Those who, today, favor central government planning, common ownership and redistribution of the earnings of others are advocating a system that Americans tried and rejected over 350 years ago. Their wisdom gave birth to the great American miracle!
Are we as wise today?
You Can Do Something About This!
(This message originally published in the mid-1980’s by Stedman Corporation’s Government Affairs & Free Enterprise Education Program – a former NC textile firm. For more essays in this series, visit www.ouragelessconstitution.com )
Basically what the settlers formed was the first social commune of the New World, something that anyone growing up in the 1960s and 70s would easily recognize as a community where all land, houses, farming and other goods were distributed equally amongst all the inhabitants regardless of religious or political beliefs or station. It was the world's first society that was truly set up in a way that nobody would own anything and everyone who was in need would have what they required if it existed. In essence, the Mayflower Compact was a concept that would be popularized 255 years later in 1875 by Karl Marx's slogan,"from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."
Uh no. The Mayflower Compact was no such thing. And tying it to Karl Marx is a stretch that violates all laws of physics.
This is the Mayflower Compact:
IN THE name of God, Amen.We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.
There is nothing in there about 'share and share alike' or, Marx's: "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." They set up a new government, for a new world, with Laws that the new society shall obey and a 'body politic' to make and enforce the laws.
The creep spent his formative ages 6 - 10 in Indonesia being raised by his commie mother and marxist father #2. I’m sure he didn’t learn ANY of this in Indonesia.
Bump!
This one’s a keeper.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving bump.
What somebody needs to do is make Obama write on a blackboard one thousand times: I’m not as smart as I think I am.
Oops! I forgot to tag you. Well I will just say this again to you OV,
Good article as usual and thanks, my prayers are with you and your wife.
prayers for OV’s wife...and thanks for the ping.
I just love reading this every year around this time. I love when Rush plays it on Thanksgiving as well. Thanks for posting this!
www.eyeconshirts.com
The Puritains were English Calvanists who derived their name from a desire to “purify” the English church of “popery,” rejecting all doctrine and cermonies not justified by their interpretation of the Scriptures. One of the principal differences among the various Puritain sects was their view on church organization. In the 1570s, the Separatists or Brownists sects advocated separation from the Church of England and the formation of churches by compact or covenant among the church members. This practice stemmed from the belief that each man had direct communication with and responsibility to God. Calvin in his “Institutes” had asserted that the church came into existence by “common consent” and Robert Browne taught that two believers could come together and form a church on no other authority than the compact that brought it into existence.
The Virginia Company of Plymouth was chartered together with the Virginia Company of London, although they were separate corporations and were to operate in the area of separate land grants. The contract offered to the Pilgrims, a Separatist group, by the Virginia Company of Plymouth company assumed a communal system for the first seven years, after which the communal property of the colony would be equally divided and distributed. The Pilgrims were displeased with these terms and refused to sign the contract. They proceeded to sail anyway, landing outside the domains of that company, Essentially, this meant that they were, without any political authority. Prior to landing on Novemer 11, 1620, the men on board the “Mayflower” employed the concept of the covenant or compact to provide for the basis of their civil government.
Reference: Blackstone’s Commentaries, “View of the Constitution of the United States,” Section 1 - Nature of U.S. Constitution; manner of its adoption as annotated by St. George Tucker, William Young Birch and Abraham Small, c1803, on the nature of a “compact”:
“It is a compact; by which it is distinguished from a charter, or grant; which is either the act of a superior to an inferior; or is founded upon some consideration moving from one of the parties, to the other, and operates as an exchange, or sale: but here the contracting parties, whether considered as states, in their politic capacity and character; or as individuals, are all equal; nor is there any thing granted from one to another: but each stipulates to part with, and to receive the same thing, precisely, without any distinction or difference in favor of any of the parties.....”
When the Pilgrims landed outside the domain of the Virginia Company, forty noblemen and gentlemen in 1621 obtained a large grant of patent from King James derived out of the Virginia patent, and were constituted as the “The Council established at Plymouth in the county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and governing of New England in America” with jurisdiction over the territory from 40-48 degrees north latitutde, sea-to-sea. The territory granted was to be beholden of the crown, as of the royal manor of East Greenwich, in Kent county, in free and common soccage, and not in capite, nor by knight service. The President and Council for New England were authorized by their royal charter “to make, ordain and establish all manner of orders, laws, directions, instructions, forms and ceremonies of government and magistracy, fit and necessary for and concerning the government of the said colony and plantation.” Delegated the authority to acquire and dispose of land, the Council for New England would serve primarily as a land-granting agency to would-be colonial promoters.
The contract issued to the Pilgrims by the Council June 1, 1621, authorized them “to establish such Lawes and ordynaunces as are for their better government, and the same by such Officer or Officers as they shall by most voices elect and choose to put in execution.” The new contract was brought over by their agent Robert Cushman and was signed in November 1621, a year after the “Mayflower” had landed.
In 1626, the colonists signed a written agreement among themselves to form a joint-stock corporation, corporately holding the combined assests, profits and debts of the colony. The corporate holdings were assigned to Isaack Allerton as agent to pledge them as bonds or security on annual payment of notes to the Council for New England to obtain goods and necessities for the new colony on credit to be repayed through commodities produced such as fur, dried fish and corn. A full annual accounting of debts and payments would be made. (The colony’s debts were finaly paid off in 1642.)
Within the corporation, single free men had a single share and every father of a household had as many shares as there were people in his family. Ownership of the cattle was proportionatly divided -so at the time one cow was “owned” by six persons or shares. 20 acres of arriable land, with five acres abutting a watercourse, was alloted to each share. The remaining land was to be held communally and each, according to his share in cattle, could mow the grass.
The New England joint-stockholding corporations differed in several ways from ecomonmically based corporate enterprises such as the London Company of Virginia. One marked difference was that the major stockholders of the corporation were colonists themselves, therefore, the corporate “body politic” resided domestically in the colony. In addition, the early colonists of New England were primarily members of persecuted Puritan religious sects such as the Congregationalists, who settled as large family units or entire parishes. The essential feature of such sects was establishment of independent churches governed by a consensus of the congregation of “godly” members of the church, implemented through its selected officers. The religious covenant of church members was further amplified through a civil government policy of regulated orderly settlement in discrete (communal) communities, with political power vested in members of the church.
(Sources: Alfred A. Kelly & Winfred A. Harnison’s The American Constitution and R.C. Simmons’ The American Colonies - From Settlement to Independence, David McKay Co., Inc., c1976; Ray Allen Billington’s (with collaboration from James Blaine Hedges) Westward Expansion, A History of the American Frontier, Second Edition, The Macmillan Co. c 1962; Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; with a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States, Before the Adoption of the Constitution, Vol. I, Ch. IV, Boston: Hilliard, Gray and Co.; Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, & Co.; c1833.)
Many colonies, such as Virginia, were establsihed on the basis of a joint stock company or corporation. As such, assets are corporately owned and they may have the appearance of a communal venture. English joint-stock companies evolved out of the midieval guild-merchant formed for trade in the various boroughs. The guild often obtained a royal charter, granting a trade monopoly over transactions within a certain geographic area or over a certain commodity. These guilds became sort of closed corporations, where admission was required in order to secure a right to trade. Although these early companies seldom undertook a common group venture, its members carried out individual operations under the protection of the privileges of the guild or “company of merchant-adventurers.”
By the sixteenth century, these companies had evolved into joint-stock companies or corporations licensed by the Crown, where investors pooled their money to share both risks and profits in a common enterprise. Several large trading companies secured charters from the Crown granting commercial favors in foreign trade, prescribing their form of organization and enabling them to raise money by selling stock. Amomng these were the Muscovy Company (Russia and central Asia,) the Eastland Company (Baltic,) the Levant Company (Mediterranean,) and the East India Company.
The form of organization prescribed for these companies usually vested control in a 6-20 member council, of which the orginal or charter officers were named. Sometimes the charter also provided for a governor as the head of the company, chosen by the council. Membership in the company, itself, was secured through stock ownership. The smaller stockholders had little to say about general policy, but they met periodically in a general court to elect members to vacancies in the council or occassionally to express their opinion on some major issue of policy.
The typical charter granted a number of trade advantages or privileges to the company, such as: a grant of land; the right to convey title to any portions of its domains; title to any precious metals discovered within the land grant; and a monopoly over trade within the area. Charters were awarded as a matter of “privilege and grace.” In law, they could be amended or revoked at the will of the grantor.
The charters also could confer upon the company extensive governing powers to establish law and order within its “domains.” The charter could bestow the right to set up some local governing body, to maintain defense, to coin money, to establish courts, and to enact ordinances for local government. Even though the company took on quasi-sovereign aspects, colonies established by charter were actually part of a licensed corporate business enterprise sponsored by investors. The original colonists were employees of the company, expected to produce commodities for the company storehouse in return for their keep and one share of stock. Later, under the plantation system, colonists became contractors sponsored by the company with land grants and credit extended in exchange for an exclusive monopoly of their trade.
Primary Sources used for the following: Virginius Dabney’s, Virginia, The New Dominion, Doubleday & Co., Inc., c1971; Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison’s The American Constitution; Frederick Merk’s History of the Western Movement, Alfred A. Knopf, c1980; and Ray Allen Billington’s (with collaboration from James Blaine Hedges) Westward Expansion, A History of the American Frontier, Second Edition, The Macmillan Co. c 1962.)
Here is what happened in Massachusetts to the communal land system:
In Puritan New England, settlement was made mostly by groups of families, rather than by scattered individuals. These secured their “Plantation Rights” from the General Court without cost. The legislature would name a committee to locate the town and extinguish/buy Indian title. Usually a plot about six miles square contiguous with other settlements was chosen. The the original petitioners then became the proprietors of the town with sole authority to sell the land, give it away or will it to their heirs. In return, they were expected to divide the plot, build roads and a church, locate a minister and bring in acceptable newcomers within 2-3 years.
The proprietors would name a committee to lay out the town. Near the center, they would set aside a part for the village green with a church, parish house and usually a school. Other lots were offerred to attract necessary services such as a grist mill or smithy. Around the green, they laid out “house lotts” to be divided among the proprietors, varying in size from a half acre to ten acres. These were assigned to freemen of the church by lottery.
The marshy lands along the river or sea were apportioned the same way for pasturage or a source of hay. A large upland field of several hundred acres was then divided into rectangular strips, distributed among the proprietors by lottery. As soon as this field was cleared and under cultivation, a second was laid out. After several divisions, a settler would own a number of arable farm strips scattered throughout town fields as well as a home, marsh/meadow and woodland lot. Any “undivided land” remaining and a “common field” for pasture was controlled by the proprietors. Under an early communal system, cattle were grazed under a common herdsman and what was planted plowed and harvested was on a common basis. (The practice followed the ancient pattern in “open-field” English villages versus the “closed field” system where each man’s property was defined within his own wall and tilled by himself.)
In all divisions of land, the original settlers were not given equal amounts, but shares proportionate with their wealth. New England leaders distrusted the levelling affects of equal land division. The land system led to dissatisfaction as control of the land became concentrated in a closed legal corporation of a few original wealthy settlers. Individuals got land from the village only if they were members of that community and signed the village covenant. As new settlers arrived and were accepted into the church as freemen, they were given ownership of fields granted to them, but had no say in disposal of the undivided lands, which were often held for speculation by the corporation.
The village open field system, however, was not conducive to compact, efficient and specialized commercial farming operations. Eventually, New Englanders found much time was wasted going between strip holdings and began to consolidate lots. In 1656-57 the town of Marlborough was one of the first established to consolidate farming practices under a closed field system. By the end of the century, most owned large enclosed fields.
(Sources: Alfred A. Kelly & Winfred A. Harnison’s The American Constitution and R.C. Simmons’ The American Colonies - From Settlement to Independence, David McKay Co., Inc., c1976; Ray Allen Billington’s (with collaboration from James Blaine Hedges) Westward Expansion, A History of the American Frontier, Second Edition, The Macmillan Co. c 1962; Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; with a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States, Before the Adoption of the Constitution, Vol. I, Ch. IV, Boston: Hilliard, Gray and Co.; Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, & Co.; c1833.)
Ok, but nothing you posted changes anything in the article. The article is still correct.
There is nothing about “From each according to his ability to each according to their need.” The Pilgrims had a social/religious system based on equality. The compact agreement was that each contributed equally. No more, no less. They had a corporate economic system based on equal shares. They shared equally in both profits and losses/debts. They were both employees of the corporation and shareholders.
The Marxist system assumes a basic inequality of persons and a system that creates equity through redistribution from those who are capable of greater or more valuable production to those who have lesser ability. Each is expected to produce at his/her maximum ability. There is no expectation of equal contribution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.