(Encyclopoedia of Massachusetts Biography)
Abraham Temple, undoubtedly of English Birth, was in Salem, Massachusetts, as early as 1636; there his first grant of land was five acres, to which five acres more were added, November 21, 1638. He was a freeman of Salem, June 21, 1637, at which time he proposed the name of a fellow citizen as a freeman. He died soon after 1639, and his widow Margaret married a second time about 1651. He is supposed to have been a tailor by occupation. He had two(sic) sons:Richard;Tobias, born after 1627;Robert born before 1637.
You’ll note to word “Freeman” There is a difference between “freeman” and “freemen”. I read up on it one time and have long forgotten what it was. But, it basically was a type of nobility that was established and you were indentured to the society until you fulfilled your obligations to the compact. So, in fact it was a form a slavery to the compact until you bought your way out of it..or fulfilled the contract you signed onto. Some never fulfilled it because it was to restrictive and those simply left. They could pile restrictions upon restrictions until one could never become a free man.
Historian's can't quibble with the facts as written in "William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647". This was written by Bradford himself, who was the Governor of Plymouth colony at the time. He relates unequivocally how the colony was set up on a socialist system and in bred anger, resentment and laziness. When converted to a capitalist system, the people were energetic and industrious and turned the colony around. How do you quibble over the clear account written by the leader of the colony?
Historian's can't quibble with the facts as written in "William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647". This was written by Bradford himself, who was the Governor of Plymouth colony at the time. He relates unequivocally how the colony was set up on a socialist system and in bred anger, resentment and laziness. When converted to a capitalist system, the people were energetic and industrious and turned the colony around. How do you quibble over the clear account written by the leader of the colony?
The myth that the Pilgrims had the first thanksgiving in America is well established but wrong. The first thanksgiving celebration in America took place on the Berkley Plantation in 1619 in Virginia. Since the south lost the War Between the States that is unacceptable. Don’t rely on me, check it out. It is well documented.
Puritan Economic Experiments by Gary North, PhD.
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gnpe.pdf
If you are interested in reading a historical account of the economics of Plymouth, this is the book to read.
They learned through harsh reality that Socialism DID NOT WORK except where there are kind hearted Capitalists to bail them out from time to time when they “Fail”.
A Thanksgiving Lesson -- Joseph Farah
...When the Pilgrims landed in the New World, they found a cold, rocky, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, Bradford wrote. No houses to shelter them. No inns where they could refresh themselves. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims died of sickness or exposure –including Bradford's wife. Though life improved for the Pilgrims when spring came, they did not really prosper. Why? Once again, the textbooks don't tell the story, but Bradford's own journal does. The reason they didn't succeed initially is because they were practicing an early form of socialism.
The original contract the Pilgrims had with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store. Each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community. Bradford, as governor, recognized the inherent problem with this collectivist system.
"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years ... that by taking away property, and bringing community into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God," Bradford wrote. "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. For young men that were most able and fir for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice."
What a surprise! Even back then people did not want to work without incentive. Bradford decided to assign a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of free enterprise. What was the result?
"This had very good success," wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been..."
"Thanksgiving being a celebration of a bountiful harvest, or an expression of gratitude to the Indians"
There's a push to redefine the holiday vis-a-vis to Whom thanks is to be given. The media encourages a totally pedestrian "thanks a lot" approach. I think a dangerous plurality in this country have no idea what this holiday's about.