Nobody Remembers the Common Course
Nobody Remembers—-
Thanksgiving is coming up…and every Thanksgiving, Rush Limbaugh tells the story of how the first people in the colonies were made to all work for the ‘company.’  In other words, they had to throw everything they grew into the pot to be spread around. And then Rush loves to explain–the real reason they could celebrate Thanksgiving: They switched to every man for himself, which was a precursor to…Adam Smith, and 349,000 golf courses! (just kidding.) —-capitalism.
So I thought, since I’m reading about early American history right now, I’d throw in some more of William Bradford’s own observations to best explain, WHY free enterprise works better than ‘communism’. What seems so cut and clear to many of us, has eluded our leaders.
Remember—-The first people in Plymouth  were literally starving. selling their clothes, working for the Indians, eating nuts, crawling around on all fours looking for food…and according to Bradford —
“One, in gathering shellfish, was so weak as he stuck fast in the mud and was found dead in the
place.”
So…they, being sensible people thought: Well…THIS isn’t working, and they changed the “experiment’…and the good William tells us how—
Enjoy…because REAL history, is being destroyed.
From “The Annals of America, Vol. One”
End of the “Common Course and Condition.”
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. 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 languish in misery.
At length, after much debate of things, the governor (with the advice of the chief 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 on in the general way as before. And so was assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportions of their number, for that end, only for present use and ranged all the boys and youth under some family. (Nobody notes: orphans)
This had very good success, for it made all hands very 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 them 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 completed would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
(Some of those women are still here. ) Remember—-Before they thought of getting rid of the redistribution system…people weren’t so happy:
The young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work of other men’s’ wives and children without any recompense. The strong or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the others could: this was thought injustice. The aged and the graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes, etc., Â with the meaner and younger sort thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s’ wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery: neither could many husband well brook it.
God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them.
******
God evidently has not touched his ‘wisdom’ on Barack Obama. People now…are getting tired of paying for the vast fraud and abuse that the welfare system is doling out to minorities, and illegal’s. We are no different from our ancestors.
And Obamacare, is the next great injustice. You would THINK they would learn from history.
But no.
Later on, when families started coming over, the governors gave them more land, and people got to keep their land, and without that nice little perk, we might never have had George Washington as our first President, because one of the big reasons he fought the British was for the rights to keep, and own his own property. (George had a LOT of land) Owning your own property was something which had already been established and enjoyed by King George’s subjects since Plymouth. The Crown wanted only loyalists to be able to own land. That’s like Obama telling everyone that only Congress can have their own medical insurance.
Nobody Thinks we need to remember the common course. It’s the tract to starvation, Detroit, more socialism, and in the end, death.
Nobody’s Note: On Bradford’s death, the historical manuscript was lost and disappeared from the colonies during the revolutionary war, but came to light in the library of the Bishop of London in 1855. The original manuscript was returned to the U.S. in 1897 and now lies in view at the State House in Boston.
(Maybe Debbie has seen it.)



PS. One of the colonial Governors was a transvestite. I can’t recall which one but he had a liking for fancy dresses. There must have been something in the colonial water.
LikeLike
There is a case for communal ‘help’ to the weak and dependant children. But like many things it can be taken to excess and virtue turn to vice.
Charity is Christian, as were the early settlers. Their major problem was that most were ‘protestant’ christians with a very small ‘c’ and a big ‘P’.
The Governor’s actions of giving land was not simply to ensure ‘loyalty’. I am surmising. Maybe you can offer evidence – from the Governor’s mind. But whatever he did was in the King’s name, which puts a bit of a stopper to the calumnious remarks (by others) that the King was a nasty sort. Later, of course, much later, there were some quite nasty laws passed, particularly in the Taxation area, but again it has to be remembered that Colonists had ‘bought-and-paid-for’ representatives in the British Parliament, contrary to the mendacious cry of ‘No taxation without representation’. Even the people in Britain did not have that luxury.
All that said, Joyanna, you do well to draw the old issues into today’s contexts – as usual.
LikeLike
Really. Where do you get your information? They were STARVING! Nobody was WORKING! The King had nothing to do with the decision to change the “commune” into everybody working for himself. These people were alone…the first governor hoarded all the food. Ships didn’t come but once a year. The Governor discussed it all with everybody, and they came up with idea how to grow more corn. They were Christians, and didn’t want anyone to starve. But 50 out of 100 died right off the bat. And kept dying. The old “everyone must work for the store” was killing them off. ONLY when they had their own piece of the pie did they work. This man was there. This is “HIS WORDS” not some historians from Oxford’s interpretation. And so, if you have history that the colonists had ‘bought and paid’ for representatives in the British Parliament, tell us more about it, amfortas.. Give us the sources…tell us more. Was this for ALL of America? Or just a few rich elites? There have been corruption in all ages on both sides, but on the whole…tell us more. GIVE US THE SOURCE you always quote from. Enquiring Americans want to know! (that’s ME!)
LikeLike
LOL!
LikeLike