The Puritans came to America for their own religious freedom. Investors subsidized the project for their own financial gain. Thus, Christianity and capitalism, two cultural traits that today separate us from the Europeans whose ancestors came here, were present at the creation. But America could have gone another route.

Hostile Indians, sandy soil, harsh winters, drought, malaria--any number of threats stood to do in the Pilgrims, who arrived at Plymouth Rock in December of 1620. One malady of man's making--communism--made the first years of Plymouth Plantation particularly rough. The endeavor's financial backers foolishly insisted on what was labelled a "Common Course and Condition" to prevent the settlers, beyond their reach across the ocean, from siphoning profits. The Puritans derived their necessities from a common stock and worked common land. This had the effect of fostering laziness, eliminating profits, and helping to create near-starvation conditions.

"For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense," William Bradford, the longtime governor of Plymouth Colony, observed. Bradford explained that the strong resented the weak, the old resented the young, and neighbors resented neighbors. More importantly, people didn't eat--at least not much and not well.

In 1623, the Pilgrims, like Eastern Europeans 366 years later, had had enough of Communism. They introduced reforms. Pilgrims worked private plots of land. Women and children, lured by the prospect of keeping what they earned, flocked to the fields. As Bradford explained in Of Plymouth Plantation, "This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious." Previous problems disappeared when communism did. Bradford would explain that the communistic experiment demonstrated the falsity of "that conceit of Plato's and other ancients," that communism creates happiness and prosperity. Communism's failure to do just that so early in our history, Americans should give thanks, contributed to its failure to gain traction on a national level later in our history.

1st!

Great post Dan, I was unaware that Communism was one of the problems that contribued to those first hard winters.

One quick note about the post by Dan. The Pilgrims were not Puritans, they were separatist.
The Puritans came later and were eventually influenced by the separatist, although Plimouth did fade away.

The Pilgrims were indeed Puritans. They were separatists, from the CofE, from English society (literally for moving to the Netherlands). But they were also Puritans. If you dispute the characterization that just about every historian lays upon Bradford and the Pilgrims, then explain yourself. It doesn't do anything for anyone to say that you disagree with an agreed upon point and leave it at that.

They were not "separatists" because they physically moved to Holland (there were, of course, separatists living in England in the early 17th century). They were separatists because they separated from the Anglican church. The Puritans, on the other hand, remained in the Anglican church and attempted to "purify" it from within.

Many prominent historians confuse the distinction. Paul Johnson, for example, states that "Thirty-five of the settlers [on board the Mayflower], who were led by William Bradford and William Brewster, were Puritan Nonconformists, dissenters whose Calvinist beliefs made them no longer prepared to submit to the episcopal governance and Romish teachings (as they saw it) of the established Church of England." ("A History of the American People," p.29).

Again, Clarence Ver Steeg states that "In specific terms, the Church of England represented only a slight departure from the Catholic Church. The Puritans, an impassioned and vocal minority, believed that the Reformation had stopped short of its goal. They advocated additional reforms within the Church of England. The separatists, the 'left wing' of Puritanism, took the position that each congregation should become its own judge of religious orthodoxy." ("The Formative Years: 1607-1763," p.18).

Here the Pilgrims specifically and the separatists generally are referred to as Puritans. This makes about as much sense as talking about nonconformist Catholics or Catholics who "took the position that each congregation should become its own judge of religious orthodoxy." The disinction between Puritans and separatists is definite: the former were members of the Anglican church attempting to reform it from within, the latter were had left the Anglican church.

Accordingly, the Pilgrims were obviously separatists and not Puritans.

The two sources you cite believe that the Pilgrims were Puritans. And from that, for you, it follows that "the Pilgrims were obviously separatists and not Puritans." WHAT????

The sources were cited to draw attention to their incoherence.

A necessary condition for being a Puritan is being a member of the Anglican church. Thus, Ver Steeg states that Puritans "advocated additional reforms WITHIN the Church of England."

Separatists, on the other hand, rejected the authority of the Anglican church and separated from it, i.e., they were NOT Anglicans. According to Ver Steeg the separatists believed that "each congregation should become its own judge of religious orthodoxy."

The Pilgrims did not see themselves as Anglicans attempting to reform or "purify" the church, but as a "separate" community. Thus, Johnson states that they were "no longer prepared to submit to the episcopal governance ... of the established Church of England."

It's really very simple. If a Puritan, then an Anglican, not an Anglican, therefore, not a Puritan. It follows that the Pilgrims were not Puritans.

Puritans didn't generally call themselves "Puritans." It was a term of derision applied to them by their opponents. So it really doesn't mean anything that Pilgrims "did not see themselves as Anglicans attempting to reform or 'purify' the church." Luther wanted to purify the Catholic Church, but today we regard him (quite rightly) as an external rather than an internal critic of the church. Additionally, it is quite common for groups critical of an existing church to label themselves the true church--even if they are, in fact, separatists. So it is quite fair, then, for historians (and me) to refer to the Pilgrims as Puritans. It's quite unfair for you to purport to make a factual correction of my post, as you did initially, when in reality you are pushing merely pushing your own opinion (and your own definition of Puritanism which guarantees the result you're looking for) which, whatever its merits, is the position held by a distinct minority of historians.

To say that a minority of historians refer to the Pilgrims as Puritans and not Separatists is just wrong simply because making that statement would be historically incorrect. The Separatist removed themselves fron the Church of England in 1606 at Scrooby. They were Puritans before that but no longer. They had made a complete break from the C of E. Bradford writing years later rejoiced at the "downfall" of the church and further stated, " The tyrannous bishops are ejected , their courts dissolved, their canons forceless, their service cashiered, their ceremonies useless and despised; their plots for popery are prevented, all their superstitions discarded and returned to Rome, whence they came, and the monuments of idolatry rooted out of the land. Their proud and profane supporters and cruel defenders (the bloody papists and wicked atheists and their malignant consorts) are marvelously overthrown. And are not these things great? Who can deny it?"
Spoken by a person who did not want to see the Church of England reformed but abolished.

Tex: So far you have presented a lot of evidence of two things. First, the Pilgrims were separatists from the CoE; second, major historians (the only ones you have cited) consider them Puritans anyway. Now the interesting thing about your 'argument' is that you have presented no evidence of the fundamental claim you are repeating-- namely, that to consciously leave the CoE (instead of trying to reform it from within its ecclesiastical structure) takes someone who would otherwise be a Puritan and make him not a Puritan. In other words, you are begging the question regarding whether one could be both a CoE separatist and part of the broad theological movements in England at the time that became known as 'Puritanism.'

From the fact that none of these groups called themselves 'Puritans', it is clear that this is about how we use a word, not about whether or not you are right about any historical fact. Because (1) the Pilgrims subscribed to the same family of beliefs--doctrinally and practically--as the Puritans in England (which is generally what determines the proper use of a religious label), and (2) most historians use the word differently from you, you seem to lack sufficient reason to change the regular use of the word.

Moreover, your definition of Puritan requires that the person remain within the CoE and its ecclesiastical stucture. It would therefore be very ironic that the people most deserving of the name Puritans (the Roundheads) are famous for taking up arms against the Anglicans and, when gaining control, murdering the head of the Anglican church, and changing its ecclesiastical structure to something that more closely resembled the congregationalist church structure of the Pilgrims.

Now, the only way for you to win this argument is for you to provide real evidence NOT that the Pilgrims were separatists, but that being separatists from the CoE means they are not Puritans. (I have difficulty imagining what this evidence could look like-- perhaps a quotation from Cromwell sugesting that separatists were apostates predestined for hellfire.) Otherwise, your factual correction of Dan's post turns into an bad suggestion to make the word 'Puritan' more technical and less useful.

This is not surprising. Communism only works if the leader is perfect. And we all know nobody here is.

Actually, communism doesn't work, period, "perfect" leader or not. It assumes that man is motivated by altruism, or the "common good," which runs counter to the fact that we are each motivated by our own interests. Collectivism is counter to man's nature, while individual liberty is in harmony with man's nature and is essential to his survival.

Just how did this post devolve into a debate about insignificant details about wheter the pigrims were Puritans or vise versa? I thought the point was that communism didn't work, in fact, it made things worse. I remember reading that in one of Rush's books years ago. Your the only one that i have seen point it out again.