|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Sept 14, 2024 3:09:33 GMT
Originally, the Pilgrims were granted a patent to land in the northern part of Virginia in 1620. William Bradford most frequently referred to the mouth of the Hudson River as the intended place of settlement, given it was within the boundary of Virginia set by the Third Charter of Virginia at 41 degrees North. However, weather conditions deteriorated and they initially arrived at the Cape Cod area of Massachusetts. The crew attempted to sail around the cape but they encountered shoals and other difficult decisions, causing them to anchor at Provincetown and eventually settle at Plymouth Rock. However, what if they landed at the mouth of the Hudson River as intended? What impact would this have on the English in North America as well as the Dutch who had set up Fort Nassau in present-day Albany, New York? Would an English settlement at the mouth of the Hudson River be viable in the long-term depending on whether or not it is at the site of Fort Amsterdam (the lower tip of present-day lower Manhattan)? Or would elsewhere in northern Virginia have been more viable?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 14, 2024 16:03:54 GMT
The Pilgrims were anti-slavery, or am I wrong? (I vaguely remember that pre-independence, some Northerners had slaves too.) If their influence helped to turn Virginia into a free state, the repercussions would be huge. After all, Virginia was the most prestigious state in the CSA. There'd still be a conflict about slavery, but ITTL the slaveholders might have to give in.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 14, 2024 23:00:18 GMT
The Pilgrims were anti-slavery, or am I wrong? (I vaguely remember that pre-independence, some Northerners had slaves too.) If their influence helped to turn Virgina into a free state, the repercussions would be huge. After all, Virginia was the most prestigious state in the CSA. There'd still be a conflict about slavery, but ITTL the slaveholders might have to give in.
It might depend on how things develop. The economy of the south as it developed OTL depended fairly heavily on slavery so they would either have to change their views or develop a different economy or possibly be side-lined by other settlers.
However the initial post mentioned that while it was considered part of the Virginia colony at the time the suggested landing is actually where New York now stands so if they survive there - going to be competition from the Dutch as well as the local Indians - they might be less likely to use slaves in the 1st place.
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Sept 16, 2024 3:50:50 GMT
The Pilgrims were anti-slavery, or am I wrong? (I vaguely remember that pre-independence, some Northerners had slaves too.) If their influence helped to turn Virginia into a free state, the repercussions would be huge. After all, Virginia was the most prestigious state in the CSA. There'd still be a conflict about slavery, but ITTL the slaveholders might have to give in. Virginia in 1620 had different boundaries than the Virginia that joined the CSA in 1861. In 1620 it extended as far north as 41 degrees latitude. The Pilgrims likely intended to land near New York Harbor so it wouldn't change the trajectory of Virginia with its 1860 borders in regards to slavery assuming things go roughly similarly to OTL. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Sept 16, 2024 5:41:32 GMT
The Pilgrims were anti-slavery, or am I wrong? (I vaguely remember that pre-independence, some Northerners had slaves too.) If their influence helped to turn Virginia into a free state, the repercussions would be huge. After all, Virginia was the most prestigious state in the CSA. There'd still be a conflict about slavery, but ITTL the slaveholders might have to give in. Wrong that puritan’s opposed slavery But that is a very interesting question. I suppose it is subjective to when someone calls or defines the Puritans but let’s call the Puritans the ones in the 1600s in New England. I remember writing a paper back in college as the subject dwelt did the Puritans fail or succeed in their vision. The answer is yes and no because what the Puritans also hope to establish in North America was God’s only true church in a new Jerusalem where are the church would be restored as they have lost since the passages of acts in the New Testament. After the English Civil War very few immigrants came to the Puritan colonies for a very long time which help foster New England prejudice against people who are not like the Puritans. However there is so much with a Puritans did to contribute to the British colonies and to the very founding of the United States including economic diversification in their economy. In the paper I had to write the article had discussed how New England’s economic progress decreased its religious fervor during the colonial period .This is somewhat ironic because in the early days the entire community contributed to the investment of the economic system of the community including its church leaders. The first example is how the slave trade explode in the 1700s when the British parliament allowed other companies to get it in the action of transporting Africans to the western hemisphere only to be never returned again. And another article the article clearly showed how economic development was achieve at a faster rate In The 1700s Instead of the hundred years prior and after those days. I remember reading the historical fiction book the Witch of black pound they pointed out you would possibly see William Shakespeare play writing’s in the worldly city of Boston(puritan standards of what they consider worldliness) but not in Connecticut of all places. Many people who crossed the waters of America had to be indentured servants so I don’t see why the Puritans should’ve Object to the Africans or even the Native Americans they took as slaves. The anti-slavery movement had roots in the 1700s when America was much more developed. |
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Sept 17, 2024 1:01:30 GMT
Ultimately, what I've been thinking about first and foremost is how the Pilgrims settling northern Virginia would impact the Dutch. I used to think there would be some conflict between the Dutch and the Pilgrims but maybe not upon second glance doing some research. The Dutch did make some offers to the Pilgrims to settle the mouth of the Hudson on their behalf and Plymouth and New Netherland ended up becoming major trading partners. But is it possible that the Pilgrims could've settled somewhere else in the vicinity outside the Hudson just in case?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 17, 2024 8:37:17 GMT
Ultimately, what I've been thinking about first and foremost is how the Pilgrims settling northern Virginia would impact the Dutch. I used to think there would be some conflict between the Dutch and the Pilgrims but maybe not upon second glance doing some research. The Dutch did make some offers to the Pilgrims to settle the mouth of the Hudson on their behalf and Plymouth and New Netherland ended up becoming major trading partners. But is it possible that the Pilgrims could've settled somewhere else in the vicinity outside the Hudson just in case?
It might make sense in that the puritans, as fairly hard line Protestants and also effectively refugees from England could be seen as potential allies of the Calvinistic Dutch despite the trading tensions between the two nations. Although the 1st Anglo-Dutch war wasn't until 1651 when things had changed a lot and at this time both nations were de-facto allies feeling threatened by Spain to a greater or lesser degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Sept 17, 2024 17:39:17 GMT
Ultimately, what I've been thinking about first and foremost is how the Pilgrims settling northern Virginia would impact the Dutch. I used to think there would be some conflict between the Dutch and the Pilgrims but maybe not upon second glance doing some research. The Dutch did make some offers to the Pilgrims to settle the mouth of the Hudson on their behalf and Plymouth and New Netherland ended up becoming major trading partners. But is it possible that the Pilgrims could've settled somewhere else in the vicinity outside the Hudson just in case?
It might make sense in that the puritans, as fairly hard line Protestants and also effectively refugees from England could be seen as potential allies of the Calvinistic Dutch despite the trading tensions between the two nations. Although the 1st Anglo-Dutch war wasn't until 1651 when things had changed a lot and at this time both nations were de-facto allies feeling threatened by Spain to a greater or lesser degree.
Keep in mind the Pilgrims, while technically Puritans, were not the Puritans that settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It helped that the Pilgrims had lived in the Netherlands for several years before deciding to migrate to America. The big difference is that Plymouth and New Amsterdam were trading partners while the Puritans took over numerous Dutch settlements/forts/trading posts in the region like the Huys de Goede Hoop (Hartford, CT) and Kievets Hook (Old Saybrook, CT) or got into border disputes with the Dutch at Ooester Bai (Oyster Bay, NY) and Heemstede (Hempstead, NY). And while the Dutch were generally tolerant of other religions and the Puritans not so much, the Pilgrims were somewhere in between. While Quakers and Baptists were deported from Plymouth, they weren't hanged or militated like in Massachusetts Bay and Connecticut and there were far fewer witchcraft trials (all of which ended in not guilty verdicts). Because of this, I can see the Dutch being tolerant of the Pilgrims and possibly allies down the road but I can't see interactions with the Dutch and Puritans resulting in anything but tension. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Sept 17, 2024 18:11:35 GMT
In the early colonial period, the 1600s, there was great concern about how the colonies would last, so there wasn't a desire to worry about slavery
the slave question
when there were not many African slaves in the colonies to start with. Also, the curtains were involved in the triangular trade, which did decrease the pilgrim's or New Englanders' religious feaver, as mentioned.
I believe that in the late 1600s, few purtians had achieved the benchmark that not even half of the purtians in the church had received evidence of personal salvation; this proved a foreshadowing of a great awakening in the 1730s. However, this is not all at the fault of money, but that of the theology of overthinking predestination, which, for many years, even up in the early 1900s, purtians had higher suicide rates.
Surprisingly, the purtians New Englanders in the 1700s did have churches that opposed the slave trade, probably because it was so embedded in their society and perhaps had effects on the members. Remember the 1600s pilgrim days were worlds away from the 1700s established colonial class days. In the early colonial 1600s class wasn't a big issue as they were struggling to earn a living and the early purtians would be less class conscious then the new englanders of the 1700s
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Sept 17, 2024 18:48:15 GMT
In the early colonial period, the 1600s, there was great concern about how the colonies would last, so there wasn't a desire to worry about slavery the slave question when there were not many African slaves in the colonies to start with. Also, the curtains were involved in the triangular trade, which did decrease the pilgrim's or New Englanders' religious feaver, as mentioned. I believe that in the late 1600s, few purtians had achieved the benchmark that not even half of the purtians in the church had received evidence of personal salvation; this proved a foreshadowing of a great awakening in the 1730s. However, this is not all at the fault of money, but that of the theology of overthinking predestination, which, for many years, even up in the early 1900s, purtians had higher suicide rates. Surprisingly, the purtians New Englanders in the 1700s did have churches that opposed the slave trade, probably because it was so embedded in their society and perhaps had effects on the members. Remember the 1600s pilgrim days were worlds away from the 1700s established colonial class days. In the early colonial 1600s class wasn't a big issue as they were struggling to earn a living and the early purtians would be less class conscious then the new englanders of the 1700s Honestly I don’t know how this discussion turned into one about slavery. Well, I guess I do, but it highly distracts from what I was trying to discuss in the first place. The Pilgrims were expected to land in the parts of Virginia that became part of the OTL CSA anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 17, 2024 19:39:59 GMT
I believe that in the late 1600s, few purtians had achieved the benchmark that not even half of the purtians in the church had received evidence of personal salvation; this proved a foreshadowing of a great awakening in the 1730s. However, this is not all at the fault of money, but that of the theology of overthinking predestination, which, for many years, even up in the early 1900s, purtians had higher suicide rates. Interesting, interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Sept 17, 2024 20:16:56 GMT
In the early colonial period, the 1600s, there was great concern about how the colonies would last, so there wasn't a desire to worry about slavery the slave question when there were not many African slaves in the colonies to start with. Also, the curtains were involved in the triangular trade, which did decrease the pilgrim's or New Englanders' religious feaver, as mentioned. I believe that in the late 1600s, few purtians had achieved the benchmark that not even half of the purtians in the church had received evidence of personal salvation; this proved a foreshadowing of a great awakening in the 1730s. However, this is not all at the fault of money, but that of the theology of overthinking predestination, which, for many years, even up in the early 1900s, purtians had higher suicide rates. Surprisingly, the purtians New Englanders in the 1700s did have churches that opposed the slave trade, probably because it was so embedded in their society and perhaps had effects on the members. Remember the 1600s pilgrim days were worlds away from the 1700s established colonial class days. In the early colonial 1600s class wasn't a big issue as they were struggling to earn a living and the early purtians would be less class conscious then the new Englanders of the 1700s Honestly I don’t know how this discussion turned into one about slavery. Well, I guess I do, but it highly distracts from what I was trying to discuss in the first place. The Pilgrims were expected to land in the parts of Virginia that became part of the OTL CSA anyway. How so? Please explain. Because Virgina was over 5 modern states big the pilgrims where going to land on the Hudson vally modern day new york. However the purtians who landed from the Mayflower arguably didn't play a tremendous impact because Plymouth Rock was a substantive farming community that almost failed and was later absorbed into a larger colony. If the pilgrims had failed, there would have been fewer immigrants, but the colonizing of New England would still have happened. The Mayflower story is more important for anesthetic purposes. The Thanksgiving holiday would be galvanized because this debatably fake holiday is associated with the pilgrims. The so-called first Thanksgiving is almost made up, as there is but one account of the minor event by William Bradford, I think. During the 1850s, when tensions between the North and South were as high as ever, an influential New Englander proposed that to bring unity, we should have a national Thanksgiving. This backfired, as the South attacked the proposal as another episode of New Englanders imposing their agenda over the nation. plus remember not all thanksgiving are associated with eating but prayers |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 17, 2024 21:47:18 GMT
And no one but Lincoln made it an official holiday, or am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Sept 17, 2024 22:22:35 GMT
And no one but Lincoln made it an official holiday, or am I wrong? Exactly! So I’m not sure How Thanksgiving would have played the grand scheme of things if the mayflower sunk Or went to a different area. During the American Revolution George Washington Declared Thanksgiving declaring a day of Thanksgiving and prayer is not an old concept As it happened in Elizabeth England, but it’s a little ironic England did not have a Thanksgiving. It was New England of all regions that had Thanksgiving celebrated And the lady that promoted Thanksgiving was Sarah Josepha Hale. New England evangelicals did support Thanksgiving to be a national holiday however they’re already linked to the abolitionist movement. So Lincoln, perhaps would not have Had a national thanksgiving because there would not have been a holiday associated with the pilgrims. However Perhaps Lincoln would have decided let’s have a national Thanksgiving to celebrate the ending of the Civil War |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 17, 2024 23:59:54 GMT
See that the thread is moving away from the OP question, so can we go back to the Pilgrims land in Virginia question, thank you.
|
|
