Communism in the Colonies

Even the most disinterested students probably know that the first English settlements in North America were at Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, followed by the Plymouth Colony in 1620.  I provide the dates just for accuracy.  Most students don’t know them.

The first 104 settlers arrived in Jamestown in April, 1607 and chose a site for their settlement in May. Although the original site turned out to be less than ideal, in the surrounding area they found soil which was fertile beyond what they had seen in the lands which they had left. Fruits were abundant. Wild game such as deer and turkey were everywhere. There was no shortage of fish and other seafood.

In a letter dated June 22, 1607, the six councilors in Jamestown reported their arrival to the Virginia Company back in England and described the conditions they found:

" Within less than seven weeks we are fortified well against the Indians. We have sown good store of wheat - we have sent you a taste of clapboard - we have built some houses - we have spared some hands to a discovery and still as God shall enable us with strength we will better and better our proceedings...sturgion and other sweet fish as no man's fortune hath ever possessed the like.  The soil is most fruitfull, laden with Oake, Ashe, Walnut tree, Poplar, Pine, sweet woods, Cedar and other". (this and many other letters are found in The Genesis of the United States by Alexander Brown)

And yet within six months, 66 of the original Jamestown, Virginia settlers had died. Only 38 survived.

In April, 1608 a ship arrives containing another 40 settlers and supplies.

With the colony in near chaos, Captain John Smith, who had been a soldier, explorer, and adventurer, took over the government of the colony in 1608 and instituted a policy of rigid discipline and agricultural cultivation.  But, a gunpowder accident forces Smith to return to England in the spring of 1609.

In August 1609 a fleet of ships arrives (minus one caught in a storm and forced to land in Bermuda) with another 450 settlers.

The colonists then faced a disastrous winter known as the “starving time” in which 440 more people died.  When the “lost” ship arrived from Bermuda, with the remaining 150 settlers, they found Jamestown in ruins and only 60 gaunt survivors.

These 60 had decided to abandon the colony and set sail for England.  While still in the bay they are met by another ship coming from England, commanded by Lord de La Warr (after whom Delaware is named).  He convinces them to remain.

How could it be that there was such death and starvation amidst so much plenty of meat, fruits, and fish. According to the colonists, “It were too vile to say, and scarce to be believed, what we endured; but the occasion was our own for want of providence, industry, and government, and not the barrenness and defect of our country, as is generally supposed”.[1]

What caused this lack of ‘industry'?  Were the Virginian settlers lazy and indolent?

Well, according to the Carnes/Garraty text, it was because “the settlers lacked the skills pioneers need.  More than a third of them were “gentlemen” unused to manual labor, and many of the rest were the gentlemen’s servants, almost equally unequipped for the task of colony building”.[2]

The text then goes on to say “the merchant directors of the London Company, knowing little or nothing about Virginia, failed to provide the colony with effective guidance”…Instead of stressing farming and public improvements, they directed the energies of the colonists into such futile efforts as searching for gold…glassblowing, silk raising, winemaking, and exploring the local rivers in hopes of finding a water route to the Pacific and the riches of China”.[3]  

This passage, about being “directed …searching for gold”, certainly makes it appear that the colonists had absolutely no choice in the matter; that they were not permitted to take action to provide for their survival.  In actual fact, all the London Company did in the Virginia Charter was to state that the colonists “may” prospect for gold, silver, and copper and set forth what share they could keep if any was found.  There is certainly no such language in the first charter of Virginia that in any way "directs" them to search for gold at the expense of working to survive.

This description of the type of individual sent, as well as the slight misrepresentation of what they were told to do, may have accounted for the deaths from the first group that landed in 1607.  It did not, however, apply to the next group.  Smith had instituted strict discipline during his time in charge. In 1608, the colony survived by reason of his military discipline.  But, by the winter of 1609, Smith is gone.   

How much “guidance” is needed to be industrious enough to feed yourself and your family?  Why should such guidance come from London?  And, why would the colonists lapse into indolence upon Smith’s departure?

The answer lies in the economic system established in Jamestown.  The first councilors in charge directed communal ownership as a means of avoiding the evils they left behind in England.  In point of fact, their experiences before leaving England actually suggested socialism/communism to the colonists.  They imported a preference for communism even though they had never tried it.

In the early 17^th century, English society separated its citizens into distinct classes.  The king, members of his court, and all the great landowners – archbishops and bishops of the church, earls, dukes and princes were at the top.

The church owned wealth in land that rivaled that of the king and his nobles.  For the most part, they had acquired their land holdings through force of arms or, in the case of the church, through confiscatory taxation or “tythes”.

The parish priests, the merchants, the craftsmen, and the gentry constituted a small middle class just below the lords.

At the base of the socioeconomic structure were the commoners, the great mass of people.  They were called such because they owned no land, but held a right of “commons”.  This was the right to grow vegetables and grain on acreage that was held in common.  They could tend sheep and cattle on the common pastures.  They could hunt small game and cut wood for their fires in the common forests.

Remembering that land ownership had been accomplished by confiscation, the commoners opposed private ownership of land.  So, they set up their colony to prohibit private property.  The only alternative system they knew was the “commons”, everything owned equally by everyone.

Communism, then, is the institution they brought with them, although a more apt description should be Socialism since everything was actually owned by the Company and administered by company officials, rather than being owned in “common” by the people themselves.

In any event, the problem was that they had no stake in what they produced. They were bound by contract to put all they produced into a common pool to be used to support the colony as a whole. Everyone was supposed to work according to ability and take according to need.

There is marginalia on page 31 of the Carnes/Garraty text directing the student to MyHistoryLab.com and a chapter resource purporting to be the text of “The Starving Time”, an account written by Captain Smith.  But, the excerpt is incomplete.  Referring to footnote #1 above, the excerpt provided to the students ends with the phrase “…It were too vile to say, and scarce to be believed, what we endured.”  It fails to include the further qualifying statement which indicates that any fault for what they endured was the colonists’ own:  “…but the occasion was our own for want of providence, industry, and government, and not the barrenness and defect of our country, as is generally supposed”.

Although there is a companion CD to this text entitled MyHistoryLab, the original source document is similarly truncated.

If the text author is going to direct students to original sources, then those sources should be provided in their entirety.  In this case, the colonist’s themselves recognized that their problems were caused by the economic system in place.  By selectively removing the very reason the colonists underwent those hardships, the students have no idea that it was socialism that caused the problem.

Why does the author choose to truncate the document?  It certainly can’t be due to space limitation in the text.  This original source is provided online.  Could the reason lie with the author’s idelology?

Next, we can take a look at how the author discusses the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts.  It is in this part of the colonial saga that Carnes/Garraty deal in both half-truth and outright falsification. 

“Having landed on the bleak Massachusetts shore in December 1620 at a place they called Plymouth, the Pilgrims had to endure a winter of desperate hunger.  About half of them died.  But by great good luck there was an Indian in the area, named Squanto, who spoke English!  In addition to serving as an interpreter, he showed them the best places to fish and what to plant and how to cultivate it.  They, in turn, worked hard, got heir crops in the ground in good time, and after a bountiful harvest the following November, they treated themselves and their Indian neighbors to the first Thanksgiving feast.”[4]

Well, there certainly was an English speaking Indian there named Squanto.  And, he undoubtedly assisted the colonists.  And, about ½ of the original colonists did die that first winter.  However, the rest of the account is completely fictitious.  For this bit of the story, we have the account of William Bradford, who became Governor of the colony in 1621 and ruled for some 30 years thereafter.

In Bradford’s history Of Plymouth Plantation, the only event mentioned in November of 1621 is the arrival of a ship from England with an additional 35 settlers.  There is no mention of any “Thanksgiving”.  In fact, conditions at the beginning of that 2^nd winter were almost as bad as the first:

“The Gover and his assistante haveing disposed these late commers into severall families, as they best could, tooke an exacte accounte of all their provissions in store, and proportioned the same to the number of persons, and found that it would not hould out above 6. months at halfe alowance, and hardly that. And they could not well give less this winter time till fish came in againe. So they were presently put to half alowance, one as well as an other, which begane to be hard, but they bore it patiently under hope of supply.”[5]

Now, we’re into 1622 and Bradford describes the conditions this 2^nd year:

“Now the wellcome time of harvest aproached, in which all had their hungrie bellies filled. But it arose but to a litle, in comparison of a full years supplie; partly by reason they were not yet well aquainted with the manner of Indean torne, (and they had no other,) allso their many other imployments, but cheefly their weaknes for wante of food, to tend it as they should have done. Also much was stolne both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable, and much more after ward. And though -many were well whipt (when they were taken) for a few ears of torne, yet hunger made others (whom consciente did not restraine) to venture. So as it well appeared that famine must still insue the next year aliso, if not some way prevented, or supplie should faile, to which they durst not trust.”[6]

Finally, in 1623, a realization takes hold.  After describing how some of the colonists had taken to stealing from the Indians, Bradford then explains:

“All this while no supply was heard of…. 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 thus languish in misery. At length … the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves…. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land … for that end, only for present use…. 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 him 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 compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's … that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing…. For this community … was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, objected that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong … had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice…. As for men’s wifes who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not brook it.  This feature of it would have been worse still if they had been men of an inferior class…Upon … all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought … one as good as another, and so … did … work diminish … the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst men…. Let none object this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself.  I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them….”[7]

Of course, it's the "common course and condition" that caused the trouble.  Thus, we finally become aware that the Pilgrims actually spent at least 3 years suffering under the burdens of communism and it was not until 1623 that a change was made to allot private property and encourage the colonists to work in their own, rational self-interest.

Even under these new economic conditions, the colonists continued to have a difficult time:

“I may not here omite how, notwithstand all their great paines and industrie, and the great hops of a large cropp, the Lord seemed to blast, and take away the same, and to threaten further and more sore famine unto them, by a great drought which continued from the 3. weeke in May, till about the midle of July, without any raine, and with great heat (for the most parte), insomuch as the come begane to wither away, though it was set with fishe, the moysture wherof helped it much. Yet at length it begane to languish sore, and some of the drier grounds were partched like withered hay, part wherof was never recovered. Upon which they sett a parte a solemne day of humilliation, to seek the Lord by humble and fervente prayer, in this great distrese. And he was pleased to give them a gracious and speedy answer, both to thier owne and the Indeans admiration, that lived amongest them. For all the morning, and greatest part of the day, it was clear weather and very hotte, and not a cloud or any signe of raine I to be seen, yet toward evening it begane to overcast, and shortly after to raine, with shuch sweete and gentle showers, as gave them cause of rejoyceing, and blesing God… For which mercie (in time conveniente) they also sett aparte a day of thanksgiveing.”[1]

In his treatment of Plymouth Colony, Carnes/Garraty sets up the reader in two ways.  First, in placing the day of Thanksgiving at the end of the first year, the efforts of Squanto to assist the Pilgrims is magnified.  Thus, the later actions of these “evil” white men in their dealings with the Indians can be seen in even more sinister terms.  How DARE they treat those poor Indians that way after all the help Squanto gave them?

However, in failing to mention that the “starving time” in Virginia, as well as that the deaths from starvation in Plymouth were directly due to the communistic form of economy, the author fails to inform the students of still another example of the failure of collectivism.

One is led to ask, what is the author’s motivation for these omissions?  The historical record is there for all to see.

Perhaps if socialism and communism aren’t mentioned, their failures won’t be fully realized by another generation of American students until it’s too late.

---

1 General Historie of Virginia, Annals of America, Vol. I, Encyclopedia Britannica 1976, pp. 26-27
2 The American Nation: A History of the United States by Mark C. Carnes and John A. Garraty, p. 30

3 ibid, p. 31

4 ibid, p. 36

5 History of Plymouth Plantation, 1606-1646. Ed. William T. Davis. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,    1908, p. 170

6 ibid, p. 203

7 ibid, pp. 216-217

8 ibid, p. 231