Talk:Mayflower Compact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This passage needs work:

The purpose of the Mayflower Compact was to prevent people who didn't split from the Church of England from separating with the Separatists (Pilgrims). The Pilgrims were people who separated from the Church of England to follow their beliefs. Those who threatened to separate were non-pilgrims possessing skills needed for survival.

Too many uses of split/separate. ((Hi))The meaning is unclear too. Is this what is meant: some Anglicans aboard the Mayflower wanted their own colony separate from the Pilgrims, but the Compact kept them together? Ubermonkey 21:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I updated the page using my interpretation; please change it if this is incorrect. Ubermonkey 19:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The link to Stephen Hopkins is incorrect. The linked Hopkins was not the passenger on the Mayflower. ok that was pretty interesting

  • Many names seem to link incorrectly, probably due to the fact that they are very common. RSClark

I agree with comments about improper linking - for example John Turner listed links to John Turner, PM of Canada in the 1980s! There should be no reason why Wikipedia should somehow pick up names given here as being that of totally different persons - if this is an artifact of the Wikipedia authoring software, then that needs to be corrected asap.

- Tony Close, Chicago

um... I don't know my history very well, but the actual text says the Compact was signed on November 11 while the Wikipedia says it was signed on the 21st. Is one of them wrong, or what's going on?

The Pilgrims (being from England) used the Julian Calendar, not the Gregorian Calendar. At that time it was 10 days behind the Gregorian. England (and her colonies) wouldn't adopt the Gregorian until 1752. I tried to make an edit, but it doesn't seem to be showing. 72.227.136.130 02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

November 13, 2006

On Nov. 13 2006 I had returned to an earlier version of Nov. 11th 2006 because someone came in and completely removed and defaced the original text and all the years of edits. It looks like his attempt to edit was an accident. But nonetheless, it destroyed years of work.

Contents

[edit] =

It has been my understanding that, after the signing of the compact, the pilgrims were the only passengers holding authority while on the ship. So they immediately elected themselves to office while only they could vote. Had they waited until they moved to land, the "strangers," who were a majority, would have also had a vote, and their selections and viewpoints would not have been tolerable to the pilgrims. 66.141.74.166 03:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Gene Douglas

[edit] All wrong?

I think that this article is all wrong. The Pilgrims came to America, with British colonies already established and functioning perfectly. What the pilgrims wanted to do was create a colony based on puritan ideals, they felt the earlier colonies lost their religious ideals. The compact is an agreement by all the male members who were touched by "grace" (they know they are predestined to go to heaven) that they will abide by a strict religious code and govern themselves accordingly. They will have ties with England and the king, but will have no religious tolerance, they only want to practice one religion and everyone who lives there must also practice it. Essentially, it was a religious colony and this document was a statement of its intent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.44.109.197 (talk • contribs) 18 February 2007.

There were only a few settlements in 1620 when the Mayflower arrived: Virginia was settled in 1607 at Jamestown, 1610 at Hampton, 1611 at Henricus, 1613 at Newport News, 1613 at New Bermuda, and a few other Virginia settlements. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was not set up until after the Mayflower. The Dutch first established trading posts in Pennsylvania in 1624. The first permanent settlement in what would be New York was by the Dutch in 1624. So you see, the British colonies were not "already established and functioning perfectly".
As for their reason for coming to America, it was to escape persecution in England and to prevent them from losing their cultural identity in the Dutch city of Liden where many of them first went to escape religious persecution. --Pmsyyz 07:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The Pilgrims WERE NOT puritans, they were separatists (the distinction in 2007 may seem tiny to those how haven't studied the period). The reason for the Compact was that the license they brought with them was only good for up to the northern reaches of Virginia (now Hudsons River NY). There was dissension on board the ship. The non-Lieden people were threatening to do whatever they wanted in 'New England'. To end the dissent, the Compact was drwan up to bind them as a 'civil politic'. The person who started this thread exhibits a disdain for puritans (who would not land in Mass Bay until 1630), and it drips over to anyone of religious beliefs. Religion was a major part of the Pilgrims life, as it was in all Europe, but 2007 standard of tolerance is not the yardstick to measure them by. You sir, are all wrong. Read the source documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calixte (talk • contribs) 13:35, June 2, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location now

can someone put where the mayflower compact is now. Archives museaum maybe? --Ncusa367

The Compact 'exists' as a hand written copy on a page in Bradford's manuscript. The 'original' is long lost. Bradford's hand written manuscript is kept in the Massachusetts State House Library. - Calixte

I added to the article that Bradford's hand written manuscript is kept in a special vault at the State Library of Massachusetts. And added this reference link State Library of Massachusetts Online catalog - Jeeny Talk 18:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can we a do a numbered list?

if we could number the list of signers, instead of just bullets, then a quick scan would tell you if there are 41 signers...? comments? Calixte 03:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought about doing that, too. I don't know the order of the signers though, and if it matters. -- (to change to a numbered list you add the pound sign rather than the asterisk} -- I'll do that now. I guess we should wait for consensus? Perhaps someone knows the order? I don't have time to check on that right now, though. - Jeeny Talk 05:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I found these: I assume this is the order by just glancing this one? - Jeeny Talk 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The order is not important since no one knows the order! Alphabetical or by perceived importance (Bradford, Brewster, Winslow, -etc) is probably OK Calixte 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date Discrepency

The article stated that:

[the Compact] is often mistakenly thought to be the first Constitution in America. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut actually hold this honor.

However, according to the respective Wikipedia articles, the Compact was signed in 1620, while the Fundamental Orders were signed in 1638. Hence my edits. ô¿ô (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source

The compact is often referred to as the foundation of the Constitution of the United States. I changed this to 'citation needed' since the reference cited doesn't reflect this claim. So who really said this? I've heard this claim before, so it's possible that it's an aphorism/adage, rather than a genuine fact. Hires an editor (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)