The Pilgrims' Cautionary Tale
Kate Zernike, writing
for the New York Times, finds fault with what she calls “one common telling” of the story of the
Pilgrims. That telling – she also calls
it an “interpretation” of their experience – has it that they conducted a brief
experiment in socialism. The problem for
Zernike is that it’s not simply an interpretation or one common telling; it’s
what no less an authority than William Bradford documents in Of Plymouth
Plantation. Bradford, of course, was
governor of Plymouth Colony for 30 years.
It was not the Pilgrims
who wanted a communal plantation; it was required by the terms of their
agreement with the London Company that financed the colony. (He who pays the piper calls the tunes, as
they say.) It did not go well. Here is Bradford in his own words:
“They began to
consider how to raise more corn, and obtain a better crop than they had done,
so that they might not continue to endure the misery of want. At length after much debate, the Governor with
the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant other corn for
his own household, and to trust to themselves for that; in all other things to
go on in the general way as before. So
every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of
their number with that in view… This
was very successful. It made all hands
very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise
would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved
him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction.”[1]
They were
reluctant to go against the terms of their charter, but they deemed it
necessary for their survival. The
stunning turnaround in production led Bradford to comment on the benefits of
private property and the dangers of common ownership, especially in terms of the
personal incentives and disincentives each system creates.
“The failure
of this experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and
by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other
ancients, applauded by some of later times, - that the taking away of private
property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make
a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property
(so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and
retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and
comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being
forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and
children, without any recompense. The
strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc.,
than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice. The aged and graver men, who were ranked and
equalized in labour, food, clothes, etc., with the humbler and younger ones,
thought it some indignity and disrespect to them. As for men’s wives 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 [tolerate]
it. This feature of it would have been
worse still, if they had been men of an inferior class. If (it was an thought) all were to share
alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and
one was as good as another, and so, if it did not actually abolish those very
relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish
the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them. Let none argue that this is due to human
failing, rather than to the 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.[2]
The colony abandoned its
experiment in communism only by degrees. When each family was given a plot of land to
farm and given the exclusive right to enjoy its fruits, the plots were not given as perpetual holdings, but distributed yearly by lot. Each year the plots changed hands. But this caused another problem with personal incentives. Why go to so much trouble to nurture the land I work this year when I'll be farming a different plot of ground next year?
“In order that they might raise their crops to
better advantage, they made suit to the Governor to have some land apportioned
for permanent holdings, and not by yearly lot, whereby the plots which the more
industrious had brought under good culture one year would change hands the
next, and others would reap the advantage; with the result that the manuring
and culture of the land were neglected. It
was well considered, and their request was granted. Every person was given one acre of land, for
them and theirs, and they were to have no more till the seven years had
expired.[3]
The move had the intended effect and the colony prospered all the more.
We can learn many valuable lessons from the Pilgrims, not the least of which is the value of private property and the dangers of socialism.
[1] William
Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006), pp. 75-76. Italics added for emphasis.
[2] Ibid, p.
76
[3] Ibid, p.
94
Comments