kimilseung

The Mayflower pilgrims who form the core of the myth, left Britain for the Netherlands. I am not aware of what religious persecution that they suffered in that country. They left the Netherlands to go to the New World.

morpeth

I guess I am unsure why you keep using the word myth when even the most casual Google search will show all the groups I mentioned who went to America for freedom from persecution or simply freedom to practice their beliefs in peace.

Yes many (not all) of the pilgrims had left England for Holland to live in a location with more tolerance, but found for various reasons they preferred to leave Holland- some cultural, some economic. Those who were on Mayflower who left from England, certainly like those who had earlier moved to Holland, wished to practice their religion in peace.

The governor William Bradford of the colony's biography stated " he joined a small group of Nonconformists despite the vehement objections of his family and friends. The group could not worship publicly, so they met furtively in a private house in the nearby town of Scrooby. Seven years later, under increasing pressure of persecution and fearful that they would be imprisoned, the Scrooby group crossed the North Sea to Holland " . Bradford in his book about the history of the colony, describes the persecution in England including imprisonment.

I actually couldn't find any source that indicated the Pilgrims were not persecuted in Britain prior to the departure of the Mayflower, and reading some portions of Bradford's book on the early History of the colony of which he was governor he clearly descried the persecution the Pilgrims were subject to.

robin1234

No, you're wrong. You're not even remotely addressing the specific point in my post. I was talking about that particular New England founding myth, "Pilgrim Fathers," etc. Where did I suggest Americans should regret leaving England? I didn't.

Obviously the Atlantic crossing was very arduous and hazardous in the 17th and 18th centuries. I believe research shows that more Americans travelled from America to England in that period of two hundred years, than people travelling from England to America. Many people made their fortune and went back to England, or their children did. For instance, younger sons who returned to England when they'd acquired enough wealth to buy land. People going back to attend Oxford or Cambridge. (Sorry no links or citations, but I read the books and articles a while ago...)

So people chose to travel to America, others chose to return to England. People made choices, then as now...

robin1234

OK, but the groups you mentioned included Hutterites, anabaptists, Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries etc. Surely you can see that kimilseung and I were specifically talking about "pilgrims" and puritans from England in the seventeenth centuries. You can't assert that by talking about something else, you somehow undermine another poster's arguments.

Surely you understand that Bradford's writings are not exactly objective. Wonderfully rich primary source, yes.

robin1234

We also shouldn't forget that America has a history of oppression too. Mormons ended up in Utah because they'd been oppressed - and massacred - elsewhere.

carcajou

No, you're wrong. Others have already picked apart your points but you've already backtracked furiously into saying now that you weren't talking about "America" just "New England" and not "Americans" but just "Pilgrims."

Very few Americans consider themselves descendants of the Pilgrims or have any connection to New England, and Americans also learn that the "foundation" of the country came from things like Columbus being the first European to arrive (he wasn't British), the Lost Colony on the Outer Banks (nowhere near New England), the Joint Stock Companies, and so on, and that the Pilgrims were just one of many things happening at the time and a bit later (and, the Pilgrims were ancient history by the time the Thirteen Colonies rolled around, which most Americans think of as the "foundation."

You don't apparently even understand what Americans consider to be the "founding events" of the country.

robin1234

You really are a class act, in the straw man stakes! I wasn't talking about Americans, I was talking about (1) "Pilgrims" (2) Puritans.

Yes, yes, your second paragraph is perfectly fine, I wouldn't disagree with it at all! But I was talking about the particular founding myth of "pilgrims" and puritans.

I don't quite see, what is your problem, that you want to create dissension where none exists?

I wasn't attempting to address the founding events of the country. I was addressing "pilgrims" and puritans. (That is, one or two specific founding events/myths.)

BritInParis

Except we're not talking about the full sweep of British colonial history, you are. We are discussing that the oft-cited reason for the arrival of the Pilgrims in the Plymouth colony was to escape religious oppression in England as being a myth as they were actually living in the Netherlands for several years prior to their departure on the Mayflower and the reason that they left wasn't that they were being prevented from practising their religious beliefs rather than they weren't allowed to force on them on everyone else. Ranting on about transportation to Australia, which wouldn't start for another 150 years, doesn't do you any favours on the appearances of sobriety front.

morpeth

I mentioned the other groups simply to point out the long tradition of different groups seeking greater freedom of religion coming to America, which contributed to what you call a "myth".

Bradford's writings would be considered a primary source, and while influenced by his bias, certainly the facts of the persecution can also be sourced elsewhere. The fact that many on the Mayflower, not all, had been in Holland for a while doesn't negate that they went to Holland in the first place because of persecution.

"In 17th Century England it was a crime to be Separatists. Soon-to-be Pilgrims could lose life, house, or suffer imprisonment before the Mayflower.
Pilgrim History basically begins with the persecution of the Separatists by King James I. Life for the Pilgrims meant threats of losing livelihood, home, or imprisonment while staying in England. In 1607, one group of Separatists located in Scrooby, England led by William Brewster set sail for Amsterdam, Holland to escape religious persecution."

(from https://worldhistory.us/european-his...-mayflower.php)

"Brewster, Bradford, Clyfton, Robinson, and three others were imprisoned in Boston’s Guildhall. I stooped through one of the small, grilled cell doors to enter a space approximately six by eight feet. Given the prison conditions of that age, the men’s month of detention here must have been a squalid experience. A spiral staircase leads from the cells up into the oak-panelled Magistrates Court where, contrary to expectations, the prisoners received a lenient hearing. The magistrate sentenced them to appear at the Assize Courts in Lincoln"

( from https://britishheritage.com/englands...lgrim-fathers/)

And the BBC concurs that the pilgrim group was persecuted - BBC News | UK | Why the Pilgrim Fathers left England

These may not be detailed academic sources, and perhaps one can debate the degree or persecution in different periods, but on a quick search I could find nothing that indicated the pilgrims/puritans were not persecuted, and definitely what you have described as a "myth" seems to be what the evidence shows.

The American branch of my family in escaped persecution in France for their religious beliefs, and came to America ( a few years after the pilgrims) also by way of Holland, which doesn't in any way show that there wasn't persecution in France in the first place.

kimilseung

Showing that somethings are true doesn't affect the status of something else being a myth. Were the Pilgrims persecuted in the Netherlands? Did they leave the Netherlands to go to what would become the US?
Indeed myths are not falsehoods in their entirety, they have to have some kind of fact or truth, at least an emotional truth.

kimilseung

The Washington Post for one American source is well aware of the mythology believed by others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.316e50bb83c2

MidAtlantic

No, but they had a sense of foreboding that what they had experienced in England was coming to pass again, so they moved on. An extract from the BBC piece in #99 above sums it up: "But in 1618, after less than a decade, they decided to move again. They had economic problems and wanted to preserve their heritage. Furthermore they feared another Spanish Catholic invasion of the Netherlands, which would have threatened their newly found religious freedom".

morpeth

First, of all not all the Pilgrims came from the Netherlands who were on the Mayflower.

Second, the main point was the Pilgrims were fleeing from persecution in Britain, and some after a stay in the Netherlands.

The American branch of my family fled persecution in France, by way of Holland as well around the same time.

I agree myths can arise from a certain amount of truth, in this case most of the truth is the pilgrims and puritans were fleeing from persecution, though the degree of persecution varied according to the time period, most of he pilgrims evidently leaving before 1680.

I certainly haven't read much in detail on the subject, but all sources and reports I have seen indicate simply the pilgrims fled persecution as did other groups to the colonies from Europe albeit somewhat later. They enjoyed religious freedom in Holland, though even there it seemed they were a bit leery of what the Spanish could have brought in the future.

In any case I am not at all convinced it is a myth to say pilgrims and puritans had left to avoid persecution and have more freedom of religion, and even if it were a myth due to the semantics of exactly when one leaves a place to avoid persecution ( like say Jews stuck in Lisbon during world war II until they found a country willing to take them-(they clearly were fleeing from persecution albeit were in transit), the myth itself certainly had some place in convincing others on the continent who were persecuted to go to America where they enjoyed more freedom, and to promote the idea of religious tolerance ( although the puritans in general were not too tolerant in their own particular colony).

Leslie

I'm not really sure who said what at this point so I'll respond generally.

In school we were taught about the Pilgrims as the first settlers. They weren't the first settlers but sometimes history is written by those who were there and thought to write things down. The claim seemed to be that they left England as a result of the formation the Church of England, they didn't want to be a member of that church and apparently England was making attendance mandatory. They then left the Netherlands because they feared something similar happening there.

Americans were not taught, and I've never heard anybody claim, that the Revolutionary War was because of religious freedom or that the Pilgrims were even significantly involved.

We were taught that The Revolution was about taxation, representation and the general desire to get out from under the control of the King. The founding fathers were relatively wealthy English landowners conveying to the lower classes that their poverty was the fault of the King.

robin1234

Hmm .. I'm not at all convinced that the "pilgrims" enjoyed freedom of conscience and religion in Leiden. From what I remember of reading about early 18th century Netherlands, it was just that they were there at a time that their particular brand of obnoxious theocratic Calvinists were in the ascendant. The Arminians and papists were probably languishing in gaol in Leiden, while the "pilgrims" were riding high on the theocratic hog in the Pieterskerk. Yes, as Morpeth suggests, if they'd stayed much longer, the Arminians would have got out of prison and wreaked vengeance on the Calvinists.