Technically, the original Americans were rejects who were kicked out of most of the respectable countries.
As I recall, it was the 1620 Pilgrims who came in flight from religious oppression. Everyone since then came either motivated by greed, or to fill the vacuum of religious oppression.
Virginians were here first, for money.
Look. Here are the Seven Deadly Sins:
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Lust
Wrath
Envy
and Pride
The people who formed America came here motivated at least one, probably several, and maybe all if the first six.
The seventh one is the edifice they built to celebrate and worship their success.
No, that’s not true. They came to impose their own religion when the European countries they left wouldn’t let them control the religions there.
This is nonsense. The state religions wouldn’t allow them to practice their version of Christianity in peace.
Funny. I thought the Puritans won the English Civil War and imposed their own religious beliefs on the country.
Yes, but not until 1649. Jtur88 is talking about the situation in 1620, a generation earlier.
It was both. They wanted both to practice Christianity as they thought proper and to be able to compel everyone in the community to practice Christianity as they thought proper.
Specifically, Plymouth Colony ran from 1620 to 1691. Charles I ruled to 1649. So he was their monarch and issued their charter.
The monarchy was restored in 1660 after a passing Puritan bit from 1649 to 1660. I wonder how that effected immigration to the colony. I don’t imagine that immigration stopped during the rule of the Parliamentarians.
Actually, it did, more or less. The population of the colony rose steadily from 1620 until the mid 1640s, after which it stabilised and thereafter grew largely by natural increase, rather than through continued immigration. The peak years of migration were 1629-1640, and it’s generally thought that parliament being reconvened in 1640 and beginning to assert itself against the crown, leading to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642, is one of the things that led to a significant decline in the desire to migrate to Plymouth.
I think this person on Twitter believes that the first colonies were libertarian paradises. Which shows the depth of knowledge behind most tweets.
Tweet back - “No, Ayn Rand did not come over on the Mayflower.”
FWIW, I also oppose the government forcing cake makers to make cakes! I wouldn’t include it in my Top Ten list of complaints, however.
If you read my post again, you will see that the cake-maker crisis, however horrible and grievous a violation it may seem to you (“at the point of the sword” no less :smack: ) was in sarcastic contrast to a list of freedoms the GOP wants to deny.
Kindly review the post you responded to and see if any of the other denied freedoms measure as large, in your opinion, as the horrible injustices inflicted on cake-makers.
Thank you, Septimus, for your kind invitation to reply to the additional items in the list you created of our government’s “denial of freedoms.”
Your characterization of government encroachments on your fellow Americans’ free speech rights as “horrible injustices inflicted on cake-makers,” a droll comment, would appear to indicate a view of those rights of the American people that have been set forth in our Constitution verbatim et litteratim, as not preeminent.
I have no idea how to even begin to reply.
I wish you a very pleasant day. And God bless us, every one.
I bet myself that you would ignore the list of much more significant denials of freedom, and just repeat yourself about my playful but only-slight caricature of the dreadful campaign against “cake-makers.”
I win the bet!
Congratulations, Septimus.
Note to other readers / commenters: As for me, I would feel as happy as Septimus does about winning his bet with himself, if another commenter who pays thoughtful attention to the substance of the comments, were to enter the conversation, and reply accordingly. Thank you.
This reads like it was written by someone who stopped learning about US history at around the elementary school level.
Ad hom.
What about the substance? Do progressives not get substance?
I take that back. That was as bad as the earlier ad hom.
My goal here is to see: Can productive discourse exist outside one’s own echo chamber?
My last comment is not a good example. I hate that it wasn’t.
Not really. There is no “substance”. It’s a random Tweet from God knows who which simplifies the foundation of the country to a single bit of elementary school level American Mythology.
Indeed, the Church of England wasn’t going to let them execute non-Puritan heretics, so they founded a colony in which they’d be boss.
This is the standard right-wing ignorance on religious freedom, in that they define “religious freedom” as “the right to practice religion as I do, and in no other way.”