Talk:William Bradford (governor)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early disambiguation discussion

This is going to be one of those two articles one man things. William Bradford was baptised in March 1589, presumably in what we now label March 1589/90, and so was born before that time. I'm taking what I've put at [[William Bradford (1589-1657)]] and putting it here, leaving a redirect to here, so that there's not TWO articles on the same guy. With articles at both [[William Bradford (1589-1657)]] and [[William Bradford (1590-1657)]] we probably won't generate additional articles... -- Someone else 05:44 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I'm curious; why not William Bradford (pilgrim) and William Bradford (printer)? It's a lot easier to remember. - Hephaestos 05:50 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I think probably because there were two William Bradford (printer)s. (I didn't set up the William Bradford disambiguation page, feel free to have a go at it<G>). -- Someone else 05:55 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

---

There are at least four William Bradfords, I'm trying to sort them out. I'd like to keep the Pilgrim Bradford as 1590, but we ought to agree instead of tossing it back and forth. Bradford was born in Feb or March, and your baptism day is correct. But at that time in the British empire the year started on March 25th. Thats why many web sites list the date as 1589/90. As we would class it, the date is 1590. Many historic dates in the Jan-Mar time frame have had their year 'shifted' to allow continuity and timelines to make sense (since it was 1590 in France and Italy for example). My choice would be to leave a 1589 page as a redirect, show both dates on the disamiguation page, and leave the main article at 1590. Any thoughts? I won't shift things till I hear from you, Thanks, Lou I

yes, that's more or less the way I was suggesting it be left, except for adding the double date explicitly on the disambiguation page, which I will do now. -- Someone else 06:47 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I think I'll put a copy of this on the disambig page's Talk: in case other folks have ideas. I agree that's kind of a hairy mess with two printers; was one the son of the other? The dates make it look possible... - Hephaestos

Grandson. there was another printer generatiom, fortunately not a William, between them. Lou I 06:57 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

---

It seems a bit disingenuous to say that "some historians... contend that the colonists produced more farming for themselves, rather than for the community. We have this in no uncertainty from Bradford himself:

"...no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. 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, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. 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. History of Plymouth Plantation --Ej0c 01:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Career as governor?

This article seems very light on what would seem to be the most significant part of his life, his tenure as governor of Plymouth Colony. It doesn't even give an end date for his governorship; did he hold office until his death?

The idea that his most significant achievement was ending an experiment in socialized farming is a bit far-fetched. If someone had made collective farms work in the 17th Century, that would have been a remarkable achievement; going back to his era's normal way of farming is simply returning to the status quo. Nareek 20:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Spock

In my continuing process of adding citations, I have removed Dr. Benjamin Spock from the list of descendants. Spock was a descendant of Mayflower passengers John Howland and John Tilley, but not of William Bradford.

Reference:

• Scott, Fred. Clifton William Scott and Mildred Evelyn Bradford Scott of Ashfield, Mass.: Volume 1 (Genealogical record); iUniverse, 2004; pp. 423.

Chèvre Bleue 07:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jason Kendall

In my continuing efforts to cite the list of descendants, I have removed Jason Kendall, a professional baseball player. In my effort to verify the claim, the only connection I have been able to find is a link on a past version of the Jason Kendall Wikipedia article (linked here) that cites the San Francisco Chronicle sports article (ref.:[1]) that does not make that claim anyway. Chèvre Bleue 09:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

John Lithgow

As I have continued to cite the descendants listed, I have removed the American actor John Lithgow as I can find no verifiable source for his inclusion among Bradford's descendants. I did find, however, his descent from a different colonial New England ancestor, and other sources include this information on the same web-pages that trace Christopher Reeve's descent (which does extend to Bradford). See the reference below for Lithgow's colonial American lineage.

Reference:

• Roberts, Gary Boyd. "Royal Descents, Notable Kin, and Printed Sources #83", New England Historic Genealogical Society. On-line source (NewEnglandAncestors.org); accessed 5 May 2007. Chèvre Bleue 10:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jared Morrison

I removed Jared Morrison as his inclusion was the result of a vanity edit (See: Special:Contributions/66.108.161.140). I did so after an extensive search for a verifiable source for the claim. None was found. Chèvre Bleue 10:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. - Jeeny 16:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

George B. McClellan

Was removed by IP -- reason given no source. Since it was so recently disputed, thougtht I'd put it here to save work in case one is found.

• George B. McClellan, American Civil War major general and one-time General-in-Chief of the Union Army, conservative opponent of Abraham Lincoln - Jeeny 16:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

George B. McClellan and Benjamin Spock, redux

In an effort to ensure that all sources are verifiable, I have removed McClellan and Spock from the list again. The source "RootsWeb WorldConnect Project" includes unverifiable user-submitted information. As I cannot find sources that verify either McClellan or Spock that are not based upon user-submitted and unverifiable data, even after an exhaustive search of The Mayflower Quarterly, they should not be included in the list. I initially also removed John Lithgow here again until I found an albeit scant discussion of his descent from Bradford in MQ.

• George Brinton McClellan, Civil War general, 1864 presidential candidate
• Benjamin Spock, doctor, child care specialist

Chèvre Bleue 22:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the Mayflower Quarterly. Roberts's source only states the presiential kinships on Lithgow's father's side, while Lithgow is descended from Bradford on his mother's side, as well as the murderer John Billington.

References

George B. McClellan Bad Source

In my efforts to ensure that all of the information in this article can be verified, I have removed the following from the article:

• George B. McClellan,<ref>[http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/Genealogy/famousdescendants.php Famous Descendants of Mayflower Passengers]</ref> Civil War general, Democratic opponent of Abraham Lincoln in the 1864 United States presidential election

It was removed per previous reasoning at this Discussion of Source. That is, the site MayflowerHistory.com is not verifiable. Further, I discovered contradictory information among the Houghton Library collections of personal papers which is verifiable. MayflowerHistory.com is a commercial site and demonstrably incorrect at times. Moreover, McClellan's descent from William Bradford has not been verifiably established. Chèvre Bleue 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

William Collins Whitney unrelated source?

I see no relation to the Bradfords. I may be wrong, though the ref does say that he is notable and from an elite family but nothing connecting him to Bradford. I haven't found anything else connecting him to Bradford. I feel the editor who made the contribution should make it clear how this person is a decendent, as the ref supplied has no reference to Bradford, that I can see, anyway. I may be blind, I've missed the obvious many times before. Can someone else check on this. Thanks.

• William Collins Whitney,<ref>[http://www.whitneygen.org/archives/biography/williamc.html "William Collins Whitney (1841 - 1904)"]. ''The Whitney Research Group'', 1999; accessed 4 May 2007.</ref> American financier and politician, and his descendants, the Whitney family - Jeeny ^Talk 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, in the reference previously listed, the sentence cited appears somewhat above half-way down the web-page. It reads: Mr. Whitney was a descendant of General Josiah Whitney of the Revolution, who in turn was a descendant of Sir Robert Whitney of Whitney, Herefordshire, England. Mr. Whitney was also a descendant of William Bradford of the Mayflower, Governor of Plymouth Colony. I believe I made the original citation of this source for which I would now affirm your nomination of it as a poor reference, especially as Whitney's descent from Bradley is through his mother's Collins Family, and not through his elder Whitney line. I am re-adding W. C. Whitney to the article's list with this old source listed second to a more verifiable source. His name should now appear with two citations. Thank you for your diligence. Chèvre Bleue 04:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I got lazy and didn't read the whole page. I'm glad you're on top of this. :) Thank you. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Spock Unrelated Source

In my efforts to verify sources, I have removed the following:

• Benjamin Spock,<ref>[http://www.wargs.com/political/romney.html Ancestry of Mitt Romney] This link shows Spock's descent from Joshua Ripley, also an ancestor of Christopher Reeve. Look at the source for Reeve to see that Joshua Ripley is descended from William Bradford.</ref> child care specialist

The source cited demonstrates descent from Ripley, who is not a descendant of Bradford, and whose descendants also include Reeve, who is also a descendant of Bradford. Also see previous discussion of Spock above. Chèvre Bleue 01:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In the NEHGS source for Reeve, Ripley is shown to be descended from Bradford. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.215.243.22 (talk • contribs). 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Edward Everett Hale

In the process of adding citations to the list of Bradford's descendants, I have removed Hale. I am unable to find any reputable source, never-mind a verifiable one, to support this association. This was likely confused as Hale's wife was descended from Bradford and he repeatedly republished and commented upon the writings of Bradford.

Example reference:

• Bradford, William. Bradford's History of Plimoth Plantation: From the Original Manuscript; Edward Everett Hale, et al., Eds., Boston: Wright and Potter Printing Co., 1899.

Chèvre Bleue 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ChevreBleue, did you look in the Mayflower Quarterly? 71.92.71.247 03:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of expansion/editing?

Hi folks. Just thought I'd put a message out to any previous editors of this article who may still be keeping an eye on it. There's some good stuff here, but it seems to me there is significant room for improvement also. The article has some POV issues and, as noted above, his efforts as governor are really missing. I'm interested in adding some extensive narrative about his work as governor, but I really don't want to step on any toes. Thoughts, suggestions on improving the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Objective"

To say that "On Plymouth Plantation" is objective is a bit ill researched, Thomas Morton's journals relate that he was holding a simple party with the natives, which Bradford judged to be a full pagan revival and sacked. Up to this point, Bradford had been complaining a lot about how much his colony missed having beer, and complained about how much been Morton's New Canaan colony had. After looting and pillaging Morton's colony, murdering a lot of people (of course, Bradford looks at it as defending Christianity), Bradford stops complaining about the lack of beer. While Morton's journals aren't objective either, the sheer distance between both accounts really makes it hard to declare the other objective as well. Although I'm busy with midterms, as soon as I have time, I'm prepared to dig up reliable sources that will counter any source claiming Bradford's work was objective. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)