Talk:Mayflower Compact

Social contract?

A social contract that most of the people didn't sign? How is that a contract? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.166.2 (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Many of the people who didn't sign were females, who at that time did not have political rights. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

and their children... As written, the bit about "Majoritarian rule" is highly inaccurte and misleading. This Complete Passenger list makes this all the more clear. 69.37.38.104 (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to this reader that a misleading over-tone is assumed in the opening paragraph concerning those who actually signed the Compact. It seems it would be more objective and accurate to state that the document was signed by all of the adult male passengers or "heads of households" as it was commonly understood. The current reading portrays the event as taking place by a conspiring minority and does more to promote a historically conspicuous view than to accurately and objectively portray a historical event. Bfairplease (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Signatories are not exclusively "heads of households". Servants were considered part of their master's household. Howland and Lester were servants of Carver and Hoopkins respectively.Geofpick (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course this compact by British subjects forming a British colony has little to do with the Founding Fathers that founded the United States of America under the U.S. Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsboy38 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Willison, "Saints and Strangers" (1945), there was mutiny on board the Mayflower calling for organized resistance to the group. "All were sentenced to die, and were executed." (68.) When mutiny rose again, "[T]o meet the explosive situation, the Leyden Saints in command decided once again to rely on the Word, drafting as formal and formidable a document as they knew how." (69.) He suggests the ringleaders may have been "commanded" to sign the Compact, as "an instrument to maintain the status quo on the Mayflower, to show inferiors in general, and servants in particular, their place and keep them where they belonged--i.e. under the thumbs of their masters." (71.) If I had permission, I would edit the "Reasons" section to include Willison's, which seems very well researched.Jonathanpomerance (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Jonathanpomerance

Original Mayflower compact

I am removing an external link to mayflower-compact.org because even though the document shown is claimed to be original and even shows original signatures, the original Mayflower Compact has not survived, nor have most of the signatures. Thus the document shown is fictional. It goes far beyond legitimate scholarship. The fictional document is based on William Bradford's manuscript version written in 1646, which was not printed at that time. An earlier version also written by William Bradford that differs from his 1646 version in several respects was printed in Mourt's Relation in 1622 but neither version includes the names of any signers, let alone their actual signatures. A list of the purported "signers" first appears in New-Englands Memorial (1669) by Nathaniel Morton. The original compact was probably hand written because I doubt that the Mayflower had a printing press, and even if it did, I doubt that it would be unpacked along with the cases of letters, inks and other paraphernalia required to produce the printed document shown. I also doubt that the "signers" could even write their own signatures because only the rich were able to receive an education that allowed them to read and write. A good source is The Mayflower compact and its signers (1920) by George Ernest Bowman, which includes photocopies of the original 1622, 1646, and 1669 documents. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are claiming that most of the men in England at the time signed documents with an X ? They could not sign their own names? And then you claim they could not read what they were signing? The question is fascinating, but requires proof. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC))

What is the difference between the blue & the black names?

Could whoever wrote this article please tell us why some names are blue & some are black? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC))

are you asking why some names link to articles and others don't? or why some deserve articles and others don't?Geofpick (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please clarify the unsourced claim "It was written by the male passengers"

What does that mean? Does that mean that the 41 men who signed the document all had pens and each penned a few of the words??? Can you state who penned the document -- we know who signed it. Were there boys on the ship (males)? Did all the males pen the document? Any male babies added their words? And please add reliable sources. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC))

Legacy

A speech by Calvin Coolidge is referenced and quoted in the Legacy section. While the footnote cites the source, it does not include an available link to it;

According to the article, the speech was given to the "Society of Mayflower Descendants" on November 22 in Boston.

The speech does not exist on the Calvin Coolidge Foundations site.

Noternie (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll amend the link to use this source https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045774/1920-11-23/ed-1/?sp=6&r=-0.053,0.552,0.95,0.466,0 Geofpick (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

References

under--- subscribed

Am I the only one who sees this? A couple lines above Anno Domini 1620, it says "hereunto subscribed our names" in the translation, but that is not what is written. What is written is "here under subscribed our names"

"under written" and "sub scribed" are etymological twin pairings from Germanic and Latin roots respectively. The author started to write "underwriten" has he had once earlier at the head of the page, then crossed it out for a preferred "subscribed".

Check the spelling -- "under" is written elsewhere in the document ("haveing undertaken"), and it is identical to the supposed "unto". I understand that secondary sources translate it as "hereunto" but they could be wrong. Is anyone else seeing this as "under" as in "sub", and then crossed out? 79.154.191.198 (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)