Did the Pilgrims land on Plymouth Rock because they ran out of beer?

[Chubber]

From The Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/051125.html)

You heard right, more or less: The Mayflower colonists decided to settle at Plymouth because they were running low on beer. In an age when so many have lost their moral compass, it's comforting to know that people in the old days had their priorities straight.

...

"We could not now take time for further search or consideration, our victuals being much spent, especially our beer, and it being now the 19th of December" (Mourt's Relation, 1622, commonly attributed to colonists William Bradford and Edward Winslow).

[Goban]

Did the pilgrims land on Plymouth Rock because they ran out of beer?

Wouldn't you? :D

[Chubber]

Originally posted by Goban
Wouldn't you? :D

No. I have been to Plymouth. I would only land there if I was out of T-shirts and stupid hats.

Did they expect the local natives to be running a cozy little pub?

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by Chubber
No. I have been to Plymouth. I would only land there if I was out of T-shirts and stupid hats.

Looking at your avatar, you may never run out of beer anyway! ;)

[Chubber]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
Looking at your avatar, you may never run out of beer anyway! ;)

Well, that move was considered much more refined than just dunking my head in the tub and lapping it up...

[HogieWan]

I've heard they landed there because the crew of the boat they hired to bring them to the "New World" was under half of there beer and food supply and not halfway done with their round-trip - so they dumped them at the first place they found

[chazwicke]

I had heard that too. And some reports say that that famous quote was taken from the ships log and not a Pilgrim journal.

Although Adams seems to refute this.

[newportstorm]

Originally posted by HogieWan
I've heard they landed there because the crew of the boat they hired to bring them to the "New World" was under half of there beer and food supply and not halfway done with their round-trip - so they dumped them at the first place they found

I've heard similar. There were concerns about there being enough supplies (including beer) for the return trip to England. So they made a pit stop, dumped the Pilgrims and hightailed it back to England.

Cheers!

[brewmonkey]

The reason they stopped is that they ran out of the materials they needed to make beer as they had plenty of brandy on board at the time. Remember that they kept the beer because they could not drink the water. If they had not stopped they would not have been able to finish the trip.

[DecoJuicer]

Ever drive across the country with you family?? THAT"S why they really stopped. They had been cooped up in that boat for so long that they just couldn't stand to be around each other any more. Coincidentally, that is also the way most of the west was settled.

Riding along in your covered wagon, the wife in her bonnet telling you that your following too close to the wagon in front of you, the kids jumping around in the back yelling that they have to pee, smelling ox farts all day long. You finally just snap and say, "This is where we stop! Everybody out!!"

The pilgrims were running out of beer and that was the only thing that was keeping them from murdering each other. Now if they would have had a little weed on the boat...

Of course, I may have a bit of a skewed view on history. I never did well in those classes in high school.

[HogieWan]

Originally posted by DecoJuicer
Riding along in your covered wagon, the wife in her bonnet telling you that your following too close to the wagon in front of you, the kids jumping around in the back yelling that they have to pee, smelling ox farts all day long. You finally just snap and say, "This is where we stop! Everybody out!!"

Now, that's comedy right there.

[SoxyinMO]

Originally posted by DecoJuicer
Ever drive across the country with you family?? THAT"S why they really stopped. They had been cooped up in that boat for so long that they just couldn't stand to be around each other any more. Coincidentally, that is also the way most of the west was settled.

Riding along in your covered wagon, the wife in her bonnet telling you that your following too close to the wagon in front of you, the kids jumping around in the back yelling that they have to pee, smelling ox farts all day long. You finally just snap and say, "This is where we stop! Everybody out!!"

The pilgrims were running out of beer and that was the only thing that was keeping them from murdering each other.

Oh man! This one had the whole family rolling :D

[wortchillergoal]

I just read that passage from the Pligrim's journal. They were afraid of running out of beer. Some wanted to turn back to England. Others thought that they could not even make it back so they put ashore.

Something along the same lines helped with the Revolution. The Brit troops were running out of beer. They thought they would quell the uprising of thwe colonists quckly. It did not happen and the troops did niot want to fight as beer rations were low.

[jjpm74]

I've heard that rumor as well. There are many major flaws in that theory: at the time there were no established European settlements in that area meaning hops were unheard of, things like corn were still a challenge, pumpkins were not something brewed with at that time and there was no viable grain farming in that part of the country at the time. To make it more of a challenge, the only apple native to the Americas is the crab apple.

[fretlessman71]

I think what they're saying is that they weren't trying to brew more beer because they had run out; they needed to save the beer for the sailors because they couldn't keep fresh water on the ship. The settlers, however, could go to the nearest freshwater stream and be good to go. Is that what you're rebutting? Maybe I don't understand...

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
The settlers, however, could go to the nearest freshwater stream and be good to go.

I'm not sure about good to go. Pehapse that had not read this:

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/infect/pdf/giardiasis.pdf

Or:

http://giardiasis.iqnaut.net/


That is what happens when you drink what you believe to be fresh stream water.:eek:

[chazwicke]

Pehaps the Pilgrims should have checked online for these:

http://www.moosineer.com/water.htm

Before they travelled.




Beer was not only safe onboard ships but most European communities drank some sort of watered down ale as their regular source of hydration, since the local rivers and streams were almost always polluted. Remember, people washed or bathed, threw their trash, and human waste into the rivers. Boiling the water for beer and the resulting alcohol made beer a far safer drink than plain ole water throughout most of history.

[jjpm74]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
I think what they're saying is that they weren't trying to brew more beer because they had run out; they needed to save the beer for the sailors because they couldn't keep fresh water on the ship. The settlers, however, could go to the nearest freshwater stream and be good to go. Is that what you're rebutting? Maybe I don't understand...

I'm just saying that I've read about and studied the theory and it is just that, a theory at this point. There's no concrete evidence to suggest that the first settlers in New England did so because they were running out of beer. It had much more to do with the land grant given to them by the English crown. They had a defined area they were allowed to settle in.

[wortchillergoal]

Originally posted by jjpm74
I'm just saying that I've read about and studied the theory and it is just that, a theory at this point. There's no concrete evidence to suggest that the first settlers in New England did so because they were running out of beer. It had much more to do with the land grant given to them by the English crown. They had a defined area they were allowed to settle in.

Yes, burt they were aiming south for the mouth of the Hudson, not Plymouth Rock. So then what is the other theory(ies) for them landing so far from their intended destination?

I will stick with the lack of beer reasoning.

[jjpm74]

Originally posted by wortchillergoal
Yes, burt they were aiming south for the mouth of the Hudson, not Plymouth Rock. So then what is the other theory(ies) for them landing so far from their intended destination?

I will stick with the lack of beer reasoning.

You're thinking of Virginia. The Hudson River Valley was controlled by the Dutch at that time. Here is what most historians agree happened:

The Pilgrims had originally intended to go to Virginia, where they would have been under the jurisdiction of the London Company, one of two English companies that had been chartered to colonize North America. But they were blown off course and had no grant to settle in the region controlled by the Plymouth Company, the other English company. Thus the Pilgrims drew up the Mayflower Compact. All adult male passengers on the ship were required to sign it. Under this informal agreement or covenant, government was based on consent of the governed, an important precedent for the development of American democracy. All colonists had to obey the laws that were enacted. This compact established majority rule, which remained a primary principle of the government in Plymouth Colony until Massachusetts Bay Colony absorbed the colony in 1691. John Carver was selected as governor; he was succeeded in 1621 by William Bradford. Source: Encarta Online

[DecoJuicer]

I still like my theory better.

[wortchillergoal]

This is from the 1622 journal entitled The Beginnings and Proceedings of the English Plantation Settled at Plymouth. "...for we could not now take time for further search or consideration: our victuals being spent, especially our beer...". Yes, they were not heading for the mouth of the Hudson. They had been blown off course from teir orginal destination. The thought being if they had more supplies, they would have ended up near the site of present day NYC.

Now before this goes on any more. My wife's family has people who signed the Mayflower Compact. I will have her call and ask them. Anyone know a good seance person? I am telling the truth about my wife's family. Yet, they and a couple others got drvien out of the setllement for less than approiate behavoir.

[jjpm74]

Originally posted by wortchillergoal
This is from the 1622 journal entitled The Beginnings and Proceedings of the English Plantation Settled at Plymouth. "...for we could not now take time for further search or consideration: our victuals being spent, especially our beer...". Yes, they were not heading for the mouth of the Hudson. They had been blown off course from teir orginal destination. The thought being if they had more supplies, they would have ended up near the site of present day NYC.

Now before this goes on any more. My wife's family has people who signed the Mayflower Compact. I will have her call and ask them. Anyone know a good seance person? I am telling the truth about my wife's family. Yet, they and a couple others got drvien out of the setllement for less than approiate behavoir.

Tell her not to feel bad. I have a descendant who was hanged for witchcraft in Salem. :D

I'm sure beer was a concern of theirs (and please bare in mind their beer was not anywhere near what we consider beer today), but the primary reason they ended up where they did was that they were blown off course and after months at sea did not want to spend an additional few weeks sailing down the coast through some hostile areas if they could avoid it.

[Goban]

You have a descendant who was hanged?

J/K I know what you meant, just giving you a hard time. :)

[DecoJuicer]

I have a few descendents who were hung. In fact, it runs in my family.;)

[chazwicke]

She's a witch!!! Burn her!! Burn her!!


Uh oh!.....

[DecoJuicer]

"I got better."

[mookow]

It's only a flesh wound!

[fretlessman71]

Okay, OKAY, enough already! Maybe we need a seperate Monty Python thread or something... :rolleyes:

[gestyr]

"...and now for something completely different...."

[jjpm74]

Originally posted by Goban
You have a descendant who was hanged?

J/K I know what you meant, just giving you a hard time.

Hanged is past tense when referring to people strung up at the gallows. ;)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hanged

[wortchillergoal]

I came here looking for an arguement.

[fretlessman71]

Hmph. Apparently these days, you're in the right place...

[wortchillergoal]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
Hmph. Apparently these days, you're in the right place...

LOL. Fret as my 6 yr old son says,"You crack me up."

[DecoJuicer]

Can't we all just hit a bong...er..I mean, get along...oops, sorry

[mookow]

Originally posted by jjpm74
Hanged is past tense when referring to people strung up at the gallows. ;)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hanged

The key word there, however, was "descendant" rather than "ancestor".

[jjpm74]

Originally posted by mookow
The key word there, however, was "descendant" rather than "ancestor".

Descendant (or descendent) is a person descended from the same ancestor. The two are synonyms.

Eh, enough semantics for one day. Time for beer. :p

[Goban]

LOL, I am sorry for that. The use of descendant just threw me off-not hanged. :)

Kind of like a descendant of yours (your offspring).

My apologies.

[beerboogie]

man where have I been? I once swam across a lake to catch a buzz, so the beer theory sounds good to me