Soleimani's "Take-out" was "Morally, Constitutionally and Strategically Correct"

Surprise! U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff. D-California, now wants to investigate President Trump's justification for assassinating General Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani was the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force. He was designated by President Barack Obama as a terrorist.

If you don't know why Obama designated Gen. Soleimani as a terrorist, you need to do some simple research. Find out how many American soldiers and civilians, and how many other civilians around the globe, he has been responsible for murdering over the last 20 years.

Soleimani was killed a couple days after the American Embassy in Baghdad was attacked by pro-Iranian proxies in Baghdad. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iraq's "Popular Mobilization Forces," the control entity of several Iran-financed "militia" groups operating in Iraq, was also killed in the U.S. drone strike.

But what was Iran's "minister of terror," Soleimani, doing in Baghdad anyway?

The Trump administration says he was planning attacks on American military and civilian targets throughout the Middle East. It justifies his assassination as one to eliminate a "clear and present danger" to American lives and property.


Now let's compare and contrast Trump's assassination of Soleimani, with Obama's "take-out" of Moammar Gadhafi of Libya.

On March 19, 2011, Obama authorized the bombing of Libya. He had no authorization from Congress to do so. Rather, he relied upon a United Nations Security Council resolution, passed at the behest of his administration, that authorized military intervention in Libya. Two days later, the United States, Britain and France began to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya by Gadhafi's air force.
The U.S. also started to bomb his "assets." For the next seven months, the U.S rained bombs on Libya. That bombing killed several thousand people, supported a rebel offensive and effected regime change.

In October 2011, rebel forces conquered Libya, located Gadhafi and killed him. Thereafter, Libya descended into chaos. During the chaos, the American consulate in Benghazi was attacked and our ambassador and others were murdered by pro-Iranian militia in response to the U.S providing missiles to anti-Assad forces in Syria (Iran's ally).

So why did the U.S. go to war in Libya? According to Secretary of State John Kerry, we didn't. The U.S. bombing campaign was merely a "major counterterrorism operation" that had "many different moving parts." Apparently, the bombs falling all over Libya were the "moving parts."

Speaking on March 28, 2011, at the National Defense University in Washington, Obama justified his bombings:

"The United States and the world faced a choice. Gadhafi declared he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people. He compared them to rats and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. ... It was not in our national interest to let that [massacre] happen."

So where was super-duper investigator Schiff during Obama's seven month war? Why didn't he investigate Obama's "abuse of war powers?"

Obama's Libya bombing "to save the lives of Libyans" went on for seven months. It resulted in the deaths of thousand of Libyan civilians. Obama killed the very people he went to war to keep Gadhafi from killing. Inexplicably, that was in "our national interest."


Trump embarked on a successful 30-second bombing campaign to kill an Obama-designated master terrorist who provided countless IEDs to our enemies in Iraq, which killed over 600 American soldiers while maiming thousands of others, and whose proxy militias just attacked our embassy in Baghdad and were planning to kill other Americans throughout the Middle East.

And the Democrats claim Trump exceeded his powers under the Constitution and laws of the U.S? After the president ordered the assassination of Soleimini, Speaker Nancy Pelosi reflexively bleated he should have asked permission from Congress before ordering the drone strike.


Did Obama ask permission, Ms. Speaker? And do you remember his air strikes on Iraq and Syria to kill ISIS "terrorists?" Where was Pelosi when Obama bombed ISIS targets for 10 months? When Obama ordered 2,800 air attacks on the Islamic State?


When Trump was first elected, a story went around of how he walked on water to save a drowning man, and how the New York Times wrote "Trump can't swim!"

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman sums it up best: "President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats."

Sen. Lieberman sadly appears to be the last Democrat who is a straight-shooter.

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 17, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

Trump's New Rules of Engagement "

What would have happened if a week before Adolf Hitler invaded Poland and started World War II in Europe, Winston Churchill had ordered the successful assassination of the Führer? Would there have been a World War II in Europe? How many military and civilian deaths would have been avoided.


On Jan. 2, the United States, at the direction of President Trump, assassinated General Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's elite Quds Force. Soleimani was killed in a U.S. airstrike at Baghdad's international airport.

The Quds Force is the elite wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is the special forces' external arm of the IRGC responsible for supporting terrorist proxies across the Middle East. It reports directly to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The Quds Force was itself designated a terror group in 2007. The group is estimated to have amassed a militia of 20,000 fighters.

The Pentagon states, "General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region."

According to Fox News, in April 2019, "the State Department announced that Iranian and Iranian-backed forces led by Soleimani were responsible for killing 608 U.S. troops during the Iraq War. ... He was the mastermind behind the major military operations, bombings and assassinations that accounted for at least 17 percent of all U.S. personnel deaths in Iraq between 2003 and 2011."

Fox News quotes the Pentagon as saying: "General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members, and the wounding of thousands more [by providing Improvised Explosive Devices during the Iraq War]."

"He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months, including the attack on Dec. 27, culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week."


President Trump is not the first U.S. president to order the assassination of a foreign military leader engaged in killing Americans. On April 18, 1943, the assassination of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was authorized by FDR. Yamamoto was the head of the Japanese Imperial Fleet. He had commanded the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. special forces on May 2, 2011, at the order of President Obama.

So what is better? Doing nothing and letting a state-terrorist like Soleimani kill Americans here and there without consequence? Killing various ordinary soldiers in reprisal for deaths of Americans? Fighting an all-out war? Or taking out a leader — or all the leaders — of an enemy if that might avoid the war?

For nearly 20 years, Presidents Bush and Obama watched as Soleimani and his proxies killed Americans and Jews all over the Middle East. Did our tolerance prevent further attacks?

On Dec. 31, President Trump ordered U.S. air strikes against five Hezbollah targets, killing some 25 Hezbollah fighters, in retaliation for an attack on an Iraqi coalition base that killed one U.S. civilian two days before. Did it do any good? Did the strikes stop Soleimani from hustling off to Baghdad to plan attacks on our embassy there? From supplying weapons to the "protesters?"

Iran is on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons. Once they have them, how do we stop them? Do we have to wait until they launch a surprise nuclear attack on Israel?

Warfare is changing. President Trump has made clear that he has no interest in becoming engaged in a land war in the Middle East. From what happened to General Soleimani, it appears that we have technologies that allow us to track a top Iranian general traveling from Iran to Baghdad. That strongly suggests we have like capability to track and take out Iran's supreme religious leader, its president, its key nuclear scientists or its military leaders.

If Iran keeps up its provocations, Soleimani may not be the last American-hating Iranian to be terminated.

This is not the traditional or conventional way of fighting a war. The playbook has always stated that war leaders send young men out to fight and be killed. But the folks who run Iran had better be careful. This president does not play by the conventional rules. And when he says, "it is not a warning, but a threat" they may quickly find out that he means it.

The president's critics are quick to say that the assassination of Soleimani will only encourage the Iranians to engage in further provocations. Perhaps. But that may quickly cease to be "good sport," if the Iranian leaders ordering the reprisals themselves become the targets of American retaliation. New rules of engagement?

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 10, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

Do Lake Levels Indicate the World Will End in 12 Years?

The December 25, 2019 Moline high temperature was 62°. Climate Change? Man-made climate change?

If so, I would expect Lake Michigan's water levels records to show a slow, steady, increase over the last century.

In September, I spent a few days in Door County, WI in a cabin along the shore of Lake Michigan.

Along that shore, the owner of the cabin has erected a deck that sits atop a rocky cliff. You can stand on that deck and watch the waves crash against the cliff. But this year, something was different.

Last year, the rocky bottom at wave's ebb was covered by only a few inches of water.

This year, when the water ebbed there was a foot or more of water over the rocks. Global warming?


When I was a boy, in the 1940s and 1950s, we vacationed on the Green Bay side of the Door Peninsula annually. The resort had a "L-shaped" breakwater-pier that protruded some 50 feet into the bay. 60 feet out off the breakwater, the resort had anchored a raft.

Some years, the water came up to within a foot of the top of the breakwater. When we swam off the end of the pier, it was over our heads. Other summers, the water was down a good three to four feet from the top of the breakwater. It was only about 4 feet deep. From the raft when the water was down, we could see the rocky bottom; not so, when it was up.

I can recall the resort owner saying that the water levels changed in 7-year cycles. For 7 years, the water would be low; for the next 7, high.

These things caused me to wonder, if there were records of the water levels in Lake Michigan over the last 100 years? Indeed, there are: The "Great Lakes Water Level Table(s) for Lake Michigan-Huron" from 1918 until the present.

As we vacationed in September this year, all my random samples below are for the month of September. (I could have picked any month). Between 1918 and 1998, I sampled every fifth year. From 1998 to the present I sampled every year.

1918 580.51 (feet)
1923 578.61
1928 579.40
1933 577.14
1938 578.54

1943 580.45
1948 579.30
1953 580.77
1958 577.66

1963 577.36
1968 579.33
1973 581.40

1978 579.86
1983 580.48
1988 579.00
1993 580.15


1998 579.66
1999 579.23
2000 577.72
2001 577.46
2002 578.22

2003 577.23
2004 578.35
2005 577.72
2006 577.56
2007 577.23

2008 578.02
2009 578.64
2010 577.95
2011 577.85
2012 576.97

2013 577.56
2014 579.20
2015 579.72
2016 579.99
2017 580.48
2018 580.51

2019 581.63



If "global warming" is causing these changes, one would expect a more or less steady rise in the lake levels over the 100 year period, or at least since folks have been claiming "global warming." Instead, the lake levels in September of 2018 are precisely the same as they were 101 years ago in September of 1918: 580.51 feet.* The 2019 level is only 11/100th of an inch higher than the 1973 level.

So has there been a steady uptick in the lake levels? No. Periodic change? Yes.

Keith Kompoltowicz, Chief of Watershed Hydrology, Detroit District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, explains that the reason for the high water levels is heavy precipitation over the last three years..


“It’s been very wet across the Great Lakes basin over the last several months and years. ... Fall 2018 was very wet and the ground was saturated heading into last winter that saw a very healthy snow pack. ... That was followed by heavy spring rainfall."


Of course, there are those who believe that "climate change" explains the heavy precipitation since 2017. But does "climate change" also explain the low 577 foot levels seen from 2000 thru 2013?


Oh, by the way ... From 1981 thru 1987, the lake levels were just as high as they have been for the last three years.

1981 580.05
1982 579.56
1983 580.28
1984 580.77


So, is there anything in this data which causes me to believe the world will probably end in 12 years? Hardly.


Was the resort owner correct when he labeled the changes as "cyclical?" The data tends to support that. I'm therefore inclined to wait a few years to see if the "cycle theory" proves true, and to see if water levels again drop, before I'll be willing to consider dismantling our economy.






*. The numbers were adjusted in 1955 and 1985 to take account of the movement of the earth's crust. The International Great Lakes Datum for 1955 set the level of Lake Michigan at 177.795 feet; the 1985 datam, at 178.065 feet.

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 3, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

What Would CNN Do?

Christmas is almost here.

Lately I've been wondering what would happen if there had been no Christmas 2000 years ago, and if a man suddenly appeared on the streets of Moline today proclaiming himself to be the "Son of God?" What would we say? What would the churches say? What would the media say?

2000 years ago, when Christ appeared in what is now Israel and preached his message, he was crucified. What if he hadn't appeared then, but appeared now, preaching his same message?

We sometimes tend to forget that Christ said certain things that were at seemingly significant
variance with what we have come to accept as his principle gospel message of loving God
and loving our neighbors as we love our selves, and caring for those in need. Many of the
teachings that we tend to gloss over have come to be called the "hard sayings" of Christ. They
are most often found in Luke's Gospel, and seem at variance with Christ's principle teachings.

Imagine for a moment that there was no Christ. No Christian gospels. No Christian faith. No Christian churches. And then imagine that all other faiths that we know today through outthe world in fact exist today. If Christianity did not exist, what faiths would predominate in the U.S.?

Now imagine that a man suddenly appears, teaching on the streets of Moline, Rock Island and Davenport. He preaches the entire message found in the four Gospels, while claiming to be the "Son of God." He says many things that appeal to his listeners, but then he also says ...

“If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

"A father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three."

"I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!"

"I tell you, do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear. For life is more than food and the body more than clothing. Notice the ravens: they do not sow or reap; they have neither storehouse nor barn, yet God feeds them. How much more important are you than birds!

“No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God. Let the dead bury their dead. But you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God. I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

Would a 21st Century Christ be crucified? Probably not. But what would other 21st century faith
teachers say of a man with such a message? How would he be treated by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and the NY Times? Would they focus on his teachings of peace and love, or would they focus on his "hard sayings." Would they make a good faith effort to understand the entirety of his teachings, or would they choose to misunderstand and say that his "hard sayings" were really the essence of his message, and that his teachings on peace and love were mere window-dressing?

What names would they call him? Lunatic? Nut? Trouble maker? Revolutionary? Terrorist?  ("I have come to set the earth on fire ...") Would they diagnose him as schizophrenic? Delusional, Manic? What if he repeatedly predicted his death? Would he be labelled "paranoid?"

Christ of the Gospels did not take explicit positions on many modern issues. So, what if instead of handing our 21st-century Christ a coin and asking "is it lawful to pay taxes” they asked him to state his views on abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality, transgenderism, and the legalization of marijuana? What if his answers did not square with those of the AP, Newsweek, the Washington Post, MSNBC or CNN? What do you think they would say and write about him?

Would we even have Christmas?

I'm thankful that Christ came to us 2000 years ago. Merry Christmas to all.

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 20, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

The Stench of a Dead Cat

Since President Trump was elected in November of 2016, the Democrats have relentlessly insisted that "he can't claim immunity for his criminal acts."

So why is it that Joe Biden gets to claim immunity for his criminal acts? Democrats indignantly answer, "Because "Fairly Honest" Joe is one of our 2020 candidates for the office of President!"

During a January 23, 2018 appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations, former Vice President Joe Biden unequivocally threatened to withhold U.S. military aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden's "involvement" with a Ukraine gas company was fired. A classic quid pro quo! Here are excerptsfrom that taped interview:


"I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and fromYatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

"I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. ... I’m going to be leaving here in ... about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone
who was solid at the time."

President Trump has been accused by a "whistleblower" of "threatening to withhold U.S. aid to the Ukraine." What Biden did is worse. And if you don't believe there was a quid pro quo in what Biden did, then as Bret Maverick would say, "You'll believe a guy who tells you "It's "raining," as you watch him p... on your head."

The Democrats are quick to infer that President Trump wanted to "dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son so that he could use it in the 2020 Presidential campaign against "Fairly Honest" Joe." Never mind that Joe is only one of a herd of candidates vying for the Democrat nomination, with no guarantee whatsoever that he will be nominated.

The Democrats choose to presume that the President is guilty of wanting information for an illegal purpose.

But what if President Trump really had different reasons for wanting to know why Hunter Biden was being paid $50,000 per month to sit on a board of a Ukrainian energy company? What experience did Hunter Biden have in natural gas? What did he know of Ukraine? What if he was being paid $50,000 per month for doing nothing whatsoever useful on the Burisma board? What if that $50,000 per month was being paid out of the $1,000,000,000 of U.S. aid to Ukraine that "Fairly Honest Joe" was threatening to block?

In a recent ABC interview, Hunter Biden described his “qualifications."

Amy Robach, ABC News. You didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas, or Ukraine itself though?

Hunter Biden. No. But I think I had as much knowledge as anyone else on the board.

AR. If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would have been on the board of Burisma?

HB. I don't know. Probably not.


When was the last time you were paid $50K a month to sit on the Board of Directors of a giant company and do nothing? When was the last time your kid was hired to manage the affairs of a giant gas company when he knew nothing about gas or gas production? When was your kid was hired for $50K per month to work in a foreign country that he knew nothing about, and whose language he couldn't speak?

So could President Trump have had a valid reason to ask the Ukraine government to investigate how it was that the utterly unqualified son of VP Biden was being paid $50,000 per month for doing nothing?

What if "Fairly Honest Joe" was involved in a "money laundering" scheme? Joe couldn't hand $50K per month in U.S. foreign aid directly to his son. But what if the money that first went to Ukraine, then went to and was "laundered" through Burisma, and then to Hunter Biden?

But forget the "what ifs" …. It is crystal clear that Vice-President Joe Biden used the threat of withholding $1B in promised U.S. aid to force the Ukraine to quash the Ukraine prosecutor’s investigation of Biden's son. By his own admission VP Biden engaged in extortion.

This Biden affair has the stench of a dead cat, and the President has every right to inquire to see if U.S. aid was misused.

So should we worry about "rich" men being elected to high office? Or should we worry abou"poor" men who, along with their family members, get rich while the "poor" man holds high office?

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 13, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

FDR Had his "Rudy Giuliani"

According to the Washington Post, William B. Taylor, Jr. "America's top diplomat to the

Ukraine," has testified President Trump's “ push to make President Zelensky publicly 

commit to investigations of Burisma and its alleged interference in the 2016 election 

showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the 

irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.”

The virulently anti-Trump Washington Post describes Taylor's claim as a "forceful 

blow;" something that would justify  Rep. Schiff's antics in the House intended to 

culminate in the impeachment of the President. 

The essence of Taylor's charge is that the President's appointment of Mr. Giuliani as his

"personal representative" to the Ukraine to investigate the Biden affair, "undercut" the

official foreign policy of the U.S. in Ukraine. Schiff claims that that is an abuse of power 

so egregious, that it would justify impeachment. 

It has apparently never occurred to Ambassador Taylor or Rep. Schiff that, under the 

Constitution, the President alone sets the "foreign policy" of the United States. Taylor, 

all ambassadors and other State Department employees are there to execute the 

President's foreign policy, and not their own or the State Department's. Bottom line:  if 

the "regular" foreign policy of the U.S. is "purple" on Monday, the President can 

change it to "green" on Tuesday - with or without the advise or consent of any 

ambassador or the State Department. And because the President alone is in charge of 

our "foreign policy," he can choose as his "agent" any private citizen to serve as his 

"personal envoy" without the approval of Congress. 

Presidents have appointed men they could trust as their diplomatic "personal 

representatives" since the days of George Washington.  Have you ever heard of

Harry Hopkins? "Colonel" House?

President Trump in using Rudy Giuliani is doing precisely what FDR did during the 

months before Pearl Harbor (Dec. 7, 1941).

President Roosevelt had made the unhappy choice of appointing Joseph Kennedy Sr.

as his Ambassador to England. Kennedy served from March 3, 1938 to October 22, 

1940. During Kennedy's time as ambassador, Germany forcibly annexed Austria 

(March 1938). Hitler invaded Poland (September 1, 1938). Hitler invaded Norway and 

Denmark (April 1940). Hitler began the "blitzkrieg" of the Netherlands, Belgium and 

France (May 10, 1940. 

Kennedy had supported Chamberlain's policy of "appeasement," and scorned 

Churchill's belief that Hitler couldn't be trusted to abide by his agreements. Kennedy 

strongly opposed providing military aid to England, remarking,  "Democracy is finished 

in England. It may be here." He wanted to "bring about a better understanding 

between the United States and Germany."

Kennedy's ideas were totally out of sync with FDR's. Kennedy "resigned" on Oct. 22, 

1940. Thereafter, FDR's main representative to England was not any ambassador

or other State Department functionary. FDR used a man as his "personal 

representative" who he was certain would faithfully implement his foreign policy. That 

was Harry Hopkins. 

Here is what Winston Churchill wrote of Hopkins:

"On January 10 (1941), a gentleman arrived to see me at Downing Street

with the highest credentials. Telegrams had been received from Washington

that he was the closest confidant and personal agent of the President....

Churchill relates that their first meeting came during the height of the German "blitz" 

bombing of England. He further describes Hopkins as

" ... an envoy from the President of supreme importance to our 

(national) life. ... He was the most faithful and perfect channel of 

communications between the President and me. But far more than

that, he was for several years the main prop and animator of

Roosevelt himself. Together, these two men, one subordinate 

without public office, and one commanding the mighty Republic,

were capable of taking decisions of the highest consequence 

over the whole area of the English-speaking world."

FDR knew that his "foreign policy" flew in the face of the legally expressed will of 

Congress as stated in Congress's Neutrality Acts. After Hitler's March 1939 

invasion of Czechoslovakia, FDR had asked Congress to renew and expand cash-and-

carry sales of arms. Congress refused. In November 1939, Congress passed its final 

Neutrality Act. This Act lifted the arms embargo and put all trade with belligerent 

nations under the terms of “cash-and-carry.” But the ban on "loans" remained in effect, 

and American ships were barred from transporting goods to belligerent ports.

In October 1941, FDR unveiled his Lend-Lease Program, in the face of law that banned 

loans to belligerents.  

FDR had had enough of Kennedy. He didn't fully trust the State Department to execute 

his foreign policy. So FDR sent his friend and confidant Hopkins to execute his foreign 

policy. Nobody argued that in using "irregular" channels that FDR had committed an 

"impeachable offense."

Oh, and have you ever heard of "Colonel" House? He was President Wilson's personal 

"rep." 

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 6, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

The Failure of Socialism at Plymouth Colony

The Pilgrims were English Puritans who founded the Plymouth Colony in 1620. They came to America for religious freedom, and to escape religious persecution. Unlike many other Puritans, who wished to reform the Church of England from within, the Pilgrims wanted their own church, separate from the Church of England.

In their early years at the Plymouth colony, the Pilgrims practiced "communalism" - what we would call today, "socialism." It was not by their choice.

To get to America, the Pilgrims had to obtain financing for their shipboard passage, and for all the things they'd need when they arrived in the American wilderness.

Carver and Cushman, their agents in England, sought that financing from Thomas Weston's syndicate of investors. These investors were acutely aware of the substantial losses incurred by the Jamestown investors (1607).

Carver and Cushman proposed a plan under which the Pilgrims would work five days a week for the investors, but two for themselves. After seven years, there would be an equal division of all property, their homes excepted, between the Pilgrims and the investors.

Owing to the risks involved, the investors insisted that all property — homes included — be held in common, and divided between the Pilgrims and the investors at the end of seven years. They feared that if the Pilgrims were allowed two days per week to work their "plots," they would expend all their efforts building their own wealth to the detriment of the investors. With no bargaining power, the Pilgrims yielded; the investors prevailed.

These negotiations demonstrate that the Pilgrims had no desire to practice the "socialism" of the early Christian community, described in "Acts of the Apostles."

The bargain proved a disaster. Forty-seven of the Pilgrims died that first winter. The first communal crops produced were insufficient to feed the survivors. There was no bread.

The colonists were reduced to a diet of water, fish and lobster. And while the Pilgrims hung on in misery, the investors reaped no return on their investment. Governor William Bradford writes:

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried for sundry years among godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's & other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property, and bringing the community into a commonwealth, would make them happy and flourishing ..."

If ever "socialism" had a fair chance to prove itself, it was at Plymouth. It started from scratch, unencumbered by so-called pre-existing "capitalist evils." Sadly, the fruits of "communal ownership" were malnutrition, starvation, sickness and death.

Bradford describes his colonists as "godly and sober men" — as were the Christians of apostolic times. Nevertheless, Plymouth's "socialism" created the very divisions that socialism has been touted to eliminate. The men who worked their fannies off in the communal plots resented the "slackers" who didn't and yet received equal distribution of the produce.

"This communalism was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.

"The young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time & strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense.

"The strong ... had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than the weak who were not able to do a quarter the others could. This was thought injustice.

"And men's wives, commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meals, washing their clothes, etc., deemed it a kind of slavery ..."

When the Pilgrims came to realize they had no food and necessaries, and that none were likely to arrive from England, they "began to think how they might obtain a better crop" rather than "languish in misery." After much debate, they decided "every man should set ("plant") corn in his own particular (parcel)." "Every family was assigned a parcel of land, in proportion to their number."

Bradford writes:

"This had very good success. It made all hands very industrious. Much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means of the Government, and saved a great deal of trouble ..."

"The women now went willingly into the fields, and took their little ones with them to set the corn. Before they would have alleged weakness and inability ... and thought it tyranny and oppression."

The communal parcels were still tended five days per week. But it was the "particular parcels" that saved Plymouth, and brought prosperity. The colonist didn't have to be forced to work on their own plots. The need of the colony to "police" to insure work on the communal tracts was replaced by self-policing. The industrious prospered; the slackers reaped fruits commensurate with their efforts.

Posted: QCOline.com   November 27, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea