Correct them wherever found,
undeterred by the association of great names, or the consciousness of his
own liability to blunder. A sound and conscientious writer will welcome
the courteous correction of his error, in the interest of historical
accuracy; the opinion of any other need not be regarded.
Some of the new contributions (or original demonstrations), of more or
less historical importance, made to the history of the Pilgrims, as the
author believes, by this volume, are as follows: -
(a) A closely approximate list of the passengers who left Delfshaven on
the SPEEDWELL for Southampton; in other words, the names - those of Carver
and Cushman and of the latter's family being added - of the Leyden
contingent of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims.
(b) A closely approximate list of the passengers who left London in the
MAY-FLOWER for Southampton; in other words, the names (with the deduction
of Cushman and family, of Carver, who was at Southampton, and of an
unknown few who abandoned the voyage at Plymouth) of the English
contingent of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims.
(c) The establishment as correct, beyond reasonable doubt, of the date,
Sunday, June 11/21, 1620, affixed by Robert Cushman to his letter to the
Leyden leaders (announcing the "turning of the tide" in Pilgrim affairs,
the hiring of the "pilott" Clarke, etc.), contrary to the conclusions of
Prince, Arber, and others, that the letter could not have been written on
Sunday.
(d) The demonstration of the fact that on Saturday, June 10/20, 1620,
Cushman's efforts alone apparently turned the tide in Pilgrim affairs;
brought Weston to renewed and decisive cooperation; secured the
employment of a "pilot," and definite action toward hiring a ship,
marking it as one of the most notable and important of Pilgrim
"red-letter days."
(e) The demonstration of the fact that the ship of which Weston and
Cushman took "the refusal," on Saturday, June 10/20, 1620, was not the
MAY-FLOWER, as Young, Deane, Goodwin, and other historians allege.
(f) The demonstration of the fact (overthrowing the author's own earlier
views) that the estimates and criticisms of Robinson, Carver, Brown,
Goodwin, and others upon Robert Cushman were unwarranted, unjust, and
cruel, and that he was, in fact, second to none in efficient service to
the Pilgrims; and hence so ranks in title to grateful appreciation and
memory.
(g) The demonstration of the fact that the MAY-FLOWER was not chartered
later than June 19/29, 1620, and was probably chartered in the week of
June 12/22 - June 19/29 of that year.
(h) The addition of several new names to the list of the Merchant
Adventurers, hitherto unpublished as such, with considerable new data
concerning the list in general.
(i) The demonstration of the fact that Martin and Mullens, of the
MAY-FLOWER colonists, were also Merchant Adventurers, while William
White was probably such.
(j) The demonstration of the fact that "Master Williamson," the
much-mooted incognito of Bradford's "Mourt's Relation" (whose existence
even has often been denied by Pilgrim writers), was none other than the
"ship's-merchant," or "purser" of the MAY-FLOWER, - hitherto unknown as
one of her officers, and historically wholly unidentified.
(k) The general description of; and many particulars concerning, the
MAY-FLOWER herself; her accommodations (especially as to her cabins),
her crew, etc., hitherto unknown.
(1) The demonstration of the fact that the witnesses to the nuncupative
will of William Mullens were two of the MAY-FLOWER'S crew (one being
possibly the ship's surgeon), thus furnishing the names of two more of
the ship's company, and the only names - except those of her chief
officers - ever ascertained.
(m) The indication of the strong probability that the entire company of
the Merchant Adventurers signed, on the one part, the charter-party of
the MAY-FLOWER.
(n) An (approximate) list of the ages of the MAY-FLOWER'S passengers and
the respective occupations of the adults.
(o) The demonstration of the fact that no less than five of the Merchant
Adventurers cast in their lots and lives with the Plymouth Pilgrims as
colonists.
(p) The indication of the strong probability that Thomas Goffe, Esquire,
one of the Merchant Adventurers, owned the "MAY-FLOWER" when she was
chartered for the Pilgrim voyage, - as also on her voyages to New England
in 1629 and 1630.
(q) The demonstration of the fact that the Master of the MAY-FLOWER was
Thomas Jones, and that there was an intrigue with Master Jones to land
the Pilgrims at some point north of the 41st parallel of north latitude,
the other parties to which were, not the Dutch, as heretofore claimed,
but none other than Sir Ferdinando Gorges and the Earl of Warwick, chiefs
of the "Council for New England," in furtherance of a successful scheme
of Gorges to steal the Pilgrim colony from the London Virginia Company,
for the more "northern Plantations" of the conspirators.
(r) The demonstration of the fact that a second attempt at stealing the
colony - by which John Pierce, one of the Adventurers, endeavored to
possess himself of the demesne and rights of the colonists, and to make
them his tenants - was defeated only by the intervention of the "Council"
and the Crown, the matter being finally settled by compromise and the
transfer of the patent by Pierce (hitherto questioned) to the colony.
(s) The demonstration of the actual relations of the Merchant Adventurers
and the Pilgrim colonists - their respective bodies being associated as
but two partners in an equal copartnership, the interests of the
respective partners being (probably) held upon differing bases - contrary
to the commonly published and accepted view.
(t) The demonstration of the fact that the MAY-FLOWER - contrary to the
popular impression - did not enter Plymouth harbor, as a "lone vessel,"
slowly "feeling her way" by chart and lead-line, but was undoubtedly
piloted to her anchorage - previously "sounded" for her - by the Pilgrim
shallop, which doubtless accompanied her from Cape Cod harbor, on both
her efforts to make this haven, under her own sails.
