Funny how the Pilgrims were persecuted at home, so left America where they were harder on other religions and the Quakers were the bullseye of their dart board. But they were tough on just about anyone else. But 2nd on the hit list were the Anabaptists. My ancestor, Rev. Obadiah Holmes, was ordered to pay 30 shillings for baptising people in the river. Hr refused and "wore 30 stripes" instead. It almost killed him and he slept on his stomach for over a month. The NB Kiersteads descendants (incl me) from Obadiah. So, too, does Abraham Lincoln. I call him "My American Cousin," honest! I don't particularly like attending plays & I'm no fan. Maybe this is why, it's in the genes.<g> Bill Ruth Melander wrote: > Hi Bill > > Ah yes the meat and potatoes are the best. I like the "push and pull factors" description. It seems to me that the quest for land and freedom from religious persecution have been two prime factors in migration. > > Here in North America we tend to think of the Mayflower pilgrims when we think of freedom of religion. Oddly my ancestors (Howlands) in Mass. turned to the Quaker religion and were treated harshly. It seemed that some of them migrated to R.I. where they had more freedoms. Odd how the pilgrims became the ones to squash religious freedom. > > It goes without saying that war is added to the mix. One has to wonder what New Brunswick would look like today without the massive Loyalist migration. I'm sure it would be a very different province than what we see today. > > If we look at migration as it is today we see nothing has changed except the ease of movement. We have to marvel at our ancestors for the hardships they endured trying to find a better way of life. > > Hi Ruth, > > I call the names n' dates the family skeleton. Learning about who > they were is the meat n' potatoes. > > I went back to university after 25 years & took all my credits in > history and did much better than I did in high school. Why? I was > now interested. > > Even up to the 1980s, it was hard to figure out where someone had > come from and I came up the idea of chain migration, although the > name didn't cross my mind - just the concept. In 1982, I met Dr. > Bruce Elliott (history) whose thesis had just been published and > he, too, had found and used chain migration patterns to find > people. A social historian, he looked too at people bringing with > them customs and the way to do things. For instance, the style of > a man's house might as well have been a flag on the roof. > > I took a few courses given by him & he put into words what I had > also considered. Why did they leave (must have been daunting) and > why did they go where they did? Bruce called it "push" and "pull" > factors. In the "Push" factors are such things as economy and > religion. Where they went was often because a relative/neighbour > was doing better there & frequently, especially in early years, > they followed the trade routes. > > There's a cute story about the young Irishman who crossed America > to Oregon. After a couple of months on the very hot midwestern > high plains, the wagon train reached the Rockies. He wrote back > to his brother and said: "Paddy, you godda come here. They have > so much land [that] they're stackin' it." > > Good luck with your search. And read local histories of places > where your people lived. > > Bill > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWBRUNSWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Actually, the Pilgrims left England due to persecution, and went first to Leyden, Netherlands, where they found complete religious freedom. They stayed there for quite some time and left for America, not to escape persecution, but to escape all the various other religious theories being espoused in Leyden, which they feared would "corrupt" their children and turn them away from the "true faith". So, as Bill said, when they then arrived in America they tried to ensure that no teaching contrary to their own beliefs would find its way there, and when it did - firstly in the form of the Quakers - they persecuted it harshly, even hanging some. The key lesson in life that our ancestors struggled with is that: - it is not necessary to be absolutely right and perfectly sure of every jot and tittle of doctrine; and - others have just as much right to be wrong as we do. Lukas Huisman Bill Tufts wrote: > Funny how the Pilgrims were persecuted at home, so left America > where they were harder on other religions and the Quakers were > the bullseye of their dart board. But they were tough on just > about anyone else. But 2nd on the hit list were the Anabaptists. > My ancestor, Rev. Obadiah Holmes, was ordered to pay 30 shillings > for baptising people in the river. Hr refused and "wore 30 > stripes" instead. It almost killed him and he slept on his > stomach for over a month. The NB Kiersteads descendants (incl me) > from Obadiah. So, too, does Abraham Lincoln. I call him "My > American Cousin," honest! I don't particularly like attending > plays & I'm no fan. Maybe this is why, it's in the genes.<g> > > Bill > >

Hi I found this discussion on chain migration to be quite interesting. I believe that it is a factor that is still in evidence in our society today. When times are hard, folks still move to follow the work. In the US, when Henry Ford started to operate his factories, people moved north from the south to work on his lines. My grandfather left NB and headed west to follow his trade. Behind him came my grandmother's siblings and their families, too. Much of the industrial Midwest was populated with folks who moved distances to get work. And yes. Some of them moved to the city from the farms. But that is a migration pattern, too. Today, people are moving south again and west, again following work and opportunities. The pattern continues even though it is "modern times". Someday, someone will be looking at this time in history and discussing this pattern. I have always found social history to be fascinating! Much more interesting than the study of dates and wars and who ruled whom, the life at the local level and how it is effected is what keeps my attention always. As a society it is worth study. But when you look at it closely, it has to do specifically with what happened in your own family, to your great great great great grandpa and, ultimately, with who you are, what your traditions are and how you think, believe and respond to life as we know it today. Who says history is boring and irrelevant? Karen ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Tufts To: newbrunswick@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [ NB ] Pilgrims Funny how the Pilgrims were persecuted at home, so left America where they were harder on other religions and the Quakers were the bullseye of their dart board. But they were tough on just about anyone else. But 2nd on the hit list were the Anabaptists. My ancestor, Rev. Obadiah Holmes, was ordered to pay 30 shillings for baptising people in the river. Hr refused and "wore 30 stripes" instead. It almost killed him and he slept on his stomach for over a month. The NB Kiersteads descendants (incl me) from Obadiah. So, too, does Abraham Lincoln. I call him "My American Cousin," honest! I don't particularly like attending plays & I'm no fan. Maybe this is why, it's in the genes.<g> Bill Ruth Melander wrote: > Hi Bill > > Ah yes the meat and potatoes are the best. I like the "push and pull factors" description. It seems to me that the quest for land and freedom from religious persecution have been two prime factors in migration. > > Here in North America we tend to think of the Mayflower pilgrims when we think of freedom of religion. Oddly my ancestors (Howlands) in Mass. turned to the Quaker religion and were treated harshly. It seemed that some of them migrated to R.I. where they had more freedoms. Odd how the pilgrims became the ones to squash religious freedom. > > It goes without saying that war is added to the mix. One has to wonder what New Brunswick would look like today without the massive Loyalist migration. I'm sure it would be a very different province than what we see today. > > If we look at migration as it is today we see nothing has changed except the ease of movement. We have to marvel at our ancestors for the hardships they endured trying to find a better way of life. > > Hi Ruth, > > I call the names n' dates the family skeleton. Learning about who > they were is the meat n' potatoes. > > I went back to university after 25 years & took all my credits in > history and did much better than I did in high school. Why? I was > now interested. > > Even up to the 1980s, it was hard to figure out where someone had > come from and I came up the idea of chain migration, although the > name didn't cross my mind - just the concept. In 1982, I met Dr. > Bruce Elliott (history) whose thesis had just been published and > he, too, had found and used chain migration patterns to find > people. A social historian, he looked too at people bringing with > them customs and the way to do things. For instance, the style of > a man's house might as well have been a flag on the roof. > > I took a few courses given by him & he put into words what I had > also considered. Why did they leave (must have been daunting) and > why did they go where they did? Bruce called it "push" and "pull" > factors. In the "Push" factors are such things as economy and > religion. Where they went was often because a relative/neighbour > was doing better there & frequently, especially in early years, > they followed the trade routes. > > There's a cute story about the young Irishman who crossed America > to Oregon. After a couple of months on the very hot midwestern > high plains, the wagon train reached the Rockies. He wrote back > to his brother and said: "Paddy, you godda come here. They have > so much land [that] they're stackin' it." > > Good luck with your search. And read local histories of places > where your people lived. > > Bill > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWBRUNSWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWBRUNSWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message