The best place would have moderate winters and summers, fresh water, fertile soil and be as free from mosquitoes as possible. New England's winters were too cold. Ditto the Hudson Valley. Tidewater Virginia is hot in the summer and has swamps. North Carolina has barrier islands (the Roanoke colony was a bad idea, on a strip of sand). The area around Philadelphia was thick with swamps and mosquitoes as well. I'd probably choose the mid to upper Chesapeake, with Charleston a close second. Early accounts of the Chesapeake told of soft shell crabs so thick you could pick a meal of the beach in a few minutes.
then there is the other view perhaps gotten from Bradford himself... I am not going to do the research... but I suspect what we are taught in schools is whitewashed and this is more accurate. https://mises.org/library/great-thanksgiving-hoax-1 ... In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men. But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn. What happened? After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization. This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take only what he needed. This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that were most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate. To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of the famines. Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609–10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty. Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614 Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."
Nonsense. The very reason the Pilgrims survived is because of collectivism and welfare. The natives supplied the welfare and had the pilgrims not acted collectively they would have perished. Typical conservative stupidity. Totally miscomprehend facts to suit their delusions. How the hell the US does as well as it does despite conservative idiocy is a wonder.
as if any of us know more than what the Governor of the Pilgrims wrote. Its pretty funny watching lefties rewrite history when they could simply quote the words of someone who was there. William Bradford the second Governor of the pilgrims. So I will go to another source... referring to his work. Now I have not read the work myself... but watching futurecurrents attempt to rewrite history is amusing in that it shows how the leftist mind kind work devoid of fact and not tempered by reality. Throughout history, collectivism outside the family has failed. Yet we still have drones around the world thinking they are pushing for the utopia of collectivism when they are really just mouthpieces for pre fascist control by a small group. http://www.history.com/topics/william-bradford After a brief experiment with the “common course,” a sort of primitive agrarian communism, the colony quickly centered around private subsistence agriculture. This was facilitated by Bradford’s decision to distribute land among all the settlers, not just members of the company. In 1627 he and four others assumed the colony’s debt to the merchant adventurers who had helped finance their immigration in return for a monopoly of the fur trading and fishing industries. Owing to some malfeasance on the part of their English mercantile factors and the decline of the fur trade, Bradford and his colleagues were unable to retire this debt until 1648, and then only at great personal expense. Around 1630 Bradford began to compile his two-volume Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647, one of the most important early chronicles of the settlement of New England. Bradford’s history was singular in its tendency to separate religious from secular concerns. Unlike similar tracts from orthodox Massachusetts Bay, Bradford did not interpret temporal affairs as the inevitable unfolding of God’s providential plan. Lacking the dogmatic temper and religious enthusiasm of the Puritans of the Great Migration, Bradford steered a middle course for Plymouth Colony between the Holy Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the tolerant secular community of Rhode Island. ...
It appears that you have not read the history of the Pilgrims. In their third year the governor put in place a system where each family had a plot they had to farm for food. The reason this was done was not to implement capitalism; it was a measure to deal with the lazy (and also deal with the complaints of those who did all the work to feed the lazy). The collective system was floundering badly. When the new system was put into place it had the immediate effect of forcing everyone to work (work or starve). Despite the claim that families would not not have to feed other families via the collective (which the governor told everyone to be sure they worked and not be welfare cases) - the reality is that the collective to share food continued for at least three more years before it became effectively became a trading market to trader various crops, meat, & other items (welcome to capitalism). Despite the claims that the governor set about to deliberately establish "capitalism" to improve the economy, he did not. It is more a situation that he stumbled on it to address the problem of lazy people, and it worked out for the colony over those few years (for a number of reasons including Indian help, improved weather, and improving knowledge of the settlers on how to hunt & grow). The few local Indians who helped the settlers were not doing it as "welfare", they were seeking the settlers alliance & firearms to protect them from other war-like neighboring tribes. The governor and the backers actually preferred a collective system where the settlers would effectively be endured servants (the letters from the trading company demanded they be treated as "serfs") to collectively provide profits to the trading company. However capitalism was proven to work in the long term both in Jamestown and Plymouth - and trading companies quickly (within two decades) changed their charters to promote a capitalist society by provide land grants to colonists, and proceeded to make profits on cross-ocean trade and fees (shipping, etc.). However the history of Plymouth is much more complex than simply a theme of collectivism versus capitalism. It was more of an early lethal example of the game show "Survivor" with the addition of both friendly and hostile native tribes as neighbors with shifting alliances. In the long term the relationship between the settlers and natives when completely down-hill leading to King Philip's War in 1675. This may be a good time to remind everyone that communism (collectivism) may sound like a great theory but does not work in practice. The reason communism does not work is because people are both lazy and greedy. A Capitalist system is a far more effective structure for dealing with human nature including innate greed and laziness. Work or starve, sink or swim... straight out Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Those willing to work survive, the lazy do not.
I agree, we should implement apartheid, or at least segregation. Redskins should live in their land and Whiteskins should live in theirs. Whenever you get two different people trying to live on the same piece of real estate, there's bound to be problems.