Would the English really stop all colonization if there was no Mayflower? I doubt it. The pilgrim colony would not be the first nor last English colony to fail (nor would it be the first nor last ship to be sent to America). It seems odd that they would give up when they have all the resources of an untapped land to spur interest (plus the ever elusive gold that so many came looking for). There would also be other religious minorities looking to take advantage of a place far way from Britain (for example, the Quakers and English Catholics). Plus the British already had a colony that was successful, Virginia, which was actually the intended destination of the Mayflower. Not many people realize this, it is actually ignored in most history books, but the boat should have gone there but either because of weather or mutiny it went to what would be called Virginia.
In all likelihood if the Mayflower failed the British would just do what they planned to do and focus on Virginia. British colonial possessions would be situated farther south, with New England being divided between the Dutch, Swedes and French. The Spanish would not get involved that far north though. They would have the richer Mesoamerica to plunder. Mitro 01:50, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The British would not simply give up becasue the Mayflower was sunk. I mean, Roanoke Island was 1: Abandoned, then 2: The colonists disapperaed. The British didn't give up after that. So why now? PitaKang 01:59, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is silly. The English would not abandon there colonies on the New World just because a group of religious zealots drowned in the ocean. Also the Spanish would not be the ones who colonized the east coasts. Maybe they would have pushed up as far as South Carolina, but that is assuming the British were not there, which they were. The French, Dutch and Swedish would be the main colonizers of the east coast without the British. Mitro 16:26, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
And it just gets worse, and worse. It's almost like the author does not have any knowledge of history of geography at all. The Spanish did not care about that far north, nor would any of this have been the first colony in the Americas. Sheesh. Lordganon 23:56, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
The Mayflower was not a "British" settlement, or even an English one inasmuch as it was not State sponsored--it was, like most of the early ventures a private initiative and one expected to fail by many observers at the time including the Captains of the "Speedwell" and the "Mayflower" itself and the Company of merchant Adventurers. As other settlements in North America were taking hold at the time and the area being regularly visited seasonally (as evidenced by Squanto's command of English), a failed Plymouth Colony would have been no big deal. An alternative failed American settlement might be if the Natives had a nasty disease to give to any arriving European as the Europeans gave the Indians smallpox, measles etc. Ancientgeezer (talk) 00:25, April 27, 2014 (UTC)