This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Massachusetts / Boston / Cape Cod and the Islands / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Cape Cod and the Islands (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Charlestown, Massachusetts article says that city was founded in 1628, which doesn't mesh well with the chronology here, which is a bit vague. Also, I found contradictory information about the transition between the Dorchester Company and its successors. Someone will need to find some fuller histories from reliable sources and add references and probably make some corrections. -- Beland 10:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply

It's just that the predecessor section here isn't comprehensive, there were several groups of colonists that arrived between 1620 and 1630, before the Massachetts Bay Colony was organized as such. Kmusser 23:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

How is the founding and administration of Massachusetts Bay Colony different from the founding of New Netherland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.140.218 ( talk) 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The section on Previous Nearby Settlements says:

"In 1607, the territory of the defunct 'Plymouth Company' was reorganized under the Plymouth Council for New England."

However, the Plymouth Council for New England says it wasn't created until 1620, and the 1968 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica suggests the same year. What's more, the "Plymouth Company's" Popham colony didn't fail until 1608. Thus, it is highly unlikely the "Plymouth Company" became defunct before 1608. Consequently, I'm going to change the date in the cited sentence above from 1607 to 1620. Please correct this if I'm wrong. Note, in the following paragraph of the same section I clarified the Pilgrims departed for the New World (just) before the Plymouth Council for New England finally was created, and where they originally intended to settle. -- badlermd 10:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

According to our Plymouth Company article it should be 1609. Kmusser ( talk) 13:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually they way you have it is fine, looks like it went defunct in 1609, but it wasn't reorganized until 1620, so that wording would be correct. Kmusser ( talk) 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

A search for the New England Company on wikipedia reverts to the Massachusetts Bay Colony page, which indicates that the original New England Company was subsumed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early seventeenth century. But it appears there is a need for a disambiguation page (unless I simply haven't been able to find the correct one). A group of powerful London merchants around the year 1700 were still operating a "New England Company' which had nothing to do with the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The title of the company's report on its activities, issued to its members, speaks to the colonial mindset as well as anything ever put on paper: "History of the New England Company, from Its Incorporation in the Seventeenth Century, to the Present Time, Including a Detailed Report of the Company's Proceedings, for the Civilization and Conversion of Indians, Blacks and Pagans in the Dominion of Canada, British Columbia, the West Indies and South Africa." [1] Does anyone know anything about this other New England Company? If not, I'll take the discussion to the experts at the East India Company board and see if anyone there has ever heard of it. I think it deserves some sort of write-up.Regards, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 09:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The photo of the Hingham Bell Tower, dedicated in 1912 to the English Puritan settlers of Hingham, Massachusetts, is one of the monuments scattered about Massachusetts to the Puritan founders of the Bay Colony. The Hingham settlers, to whom the Tower is dedicated, were among the most zealous of these Puritans, having left their home in Hingham, Norfolk, England, after repeated run-ins with ecclesiastical authorities under Archbishop Laud. Their departure crippled their native town. After they had departed for the Bay Colony, the town of Hingham, Norfolk, was forced to petition Parliament for aid, claiming that the exit -- for religious reasons -- of many of its most prosperous citizens had left it in dire straits. That the new town they founded -- Hingham, Massachusetts -- chose to honor them with a Tower speaks to the divisions within England that created the Massachusetts Bay Colony and propelled men like John Winthrop to speak of building a "shining city on a hill." As an illustration, such monuments speak to the reverence that has been paid down the ages to the Puritan founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Regards, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Reading this article it would appear the Puritans came to Mass. directly from England. I had thought they came from Holland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 ( talk) 23:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The "Separatists" on the Mayflower, following William Brewster, lived in Holland but were unhappy that their children were assimilating into Dutch culture. They left for America from an English port though. I don't recall the how or when the Plymouth Colony got it's charter (was it legal in 1620 or only later?) but once established, later ships went directly to MA as well. Note, the Plymouth colonists on the Mayflower were not actually Puritans but Separatists (they wanted to split from the church and form their own separate group while Puritans had similar practices but wanted to fix the church from within). Mass. Bay colony quickly outgrew Plymouth, so I think they got more 'official' support.-- Paddling bear ( talk) 17:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC) reply

"Plans for the first permanent European settlements on the east coast of North America began in late 1606, when King James I of England (James VI of Scotland) formed two joint stock companies." Like many, I think this focus on English colonies forgets that the Spanish were also European and had settled FL long before 1606. I'll see if I can get time to reword or add a link to St. Aug.-- Paddling bear ( talk) 17:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, and not only that, but North America includes Mexico, at least according to the North America page. So it's more than just St. Augustine. Pfly ( talk) 09:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Article was changed sometime in the last 6 years to say "British." WikiParker ( talk) 14:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

What about King Charles the 1? Awesomeness is here ( talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

It is not clear whether Acquidneck Island and the mainland of the future Rhode Island were within the Massachusetts Bay Colony when settled by Roger and others. 2602:304:CDA6:51B0:B961:AC66:DF63:A27C ( talk) 23:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The short answer to this question is no. Roger Williams et al. initially settled on the east side of the Seekonk River, but William Bradford kindly warned him that he was still within the jurisdiction of Plymouth Colony—not of Massachusetts Bay (this being prior to the merger of the Plymouth and Bay Colonies)—and he advised them to move across to the other side, as Plymouth's authority did not cross the river. The "Rhode Island" (Aquidneck) settlers were a bit later, but this jurisdiction issue was status quo.

The authority of Massachusetts Bay did not extend to that particular bit of land at that particular moment, but that moment quickly passed. The subsequent disputes among Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts Bay were very complicated and enduring, dragging on for nearly a century. This complex and rather tedious topic is, I think, sufficiently touched upon in section 6.1 "Boundaries." — Dilidor ( talk) 19:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC) reply

A previous section (deleted for trolling) brought up that this article needs a discussion about the colony's relationship with the Native Americans. The section's language concerning the large scale killing of the native peoples must have brought about the deletion but the topic should be covered in this article. WikiParker ( talk) 14:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The entry for the town of Scituate refers to it as being founded by "Men of Kent". This may (or may not) be true but this particular phrase is used in Kent to refer to men from the eastern side of the County of Kent. Men from the western side are referred to as "Kentish Men". (See Man Of Kent or Kentish Man And yes, people from the County of Kent take this distinction seriously. If it's true that the settlers of Scituate were from eastern Kent, then the phrase "Men from Kent" is accurate enough, but misleading to most readers. If they came from western Kent (west of the Medway River) the the phrase "Kentish Men" should be substituted. Since the distinctions here would not be obvious to most people, it would probably better to avoid either phrase. Just saying that they came from the County of Kent would probably be better in the long run. TwelveGreat ( talk) 20:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I removed mention of Kent. Not pertinent. WikiParker ( talk) 12:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Tpwissaa: I really appreciate the in-depth analysis that you have added in the new subsections on "confrontation with England". I've done a copy edit, but I'm a little concerned about a few issues: 1) it's a single-source for all the new material; 2) what you've written strongly reflects the viewpoints of that single source; 3) the entirety borders on original research. I don't want to just cut it out because it is helpful explication, but I'm wondering if we can address these concerns. Thoughts? — Dilidor ( talk) 15:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Dilidor@ Dilidor:. Thank you for your comment, I appreciate your concerns. I am currently working with a few different sources dealing with the time period and hope to continue to update the section shortly. Would these continued edits from different sources help? The other texts are consistent with the source already used. Tpwissaa ( talk) 17:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Tpwissaa: Ok, hopefully I'm posting this time on the correct article. Yes, more sources certainly would help, but I'd also suggest finding some whose bias is different from Barnes, which is distinctly anti-Puritan. — Dilidor ( talk) 17:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The following paragraph,

"The colonists initially had good relationships with the local Indians, but frictions developed which led to the Pequot War (1636–38) and then to King Philip's War (1675–78), after which most of the Indians in southern New England made peace treaties with the colonists (apart from the Pequot tribe, whose survivors were largely absorbed into the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes following the Pequot War)."

should be changed as the Pequot war and King Philips war were not really conflicts with local Massachusett Indian tribes. The Pequot tribe was in Connecticut and King Philips war most of the tribes were in what was (at the time) Plymouth colony. A better way to phrase it could be.

"The colonists had good relationships with the local Indians, however they did join their neighbor colonies in the Pequot War (1636–38) and King Philip's War (1675–78), after which most of the Indians in southern New England made peace treaties with the colonists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:402:E394:9D0B:F10E:A087:2993 ( talk) 03:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

You can be bold and edit that portion of the lead, but make sure you cite a respected source. If consensus holds, no one will re-edit/revert your change Danial Bass ( talk) 11:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply