What was the real resone for the mayflower compact?

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e%26amp;. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."





There followed the signatures of 41 of the 102 passengers, 37 of whom were Separatists fleeing religious persecution in Europe. This compact established the first basis in the new world for written laws. Half of the colony failed to survive the first winter, but the remainder lived on and prospered.

What was the real resone for the mayflower compact?
Unfortunately, just pasting a copy of the document does not answer the question (voters, please read!) But Governor Bradford DID write, at least twice, to explain the reason -- see my answer below. Report It

Reply:The basic reason was concern about a mutinous contingent in the group that had claimed they were not bound by the 'patents' the Puritans had from the Virginia Company (partly because they had landed elsewhere than originally planned):





William Bradford himself explained this. First, in "Mourt's Relation":





"This day before we come to harbor, observing some not well affected to unity and concord, but gave some appearance of faction, it was thought good there should be an Association and Agreement that we should combine together in one body; and to submit to such Government and Governors as we should, by common consent, agree to make and choose, and set our hands to this that follows word for word."





In his Historie (Mass. ed. p. 109), he spells it out more explicitly:





"I shall a little returne backe and begin with a combination made by them before they came ashore, being the first foundation of their governments in this place; occasioned partly by the discontent %26amp; mutinous speeches that some of the strangers amongst them [i.e. not any of the Leyden contingent] had let fall from them in the ship -- That when they came ashore they would use their owne libertie: for none had power to command them, the patents they had being for Virginia, and not for New-England which belonged to another Government, with which the London [or First Virginia Company] had nothing to doe, and partly that such an acte by them done . . . might be as firm as any patent, and in some respects more sure."
Reply:To be on the same page so there is no turning back. Imagine being on that boat and you change your mind and go back to England and be a slave.
Reply:Continuing with the above...note that their royal charter was for Virginia--not valid where they were.

Wisdom Teeth