[A.J.Armitage]

Your "succession to unitarianism", is wrong, stupid, and off topic. Wrong: if you were right, John Gill's church would have been pastored by a unitarian in the 19th century. Instead, it was pastored by Charles Spurgeon. Now, there were unitarians who, as ZC rightly said, deliberately rebelled against their Puritan heritage, but this is the oppose of your claim they follow by legitimate succession. Stupid: even if the only denomination that "derived" from the Puritans were the Unitarians, they would not be *theological* heirs of the Puritans. Off topic, because you made a claim about New England Puritans, and "Nonconformists" is what we call the English (as in, the original England) successors to the Puritans.

[GOPcapitalist]

Your "succession to unitarianism", is wrong, stupid, and off topic.

Seeing as it is now the matter of your own discussion, it can hardly be considered off topic. As for the other two allegations, the only way you can test them is to challenge the lineal connection I made. You have not done so nor do you indicate any capability of doing so.

[GOPcapitalist]

"Nonconformists" is what we call the English (as in, the original England) successors to the Puritans.

Technically speaking, no. The defining events of Nonconformist theology all happened from roughly 1662 after the Act of Uniformity through the early 18th century, at which time all the colonies were English. As a result there are several denominations and organizations that fall under the classification of the nonconformist label, among them the Quakers and, as previously noted, Unitarians.