Blast to the Past- Did the Puritans Represent the American Way?

The Puritans, who made the trip to Massachusetts in the 1630's, in order to freely attempt to purify the Anglican Church, did not represent the American way. Social well being of the Puritans in Salem was virtually non-existent. The Puritan government functioned in accordance with Puritan religious beliefs. Puritan religion held the same exclusivity as a present-day country club. The arrogance of Puritan leaders like John Winthrop was disgusting in itself. Winthrop said, "we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us." None of the Founding Fathers of the United States shared these sentiments. The Puritans did not represent the true American way.

The Puritans had a lot on their plate in 1692. Disease, poverty, and paranoia about the Indians did a number on the social way of life in Salem. Teenage girls were unhappy with their mothers. The girls decided the best solution was to make others pay for their "suffering"- the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Those who wrongly accused citizens of witchcraft and those who had to defend themselves were often rivals. Farmers from Salem Town and merchants from Salem Village always tried to one-up the other. The Puritans never gave what is now known in America as a fair trial. Nineteen people were hanged as a result of predominantly hostile testimony. These malicious killings show how the Puritans lacked the sense to realize that one foot was already in the grave, and the other wasn't far behind. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal; a belief that the Puritans did not exhibit. The Puritans had the false notion that only "Saints" could receive God's grace. Reverend John Cotton said, "We teach that only Doers will be saved." If a person living in Salem was not a Doer, he or she was outcast from society, which is not the American way. The American way teaches that different is good. The Puritans were saved, somewhat, when Governor Phips stopped the witch trials. No outside factor was to blame for the failure of the Puritan society. The culprit was their own weak psychological state-of-mind.

The Puritans were religious zealots who alienated their fellow man and thought it was right. Any Puritan who wanted the gift of grace was required to go through the conversion experience. The conversion experience was often extremely humiliating, because the experience consisted of the potential member having to confess all of their sins in front of the congregation. The Puritans, in their disillusionment, were unable to see the complete and utter correctness of the beliefs belonging to Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams. Hutchinson, who was eventually banished to Rhode Island, believed in immediate conversion by God. Williams, who was banished along with Hutchinson, believed in the separation of church and state. Religion was not meant to be controlled, as it was by the Puritans. The American way is that all people should have the right to practice religion if they should choose to do so, and to choose what religion to practice. Once again, the Puritans failed to show any similarity to the American way.

Separation of church and state was unheard of in the Puritan way of life. The Puritans were governed by John Winthrop's Bible Commonwealth, which met where the town church did, at the town meetinghouse. A moral decision is not always correct. The Puritans, however, did not figure that out. Puritan government, especially in Salem, was certainly not competent. The government lacked all of the principles a government should possess. Citizens under the control of a governing body should not be alienated by that very governing body, and yet the Bible Commonwealth alienated many a righteous Puritan. The Bible Commonwealth or General Court blew any minor flaw that a person had out of proportion, and that person was shunned. Government should be fair to all people. Puritan government was, by no means, fair.

The only thing that Americans in the 21st century can learn from the Puritans of the 17th century is that Puritanism is exactly what should not be happening today. If the United States government were solely concerned with religious matters, nothing would get accomplished. Americans today practice many different religions freely, from Christianity to Buddhism, from Judaism to Islam. The United States has been deemed a "melting pot," because of its acceptance of all people, no matter what race, culture, or creed they are. The Puritans did not represent the American way. They helped the formation of the American way, by allowing the Founding Fathers to see what should be avoided.

Thanks for the information, you have peaked my interest in reading more about Darwin, can you suggest any books I might read? Also someone else claimed he was converted to Christianity on his deathbed, can you comment on that? regards...

I also read the more recent analysis disputing T Jefferson's child by slave,but was unsure if a conclusion was reached, only that it was in dispute... it is a constant reminder that like statistics, information can be used to forward an agenda when used by those who care more about their "cause"(lberals) than the truth..

Thanks for the information, you have peaked my interest in reading more about Darwin, can you suggest any books I might read? Also someone else claimed he was converted to Christianity on his deathbed, can you comment on that? regards...

The stories about Darwin on his deathbed are almost mythical. There are several variations as I recall. No truly credible account exists. You can read more of the dubious Lady Hope account here just for background. (creationist site)

As far as books, I recommend Darwin On Trial for critically examining evolution. I don't really have any recommendation for books on Darwin himself. There's a long list of Darwiniana that is covered by such research books (his extended attack of boils, his father's secret atheism, etc.). You might just search around the web using Google.

You might enjoy this short article that compares the embrace of Darwinism by English religious authorities and name a number of leading contemporary scientists who rejected it (neither list is by any means complete). For more info on the difference between creationism vs. "theistic evolution" vs. Darwinian evolution, you might browse Darwin’s real message: have you missed it?. This last article includes material from Gould, the leading evolutionist who set about puncturing much of the Darwin myth himself. Very credible and interesting material.

These three links are all to well-written brief survey articles from the Answers In Genesis creationist site but there are some good footnotes and quotes to get you started with search engines and finding other resources.

It's interesting how different the real history of the theory of evolution is from what is presented in the public schools and media. But we shouldn't really be surprised by that, I guess.

You should read William Bradford's book On Plymouth Plantation. The pilgrims were communists and almost starved because of it. It was only after Bradford relented and allowed private ownership of food that they began to flourish. Although the poster went a little overboard on his essay, his premise that the pilgrims did not represent the American way (at least as it is historically represented rather than what flows from Washington today) is fundamentally correct

The pilgrims were communists and almost starved because of it.

That's an absurd oversimplification, especially since communism didn't exist at that point.

Although the poster went a little overboard on his essay, his premise that the pilgrims did not represent the American way (at least as it is historically represented rather than what flows from Washington today) is fundamentally correct

No, he referred to the Puritans...one or more generations removed from the Pilgrims, AFTER the crops began to flourish and the corruption of the English church became apparent. The essay is devoid of supporting fact and represents nothing more than mimicking what he/she has been taught in school about the "insensitive, judgemental Puritans."

That's an absurd oversimplification, especially since communism didn't exist at that point.

It is not an oversimplification. It's a reasonably accurate description of how the colony was run for the first year or so anyway. Of course communism existed at that time. It just wasn't called communism. Most monasteries practiced a form of religion base communism during the middle ages, although they used a positive sum game model rather than the zero sum game model that Bradford & company used. Have you read Bradford's book? I had to struggle through it 35 years ago, and it seemed to describe communism pretty well to me.

No, he referred to the Puritans

I stand corrected. I read "puritans" and thought "pilgrims"

Most monasteries practiced a form of religion base communism during the middle ages, although they used a positive sum game model rather than the zero sum game model that Bradford & company used.

Fair enough...I think I am equating "communism" to "Stalinism"...perhaps it is better termed "totalitarianism." To me, the lack of genocide would preclude classifying the Pilgrims as communists, but I think I'm getting wrapped up in semantics and I do see your point.

Have you read Bradford's book?

No I haven't...I will add it to my (lengthy) list b/c that period of history fascinates me and I have much to learn...

Regards--

oh my goodness....you are an AP History teacher....just disgusting. My AP History teacher (yes I am a high school student) actually bothers to represent BOTH sides of the story and not use unsupported and arrogant statements.

"The Puritans had a lot on their plate in 1692. Disease, poverty, and paranoia about the Indians did a number on the social way of life in Salem. Teenage girls were unhappy with their mothers. The girls decided the best solution was to make others pay for their "suffering"- the Salem Witch Trials of 1692." This is frankly all the BULL I want to respond to. This LIBERAL REVISIONISM of history makes my head spin. Where is your support for this? Yeah, so what that some of the accusationers were rivals....it looks bad, but where is the PROOF that it was the reason behind the trials? Perhaps it was the fact that hysteria spread wild...ever think of that? No, because you are not able to see things objectively like a true historian. Now, perhaps you should talk to Richard Trask, a person who is an actual Puritan authority, unlike you. Mr. Trask is the historian in Danvers, Mass. and has access to all the primary source documents on the trials. He has written books on this subject and I have conversed with him about this topic. He says that there is absolutely no support for the idea that it was greed the motivated the trials. In fact, he says evidence flies in its face because even if people were executed, the property would almost never be able to change families to the people accusing them of witchcraft. Until you have read the Salem Witchcraft Papers, keep your ignorant mouth shut.

Never mind the fact they had a representative assembly, something this poster (claiming, and a teacher at that), convienently ignores. Where the Puritans perfect? No! But, they did do many good things in addition to when things were bad. I am so freaking sick and tired of one-sided history. If anyone, this teacher deserves to be fired and get spit on in public because he is not doing his job....instead of teaching history fairly, he is only doing the "white man is evil" routine. I am mad as hell and won't take it anymore! I have done tons of research on the Puritans and he is only presenting a bunch of biased crap. I have to sit in my history class (I take AP history class in high school here) and listen to things I disagree with historically. At the same time, my history teacher and the textbook presents things in a fairly equal manner. This is what history is supposed to do...it is supposed to inspire critical thinking and being able to see each side. History is interpretation.....obviously there are some things that are definitive, but largely, it is nothing but different point of views. I am extremely agitated at liberals like the poster of this thread taht proclaim that what they are saying is true and nobody else could see something in the primary source documents. He may claim conservatism, but he is a liar, for conservatism does not hijack and falsify history. It gives equal and open discussion of the issues.

Dear Future President of the United States:

Please, before you ever run for President of the United States, read Edmund S. Morgan's _The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop_. Winthrop was the leader of the Puritan Colony at Massachusetts Bay, and he knew both Christian theology and the practical politics of leadership. You will be a better POTUS for having read about Winthrop's life. Morgan also addresses many of the intellectual problems that you and your teachers seem to have about the Puritans, and I recommend the book for that reason, also.

When I was in graduate school (MA, American History, Western Carolina University, 1976), I read Morgan's book, however, and thought that he had not dealt adequately with certain aspects of the "Puritan dilemma." Consequently, I dealt with them in my master's thesis, which was later published by Ross House, the publishing arm of the Chalcedon Foundation, as _The Guise of Every Graceless Heart: Human Autonomy in Puritan Thought and Experience_ (Ross House, 1981). I also recommend it for your study of some of the problems you mention in your essay. I think I tried to deal with most of them in my effort.

Best wishes to you in your continuing study! I'd have given you a D or so for your superficiality, but a B or so for courage and effort. The Puritans are worth your concentrated study; don't let the FR critics get you down, and don't let the academic humanists brainwash you into superficial conclusions.

Having just posted Chapter Fifteen of the Debate Handbook, Immigration & The American Future, I feel obliged to comment.

As anyone familiar with my web site will appreciate, my ideological identification is with the Virginia settlements, with the values of the Virginia gentry--Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc.. These, even as your essay would suggest, represent a more tolerant, freer system of values.

But having said that, I must suggest to you, also, that the significance of the Puritans--who came in 1620, not 1630--was not in showing what to avoid. They were a part of the coming together of diverse societies, that found a common American purpose in 1776, defined further in the Constitution in 1787. Their values have contributed to the whole, and under the Federal umbrella, there is a place for their States as there is for the rest of us.

Unfortunately, there was a metamorphosis during the two generations after the Revolution, and the former Puritans, running their own affairs, became intolerant Leftwing zealots trying to build an egalitarian social heaven on earth, by seeking to impose their new secular vision on everybody else. That was the genesis of Modern "Liberalism" in America, and I for one would much have preferred to see them remain a people who outlawed Christmas, rapped their own people in the head, if they fell asleep during their interminable Church services--even hanged a few Witches--rather than have to deal with the mischief they stirred up after 1840.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

I give him an F for not reporting the whole story. He posts crap without backup from the primary sources. That gets my ire up. The Puritans excommunicated a man in Boston for not having sex with his wife. That is something that shocks people when they hear it because it does not fit the Puritan sterotype. In regards to the witch trials, the poster posts his garbage as fact, all the while ignoring the conclusions of real experts like Perry Miller and Richard Trask, who have seen all the Salem Witchcraft primary source documents and conclude the trials were NOT over land disputes. Trask points out that land would not transfer to the accusing family even if the accused is executed.

"I give him an F for not reporting the whole story. He posts crap without backup from the primary sources."

OK. But you might not want to discourage him too much at this stage in the development of his scholarly life. Give him a break. How much did you understand about scholarship at his age? Or care?

I'm sure there are young prodigies who do understand and care at his age, but most of us weren't or aren't!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.