Honors section discussion questions for 10/4/07
Colonial Massachusetts is undoubtedly the most commonly-cited example of the patriotic belief that the founders of American society came to escape the oppressions of Europe and establish a land of freedom, religious and political freedom in particular. In what senses is this true, if any?
The classic statement of Puritan intentions and aspirations for the Massachusetts Bay Colony -- the original American "mission statement" -- is "A Modell of Christian Charity" (1630) , by the first governor, John Winthrop. The key passages appear near the end of the document. [Before assuming that the Puritans migrated for religious freedom, read Winthrop's views on how much and what kind of liberty he would allow in Massachusetts Bay.]
Over the years, scholars and commentators debated whether Winthrop's mission statement and the Puritan "errand into the wilderness" that it defined was a call to community and social responsibility or a justification for chauvinistic imperial conquest. In other words, as a source for beliefs of Christian social reformers like the radical abolitionists and Martin Luther King, or, to use the most modern example available, the foreign policy "mission" of Dick Cheney and the neo-conservatives who have promoted war against Iraq and Iran. What do you think?
The classic statement of Puritan intentions and aspirations for the Massachusetts Bay Colony -- the original American "mission statement" -- is "A Modell of Christian Charity" (1630) , by the first governor, John Winthrop. The key passages appear near the end of the document. [Before assuming that the Puritans migrated for religious freedom, read Winthrop's views on how much and what kind of liberty he would allow in Massachusetts Bay.]
Over the years, scholars and commentators debated whether Winthrop's mission statement and the Puritan "errand into the wilderness" that it defined was a call to community and social responsibility or a justification for chauvinistic imperial conquest. In other words, as a source for beliefs of Christian social reformers like the radical abolitionists and Martin Luther King, or, to use the most modern example available, the foreign policy "mission" of Dick Cheney and the neo-conservatives who have promoted war against Iraq and Iran. What do you think?
posted by Jeff Pasley at 1:17 AM
6 Comments:
The Puritan invasion of The New World was not a call to community or social responsibility although it may have ostensibly been that kind of mission. Instead, the Puritan "mission" was a way to justify the evil actions they were perpetrating against the Native Americans.
Specifically, "We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies" was used to remind those listening of the story contained in the book of Joshua. In this story God gives Joshua and the army of Israelites his permission to kill all others on their way to possession of the Holy Land. He references this story to remind the Puritans of their God-given calling to rule over all others.
Winthrop's third reason for invading the New World touches upon wealth and abundant blessings. He says that each person deserves these things not as individuals, but for the glory of their creator and for the common good of man. He clearly believes that they have been given the New World to control for the common good of man. He uses this to reinforce European feelings of dominance over the Indians.
Lastly, concerning liberty, Winthrop preaches a specific brand of liberty, one that is closely related to the philosophical teachings of that time -- specifically Hobbes. He claims that there are two types of liberty: one that all men and beasts share in common, natural liberty, and one that is specific to man, civil liberty. Natural liberty is the right to do anything within your power. Civil liberty is the transferring of certain rights and privileges to a higher power that is then able to dictate what, when, and where certain actions of permissible. Civil liberty refers to the liberties that exist with the blessing of the state or Leviathan. According to the minds at the time, human seek to give up natural liberties for civil liberties in order to attain peace. Only when there is peace does man have the ability, and therefore the natural liberty, to fulfill all of his/hers capacities. This means that natural liberty is actually optimized under a state of civil liberty or the transfer of rights to a higher power. Winthrop uses this as a way to justify the reduction of liberties.
When I was first taught the story of the first Pilgrims I was told that they came soley for religious freedom. Yet I have learned that in truth, while some had that reason, most were on a mission to make quick money.
Another reason for the founders of America was that they felt that God had given them the New World and that it was their task to reform the savage natives. I belive that their intentions leaned more on the side of chauvinistic conquest. It seems to me that people say the pilgrims came just for religious freedom because it sounds moral, and gives us a better sense of pride.
I think that, at least in the case of the Puritans, they were originally well-intentioned. They were being legitamently persecuted in Europe, which in my mind gives them a reason to escape. At the same time, I think that John Winthrop’s “City Upon a Hill” speech can be taken as almost arrogant, his message being that HE and his followers were so pure that they could create a Christianity that would be a beacon for the heathens in the New World and an example of what Europe SHOULD be doing. That’s a lofty goal. I feel like things that sound that good or look that good, never end well. Any form of radicalism is bound to turn out poorly.
I’d have to agree with Curtis in the fact that the English used the Puritans “errand into the wilderness” as a way to justify their imperialistic views. I think they saw America as a business venture and immediately wanted to use the land to make a profit. I believe they also used this new land as a way to create more freedoms for themselves, but the main reason they came to America was for money and land.
The fact that the English used the idea that it was their social responsibility to move here and colonize made the harshness of the situation less significant. By saying that it was their “errand”, the world was oblivious to the slow destruction they were causing for the Native American culture. Cheney and other neo-conservatives hold the same view as the English did in the justification of overrunning a country because they believe it’s their duty to do so.
I believe that the underlying motive behind the Puritan settling of the New World in Massachussetts was indeed to take over new land and invade existing inhabitants whenever necessary, and to do so at all costs. Winthrop as well as other Puritans used religious principles as a way to justify their actions, especially to justify the use of force in creating a new colony. Winthrop described the situation as a test from God, to test their faithfulness and commitment to the Lord, and it was their duty to successfully occupy the New Land in order to serve the Lord and help save the people of the World. The fact that many people today still believe the true intentions of the Puritans settling Massachussetts was based solely on religious freedom is naive;their true intentions were purposely justified in a religious context, and people today still interpret their true intentions with too much emphasis on religion.
I feel that the Puritan's main motive in migrating to the New World was certainly religious based. Had the Puritans not felt the need to escape the persecution in England by the King and Church of England, they probably would never have traveled to the New World. I see the religious aspect of their migration as the cause, and the conquest of new lands as an effect. However, to say that the Puritans were never concerned with money would be incorrect. Certainly the Puritans did desire to make money and justify their desire to migrate to the English monarchy. But to say that money and the conquest of land was their main motive does an injustice to the religious nature of the Puritan Migration.
However, I would argue that the Pilgrims put more of an emphasis on prosperity in the New Land than the Puritans did, and money was more of an objective to the mostly boisterous young adventurers.
Post a Comment
<< Home