That Puritan invasion was the reason that the Rev. Thomas Hooker led a small band of men here to found what is now Connecticut.
-ACR
At the Twenty-Second General Congress of the Society of Mayflower Descendants held in Plymouth on September 13, 1960, the following resolution previously proposed by Deputy Governor General Louis Ellsworth Laflin, Jr., (IL) was adopted:
WHEREAS, William Brewster (1566-1643) and William Bradford (1589-1657) professed to be PURITANS while members of the Anglican congregation (1602) of Richard Clyfton at All Saints' Church, Babworth, Nottinghamshire; and
WHEREAS, The Hampton Court Conference of 1604 forcibly removed 300 clergymen from the Church of England, and from that church's PURITAN faith, including Richard Clyfton and John Robinson, the first two pastors of the Mayflower SEPARATIST "PILGRIMS" of 1620; and
WHEREAS, William Brewster and William Bradford started the 1606 Scrooby, Nottinghamshire, SEPARATIST congregation, the first on English soil, together with Richard Clyfton and John Robinson, as a direct result of forcible ejection from the PURITAN branch of the Anglican Church, and
WHEREAS, There are only two known persons, out of the 104 Mayflower passengers (including the two babies born) who were Anglicans and PURITANS: Christopher Martin, Governor of the ship, and his step-son, Solomon Power, neither of whom left any descendants;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the General Board of Assistants at its annual meeting in New York, September 19, 1959, that the term "PURITAN" should not be applied to any passengers of the Mayflower of 1620, which carried the first settlers of Plymouth Plantation, except to Christopher Martin and Solomon Power, and in the name of William Brewster and William Bradford, only before the year 1604 or 16 years before the Mayflower sailed. After 1604, all of the 1620 Mayflower "PILGRIMS" were SEPARATISTS.
| PILGRIMS | PURITANS |
| Arrived 1620 | Arrived 1630 |
| Governors Carver and Bradford | Governor Winthrop |
| Plymouth Colony | Massachusetts Bay Colony |
| Friendly with Indians for 40 years | Indian problems from the outset |
| Paid Indians for land | Seized Indian lands |
| Communal living first seven years | Individual profit from the outset |
| Democratic, consensus of the governed | Authoritarian |
| Separated from the Church of England | "Purified" the Church from within |
| Not a single prosecution of witchcraft | Prosecuted and executed for witchcraft |
| Representation and equal inheritance | Nothing to compare |
| Forerunner of US Constitution & Declaration of Independence | Nothing to compare |
| More tolerant than the Church of England | Intolerant |
12 comments:
A timely head shaker but it was the puritans who prevailed.
I've got a comparison for your second-to-last box on the right: forerunner of Dominionist Movement and Modern Republican Party.
Just from your chart, we've got... racial intolerance, expansionist, focused on individual profit, believes in the authority of strong leaders, and based on a radical interpretation of religious history that caused them to purge members from their own ranks and discredit the institutions that those who came before them had established.
The Salem Witch trials are just a neat historical analogy with the current state of puritanical American paranoia, right down to the sham trials and secret evidence.
ACR, you are a nutbar...loveable...but a nutbar.
Purge members from your own ranks?
Referring to the Baptists there, actually. To think that Jimmy Carter was the first ever Evangelical president... ah, but we live in different times now, I guess.
I'd like to comment also on how frequently right-wing commentators will strip out the context of a comment in an attempt to make a snide rebuttal. BB, read the rest of the goddamned sentence!
I think the comparison holds better with Islam.
>>..Matt is interpreting him correctly ...
There is no "interpretation" what-so-ever.
It is what it is and nothing else, and has no implied political overtone of any sort.
>>Now, do you want to get into the religious persecution that puritians and pilgrims were escaping from?
Actually the Pilgrims were running away from the Puritans as much as they were from anyone else. Remember the Puritans had no intention of ignoring the Church of England, (rather they thought they could clean the place the up) while disregaring the state church was exactly what the Pilgrims had in mind. Indeed one of the ringleaders (John Lothrop) who had led his congregation (including Thomas Hooker) to Holland and back, was in prison when the Mayflower sailed and was exiled to America 9 years later. (founded Barnstable Mass and produced many offspring, his descendents include 5 US Presidents, Brigham Young, Marriot, Tiffany, JP Morgan, and ACR)
Lower Fairfield County, New London and New Haven were originally settled by Puritans and neither they nor the rest of CT was any too happy about it as we became one colony.
Sometime I'll do a piece on the hypocrisy of it all. What became the Congregationalists were so incensed at their prior treatment both in England, and later in Mass by the Puritans that they came down pretty hard on non-Congregationalists here in CT (hence Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802)
A long series of events has occured since over generations with the net outcome often being the opposite of that desired by those that effectively "started it" as it regards any heavy-handed behavior towards others.
The sooner we all realize that we must tolerate one anothers closely held religious beliefs regardless of our own feelings or even if we're offended (tough) the better.
When it comes to religion; leave the other guy alone no matter what.
Be offended if you like, but keep it to yourself and instead be a good neighbor. Period.
Better to help the local Muslims navigate through local zoning etc. so as to open their Mosque than to whine about the Knights of Columbus getting permission to put their Nativity Scene on the Town Green.
than to whine about the Knights of Columbus getting permission to put their Nativity Scene on the Town Green.I wonder if you live in my town, or if this is just a micro-drama that plays out across Connecticut every year.
Either way, Nello is a superstar, in my view :)
I think ACR has provided a fascinating view of the pilgrims and the puritans. I thought of it as I read . I am wondering if ACR would maintain that the article is really speaking about the Puritans and not Pilgrims.
>>I am wondering if ACR would maintain that the article is really speaking about the Puritans and not Pilgrims.
Indeed it is as most everything mentioned occured post 1629 upon the arrival of the 1st Puritans.
Bradford welcomed Lothrop as a "fine Puritan" which pleased the good Rev. Lothrop so much he left with haste with members of his original congregation and settled elsewhere.
>>wonder if you live in my town, or if this is just a micro-drama that plays out across Connecticut every year.
It seems national to me.
Here how it works; if the Town Green (or other public property) is used by other groups with any regularity (festivals, art shows, etc.) than there is no real way to legally prevent other groups including religious from seeking and gaining the same permission.
That makes sense too; it is after all "the" Town Green not your or my Town Green so unless we're to not utilize it for anything, (in which case why not just pave it and increase the parking downtown) then we might as well get used to the idea that occasionally there will probably be something going on down there that's of no interest to us.
Post a Comment