Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Pilgrims NOT Puritans

This is the time of year that a lot of folks that don't know their history very well confuse the passengers of the good ship Mayflower with the dastardly Puritans that followed them a mere decade later.

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

21 comments:

Mirror said...

A timely head shaker but it was the puritans who prevailed.

Matt said...

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.

Anonymous said...

ACR, you are a nutbar...loveable...but a nutbar.

BrassBoy said...

Purge members from your own ranks? Yep, sounds just like Republicans... just like what they tried to do to Joe Lieberm... wait a minute...

Matt said...

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.

Matt said...

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!

Chris MC said...

Prolly your most interesting and substantive post ACR, thanks for it!

And Matt's addition re Dominionism is a good one too.

Chris MC said...

And (to one of Matt's points) Carter was an actual evangelist - going out in poor neighborhoods door to door and testifying to real people, living modestly, an expression of his genuine rebirth in Christ. And since leaving office has devoted himself to promoting actual political freedom and democracy and providing shelter for those in need.

Not a Great President, but definitely a great man.

Contrast that with the hypocrisy and betrayal by the latter day Puritans.

Anonymous said...

I think the comparison holds better with Islam.

BrassBoy said...

I'm hardly a right-wing commentator... I have problems with people from all sides...

But I'd like to comment on how frequently commentators from any side will quickly take a post that is pretty benign and apolitical and use to make some snarky comment about the current state of puritanical American paranoia (sham trials, secret evidence, blah, blah...)

ACR wanted to make a post about the Pilgrims and the Puritans and it immediately became fodder for blather about the "Modern Republican Party". (is that in the rest of the sentence or perhaps in another sentence? I can't tell, I must not have read the whole thing...)

I applaud ACR for a nice change of pace and an informative post.

Chris MC said...

BrassBoy -

If you know ACR's posts and themes, Matt is interpreting him correctly at least insofar as relating this post to the current discussion in the MSM and around here regarding the viability and raison d'etre of the Connecticut GOP and moderate Republicanism is concerned. The Dominionism of the radical right faction that has been a key to the "success" of the national GOP is part of the belief system of the President and his base of support, and is so at odds with the beliefs of traditional northeastern Republicans that its adherents are explicitly driving those northeastern "RINO"'s into political extinction.

These moderate Republicans' fiscally prudent, socially libertarian, and mainstream Christian beliefs really belong in my party, if only they'd join us in name as they so often do on policy.

BrassBoy said...

I completely disagree, that's all. I am as fiscally conservative as they come, especially watching all of the wasted dollars in this state. WHen it comes to social issues, I have my views and beliefs, but would rather not "waste" valuable time making them focal points and wedge issues. Whether I believe in gay marriage, for example, shouldn't matter, considering all of the tax/economic/budgetary/quality of life issues we face now a days.

That being said, "moderate Republican, fiscally prudent, etc..." beliefs do not belong anywhere near the Democratic party. That's laughable. The national Democratic party is just as unhinged as the Republicans, just to an opposite end of the spectrum. As for the CT Dems, because of their size and number there are a few more differing view points. It's the law of large numbers.

However, if the Reps did a better job of recruitment and outreach, they would see the same effect.

G-BuryMan said...

Communal living first seven years.
After which they realized socialism would not work.
I guess we are not going to learn from the past, but of course there are those who wish to punish the successful and reward the lazy.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>..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.

turfgrrl said...

ACR: Great post. Now, do you want to get into the religious persecution that puritians and pilgrims were escaping from?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>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.

matt said...

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 :)

Aldon Hynes said...

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.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>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.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>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.

Chris MC said...

The national Democratic party is just as unhinged as the Republicans, just to an opposite end of the spectrum. As for the CT Dems, because of their size and number there are a few more differing view points. It's the law of large numbers.

You apparently haven't been paying attention. There are two strong wings of the party, and the Democratic caucus in the Congress is led by two pretty different individuals, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The Democratic Party in the mountain states and midwest, not to mention the south, is hardly your characture of Democrat. The party nationally is even more diverse than the party statewide.