Puritanism+and+Democracy-A+Mixed+Legacy

AVG – Stephen Foster’s article “Puritanism and Democracy: A Mixed Legacy” examines the apparent contradiction between the Puritans’ desire for freedom from England and their retention of a caste system dominated by ministers in the New England society. He explains this by describing that some idea of social structure was ingrained within the settlers from all their prior experience and would have been almost impossible to completely remove. Thus, the Puritans’ willingness to be ruled by a theocratic government in which they had only indirect power is understandable given the context of the time.

Although Foster correctly argues that the people of New England did not want full democracy, the Puritans were not as undemocratic as Foster portrays them. What is intriguing is that their leaders were willing to submit to the people, as Winthrop allowed himself to be reelected every year. Similarly, even Puritan leaders acknowledged the necessity of laws that could regulate the government. Foster uses these examples to explain that the people were willing to submit to authority (and a supposedly undemocratic society), but they also demonstrate that authority was willing to submit to the citizens.

In summary, Foster is too harsh on the Puritans. Although they neither had nor wanted a complete democracy, Puritans had more representation in the government than most Englishmen. In fact, the very act of coming to New England was itself a choice about government – the people elected to have Puritan ministers as their leaders instead of an Anglican king. Because most Puritans agreed on religious teachings, government control over religion had little impact on life.

CCR- In "Puritanism and Democracy: A Mixed Legacy," Stephen Foster analyzes the societal and political elements of Puritan society. He mainly focuses on the paradoxes of Puritan life, such as a social status system and the wish to be free of English tyranny. The author manages to successfully show these contradictions and explain why they exist. This is essentially done by relating different aspects of the heiarchy that existed within early New England. The Puritans simultaneously and subconciously advocated a system of government that combined aristocracy and democracy. To AVG, I would like to respectfully disagree with the point that you make in your analysis. Though it is eloquently written and supported nicely, you appear to have missed some of the points that Foster is trying to make. You say that the "Puritans were not as undemocratic as Foster portrays them" implying that Foster has painted a picture of the Puritans as a largely undemocratic culture. Yet Foster repeatedly brings up reasons why the Puritans kept coming to Democracy even within their heiarchy. Though they came slowly, and albeit reluctantly, they still came to democracy through a combination of necessity and forward thinking. There was really no strict caste system as you imply in your introduction, it was a constantly changing system of social standing that could not be compared to the Indian Caste system which was rigid to say the least. And you point out yourself the the Puritans were content(generally) to be ruled by the government that they lived under. Well this shows further that the Puritans did not want or have strong democracy. If one were to live in a society where social status was not only tolerated but, to an extent, embraced, one would have little need for a democratic system of government. As proof of their democractic system you site the reelection of Winthorp. You have, unfortuneately ** in my opinion **, taken this event out of context. Winthorp is not a good example of reelection within the Puritan colony. A similar situation would be the reelection of Washington as president. Who among Americans could have really opposed him? Likewise, who could have challanged the colony's original and substantially successful leader? I must concede though, that elections at all show democratic thinking. And this democratic thinking leads me back to the point that while the Puritans did show signs of an emerging democracy, on the whole, they were not quite there. Foster argues that the Puritans still embraced some old European values and also attempted to combine their own versions of democracy. Not as you imply that the Puritans were a largely undemocratic people.

=
I like the challenge but at times it seems more you are wrong and I am right rather than while I understand and respect your viewpoint, I see things differently =====

AVG - This is not my second post; I am just clarifiying and supporting my first one. Foster essentially argues that Puritan society only went halfway to democracy. I argue that, although it was not full democracy, it was closer to our society than Foster presents it.

First, I would argue that democracy is primarily a system of government in which citizens choose their leaders. Thus, the very act of migrating to New England was democratic because it represented a choice of government: the Puritans chose a Puritan government over an Anglican one.

Second, I would argue that although Winthrop was highly confident in his reelection, his willingness to run for reelection demonstrated his support for democracy. Napoleon Bonaparte, who is often celebrated as an Enlightened leader, held a plebecite to become emperor but did not run for subsequent elections despite overwhelming French support for his rule. However, this can (and did) lead to corruption because the leader has no incentive to continue to please the people. Thus, Winthrop's willingness to consent to annual elections makes him (at least in this respect) a progressive ruler ahead of his time. In my opinion, the comparison to Washington strengthens this argument because Washington can be considered the epitome of democratic leadership.

I do concede that my original post was too harsh on Foster, and I thank CCR for bringing my attention to this. There is a continuum of possible types of government ranging from tyranny to full democracy. The intent of my argument is to prove that Foster placed the Puritans near the middle of this continuum, but I think their society more closely resembled democracy.

Good comeback
ADB (Week 2) - Today, Puritans are remembered as a very strict Christian sect who condemned hundreds as “witches” in 17th century colonial America at Salem; however, that assessment, while being correct, does not come close to capturing the complete history and unique legacy of colonial American Puritanism. “Puritans” were in fact English Separatists who found much wrong with Charles I’s Church of England, seeing it as too “popish”. They saw the American colonies as the only place they could go to escape Charles’ restrictions (having already disbanded the largely Puritan Parliament, also known as the “Eleven Years Tyranny”), as well as conflicts with England’s Church; there they could make a new life for themselves however they wanted. Ergo, under John Winthrop and other Puritan leaders, in what was known as the “Great Migration”, a vast number of Puritans set sail for the colonies in 1630. It should be noted, however, that Puritans had already started moving to America beforehand, most notably the Pilgrims who ventured to Plymouth and founded a colony there in 1620. Colonial Puritans were unique in that, though they were English Separatists, their migration did not eradicate English institutions entirely. Instead, they utilized the societal traditions that suited their purposes. By trying to escape English societal context, they created one of their own, a mixture of their desires as a religious sect and what had been ingrained into their everyday lives in England. Puritan values included such things as sacrificing one’s will for the well-being of the whole, unity, subordination, and authority. These ideals have root in English society: social class was embedded into England’s being, as well as the Puritans’. Inequality among the Separatists was assumed and generally accepted in the colonies; however, it should be mentioned that this class hierarchy did not match its English counterpart: there were neither nobles nor many poor-class persons. Despite this, the Puritans stayed united: their religious zeal and strive to uphold holiness saw to that. To be holy, a man must be content with his place in society, as well as the responsibilities and rights which accompanied that. Holiness also reminded men of their continual inequality; their participation in voting and other political matters as pertained to their place in society exemplified their devotion to the Lord’s will and the small group of laymen and clergymen who facilitated it. These examples show that the 17th century Puritans, who can paradoxically be called United Separatists, did not totally succeed in separating themselves from English society and social hierarchy. They utilized some of the same English societal structures they had just left behind, though legitimizing them through the lens of religion. It almost appears as though the colonial Puritans separated from England not only to practice their faith without persecution or interference, but also so that they could develop a new, separated social structure within a Puritanical Protestant culture, seeing that England at the time was unable to be “purified” (from which comes the name “Puritan). It seems strange somewhat that Puritan unity had its roots in inequality, though to them it was not so much an individual choice as it was an adherence to God’s ultimate plan for their lives. The same idea existed behind their right to vote; freedom in the Puritan viewpoint was one’s voluntary acknowledgment of God’s plan of respect and authority, as opposed to a conscious and independent aspiration. This fact demonstrates the Puritans’ unified state of being, as well as their separation from England. Puritans believed the Church of England needed purification, and that Protestantism was the //true// Christian religion. England was discriminating against them, and was therefore “impure” (that is, they were going against God’s ordained plan). Ergo, their separation with England matched the Lord’s design, and this fact kept them united, even if their “freedom” via theocracy may seem out of place today.

summarized not analyzed
MRL - Week 2 - Puritanism and democracy are undoudtedly intertwined, but the notion that American Puritans practiced democracy is not entirely corrcect. It is correct in the sense that Puritan society did have a political system where leaders were elected, but it is wrong to assume that Puritan democracy was the same as modern day American democracy. The very concept of elections indicated the birth of democratic society in America, but it was the underlying culture and religous beliefs of Puritanism that made the society less democratic than it appeared to be. Thus, it can be speculated that Puritans did indeed set a democratic precedent in America, and although at the time it wasn't fully democratic, as time went on and Puritanism began to fade and the political precedents remained in place and the concept of representational democracy continues to live on today. An example of the precedent setting Puritan democracy is most clearly demonstrated by the elections of Church officials, political leaders, and officers in early Puritan colonies. A prominent example used within Stephen Foster's article is John Winthrop, a Puritan who was elected governor in the New World. The fact that Winthrop was elected indicates the democratic principles of the Puritan society, but the reasons he was elected were not democratic because he was chosen due to his social standing within Puritan society and because it simply seemed like it was what God would want. This is significant because even if Winthrop was elected for ulterior reasons compared to today's elections, the very concept of an election by the public had far reaching implications. Such consequences of early democratic precedents set by the Puritans undoubtedly contributed to modern day democracy in the United States, although today's elections are usually based around other things than religious doctrine and social ranking. Although Puritan society was wrought with inequality and tainted with what modern day society would refer to as religious fanaticism, its use of democratic principles has survived as one of the most successful political concepts in the world, advocating freedom over oppression. Even though Puritanism eventually declined, democracy has remained in place to this day in a much refined form, yet the basic concept of representative government by the people has been constant throughout thehistory of the United States of America. summarized not analyzed -- analyzation is not about correct/incorrect or right/wrong -- go back and review your SA command words sheet