Freemanship in Puritan Massachusetts
1954; Oxford University Press; Volume: 59; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2307/1845121
ISSN1937-5239
Autores Tópico(s)Literature: history, themes, analysis
ResumoARISTOCRACY, oligarchy, theocracy-these are the terms modern writers generally choose to characterize Puritan government in early Massachusetts. It was an undemocratic society, they tell us, from the beginning in I629 until the arbitrary Governor Andros took over in i686. The colony was divided into political classes-the minority who could vote ruled the majority who could not. The minority, the freemen, were those who, since they belonged to the established Puritan church, were eligible to take the oath of freedom and were thus permitted to enjoy all political privileges in the Commonwealth. The freemen, they say, comprised only about one fifth of the adult male population and were in general the most substantial citizens. They were hostile to every democratic tendency, so the story goes, and were jealous of their social position in the class-conscious society of the early Bay Colony.' When we examine these secondary accounts more closely, we find many fundamental inconsistencies and contradictions, both between authorities and within individual interpretations. Such inconsistencies and contradictions cast a strong shadow of doubt on the accuracy of the accepted story. For example, historians disagree on the extent of democracy in one basic part of the political structure-the town meeting. V. L. Parrington declares that Puritan town meetings were not democratic,2 while J. D. Hicks believes the local government was democratic from the very beginning.3 C. M. Andrews does not agree with either of these writers. Although a small body of freemen controlled all political affairs until I648, he says, after that time every man who had taken the oath of fidelity and was twenty-four years old could
Referência(s)