Cobbs-Hoffman Elizabeth, Blum Edward J., Gjerde Jon. Major Problems in American History, Volume I, 3 edition (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
“The Cries and Intreaties of the Mother begging her Child to be put to Death,”
wrote the shaken master, “the dreadfull shreiks of the Boy, and his more than
pretty Behaviour in his taking leave of all around him, has rung such a Peal in
my Ears, that I never can forget.” Late-eighteenth-century masters seemed much
more respectful of slave family ties than their predecessors. Gangs were often sold
“in families” rather than individually, and many a prospective purchaser stated a
preference for family units. When a South Carolina slave patron became “dissat-
isfied and desirous of being sold,” his master was quick to assure prospective
buyers that the man’s wife has also to be sold “for a principle of humanity
alone,” because “they were very unwilling to be separated.”…
Enlightened patriarchalism had limits. Where it collided with self-interest
and commercial advantage, the slave invariably lost. According to one early-
nineteenth-century observer, Georgia slaves were “considered nothing more
than perishable property, and interest not principle clothes and feeds them.”
Similarly, in the early nineteenth century, a South Carolina master was willing
to speak cynically of the conflict between his slaves’ desire for freedom and his
property rights. He described the motivations of his runaways and his own re-
sponse in this way: “Liberty is sweet and in that they are right—property is com-
fortable and if I can stop them, I will also be right.”
A sense of the flexibility and ultimate rigidity of enlightened patriarchalism is
unwittingly captured in the self-justifying remarks of a loyalist slaveholder. “In
this land of Nominal freedom and actual Slavery,” he had been able, he admit-
ted, to “justify the keeping my fellow beings in bondage” by alleviating the “too
common weight of the[ir] chains.” He explained that he “scarce used the rod
except for theft and other crimes” and, for his slaves’“encouragement,” provided
ample supplies of corn, meat two or three times a week, and a regular and ade-
quate clothing allowance. Not that his “slaves are used better than any others,” he
acknowledged, for “some Masters I know, and I hope there are many, treat
theirs with the utmost humanity.” At the same time, however, he was proud
of how he had secured his slaves’ respect. “By selling a few, who proved ob-
stinately bad,” he had “brought the others to consider their being sold” as the
“greatest punishment I can inflict.” He had found that the “greatest incitement
to their duty” lay in their “hopes of living and dying on my property without
being separated from their families, connexions, and friends.” It hardly became
this generous-spirited master—and, presumably, by the lights of eighteenth-
century Anglo-American masterdom, he was exactly that—to rail at the possibility
that his slaves might be confiscated and be “subject to the most humiliating cir-
cumstance of human nature—that of being sold like the Brutes that perish.”
As this master implies, humane treatment did not have to conflict with eco-
nomic benefit, nor did modes of control have to be crudely coercive. Masters
employed a variety of positive incentives to achieve their aims. In fact, compas-
sion could maximum profits and enhance the masters’ investment in their slaves.
The threat of sale was perhaps even more effective than the whip in keeping
slaves in line. When the duc de La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt visited the Low-
country in the late eighteenth century, he encountered planters willing to laud
the advantages of their new approach. One “excellent master to his negroes”
THE SOUTHERN COLONIES IN BRITISH AMERICA 63
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
claimed, “against the opinion of many others, that the plantations of mild and
indulgent masters thrive most, and that the negroes are more faithful and labori-
ous” than those who belonged to severe masters.
Paradoxically, masters felt that they could show more indulgence toward
their slaves as they increasingly placed them outside civil society. As North
Americans affirmed the absolute value of individual liberty, the only effective
way to justify slavery was to exclude its victim from the community of man.
When all free inhabitants were seen as enjoying certain unalienable rights, slaves
had to be defined as lacking all rights. Moreover, as liberty was predicated on the
acquisition and maintenance of private property, so slaveowners’ rights to their
slaves became inviolable. Slaves enhanced the independence of their owners.
Arbitrarily deprive someone of his or her possessions, and that person become a
slave. Whereas the partriarchal ethos held that even the lowliest person was part
of an organic society, the denial of rights to slaves and the conception of private
property as a basic natural right placed slaves outside society altogether. Ironi-
cally, as slavery became more firmly entrenched, masters could show more
benevolence toward their dependents.
In thoroughgoing patriarchal households, the subjection of slaves was abso-
lute and unquestioned. The master was first cause, prime mover, almost a demi-
god. Restraint, order, and authority were constant watchwords. Gradually,
however, new values infiltrated his patriarchal citadel. Masters began to view
themselves less as harsh taskmasters grandly presiding over their estates and
more as benefactors providing for their dependents. They preferred to see their
relationship with their slaves grounded less in the tradition of divine right than in
voluntary, consensual terms. Austere, rigid patriarichalism gave way to warm,
mellow paternalism. By the early nineteenth century, William Moultrie reflected
on the changes that had occurred. “I am very much pleased to see the treatment
of the slaves in the country is altered so much,” he observed, particularly noting
the “tenderness and humanity” now extended to slaves. Slavery would soon be
viewed as a benign institution; slaves would, in George Fitzhugh’s exaggerated
words, be enveloped in “domestic affection”; before long, it would be the mas-
ter for whom pity would be invoked as “the greatest slave” of all….
Plain Folk and Slaves
In general, the distance between plain white folk and black slaves grew progres-
sively wider throughout the course of the eighteenth century. In the middle to
late seventeenth century, black slaves and the poorer sections of the white
community, particularly servants, associated closely and openly. By the turn of
the eighteenth century, however, cooperation and alliances between white ser-
vants and black slaves began to dissolve, in part because of actions taken by the
planter class, in part because servant numbers declined, and in part because the
black population became more numerous and alien. Most of these processes
remained at work well into the eighteenth century. Yet, the ruling class was never
completely successful in wooing lower-class whites to their cause; the importation
of twenty thousand convicts into the Chesapeake during the eighteenth century
64 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
meant that servant ranks were never negligible—at least in that region; and, as
the black population creolized, so it again became possible for lower-class whites
and blacks to identify with one another. The gap between lower-class whites and
blacks widened in the second half of the eighteenth century, but more slowly than
before.
The growing divide that separated lower-class whites from blacks had its
limits. However much the ruling class attempted to separate the races, plain
white folk and slaves still shared their lives in ways impermissible for a planter-
patriarch and his bondpeople. Slaves and plain white folk not only lived nearer
to one another but were more likely to work alongside one another, speak the
same dialect, have their children play together, commit crimes jointly, and run
away together. Contacts between plain white folk and slaves were also more reg-
ular and frequent in some places than others. They were more evident in the
Cheasapeake than in the Lowcountry; in both regions, they were more evident
on the periphery and in towns than in plantation heartlands. Contact between
plain white folk and slaves also fluctuated over time. Even though gap between
the two gradually widened over the eighteenth century, the Revolutionary crisis
proved that some poor whites and slaves could still cooperate….
From cradle to grave, plain white folk and black slaves lived near one
another. Thus, although a patriarch’s child might occasionally play with slaves
of the same age, such contact was almost inevitable for the children of plain
white folk. Charles Drayton became aware of such activity when his slave boy
Jack, waiting on an overseer at an outlying plantation, came to Drayton Hall
with a broken arm and dislocated shoulder, the product of his “idly riding about
the fields with the ov[erseer’s] son.” Growing up in a poor white home might
mean sharing living space with blacks, certainly living close to them, sharing
much the same diet and clothes. Death, too, might bring lowly white and slave
together, as in the scene described by a visitor to Maryland’s Eastern Shore: “Last
evening at dark the corps [of overseer Nathan Cullins] was put in a plain coffin, and
conveyed to the grave, by four negroes, and one carrying a spade and shovel—No
other person attended.” A white overseer went to his grave unrecognized, except
by the blacks with whom he labored….
Although white solidarity could never be assumed in eighteenth-century
Virginia or South Carolina, and although a surprising level of cooperation be-
tween lower-class whites and blacks persisted through the century, the trend
was in the opposite direction. Proximity of estate induced some plain white
folk to throw their lot with slaves, but more often it spurred most to put as
much distance as possible between themselves and bondpeople. The eighteenth
century was a crucible in which the deep and increasingly reciprocal contempt
felt between lower-class whites and blacks was forged. That contempt had not
emerged in fully polished form by 1800, but the essentials were in place.
The gentry helped foster lower-class contempt for slaves by aligning plain
folk on their side. At the end of the seventeenth century, gentlemen busily cre-
ated a legal framework that gave advantages to lower-class whites at the expense
of blacks. Throughout the eighteenth century, … the status of plain white folk
rose. In part, this improvement was inadvertent, a consequence of a broadly
THE SOUTHERN COLONIES IN BRITISH AMERICA 65
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
based, rising prosperity; but ruling class efforts to reduce taxes and to involve plain
folk in the political process worked to the same end. More directly relevant to their
interests as slaveholders, the gentry held out inducements to lower-class whites in
order that they might support and police their respective slave societies. The gentry
was not uniformly successful where patrolling was concerned, but the capture of
runaways seems to have been a particularly rewarding activity. Eighteenth-century
Virginia county court records list several thousand claims for the capture of run-
aways. The vast majority of claimants were individuals outside the gentry, whereas
almost two-thirds of the captured blacks belonged to members of the gentry. The
ruling class had recruited plain white folk to support its interests….
The resentments of poor whites toward slaves were spontaneously gener-
ated, not just encouraged from above. After all, many poor whites accurately per-
ceived that slaves posed a threat to their livelihoods. In the Lowcountry this
menace was most acute in Charleston, where a variety of white artisans expressed
indignation at competition from black workers. Over the course of the eigh-
teenth century, ship-wrights, chimney sweeps, house carpenters, brick-layers,
cordwainers, master coopers, and master tailors banded together in turn to com-
plain that blacks were taking their jobs. Their inability to halt this process was
hardly designed to make them look kindly on their black counterparts. In the
countryside, skilled and semi-skilled white labor increasingly felt the pressure of
black competition as native-born slaves assumed positions ranging from boatman
to blacksmith, wheelwright to wagoner. The nature of rural life, however, made
it difficult for white laborers to organize and protest. One exception was a group
of South Carolina patroons who in 1744 complained of “several Planters and
others in this Province, who did order, permit and appoint their Negro Slaves
to be constantly employed to go as Masters or Patroons of their Pettiaugers or
small vessels without my White man on board to take any charge or care of such
vessels, which hindered the Petitioners from being constantly employed there.”
If plain white folk could befriend slaves and yet just as easily persecute them
viciously, this ambivalence was not solely a white prerogative. Slaves sometimes
turned against their erstwhile allies. They might, for example, be instrumental in
the arrest of poor whites. In 1723, two York County planters claimed expenses
for the capture of a runaway white servant through the combined efforts of their
slaves. Sixteen years later, a witness in a Virginia county court case reported that
at four o’clock in the morning he had heard “an uproar without amongst the
People” and had found that his slaves had apprehended a white man who was
robbing their meat house. In 1790, two whites visited the Nomini Hall estate in
Lancaster County and asked directions of Robert Carter’s overseer. Because it
was night, the overseer was suspicious, but he let them pass. They made their
way to the granary, where Carter’s slave Solomon “got up and took his axe in
his hand, went out and called them to, and asked them to go into his House, and
warm themselves…. [T]hey accepted of his invitation—Solomon gave them
some Bread, made them a good Fire, they laid down on some boards and fell
asleep—Solomon suspecting they were the men that lately escaped from North-
umberland Jail” went to the overseer and rounded up a number of slaves sufficient
66 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
to arrest his two unsuspecting visitors. Friendly, trusting slaves were not always
what they seemed.
Slaves adopted even subtler methods to provoke hostility from plain white
folk. An overseer employed by Landon Carter complained that Carter’s waiting
man, Nassau, had “refused to bleed him.” When Carter confronted the slave,
Nassau denied the story, saying the overseer had “only asked a vomit of him
and he gave him one.” Nassau was then sent to the sick man on his “honor
not to touch a drop of Spirits” and with instructions to use both blister and
lancet if necessary. Apparently, Nassau broke his promise and got drunk; perhaps
that helps explain why the overseers died two days later. Slaves persecuted by
word as well as by action. Morgan Godwyn observed that slaves contemptuously
taunted the Irish with the claim “that if the Irishman’s country had first lighted in
the Englishman’s way, he might have gone no further to look for Negro’s.” As
Eugene Genovese has remarked, it was probably slaves who coined the term
“po’r white trash.”…
Relations between plain white folk and slaves are instructive in two impor-
tant ways. The rift that progressively opened between the two was portentous
for North America’s future. Throughout the eighteenth century, whites gradu-
ally moved toward a sense of communal solidarity and purpose through their
debasement of blacks. White unity was never fully achieved, but Chesapeake
and Lowcountry slave societies moved steadily to a position where, functionally,
they rested on a rationale of racial superiority. At the same time, lower-class
whites had an ameliorative effect on the character of the two emerging slave
systems. Where a large group of plain folk existed, as preeminently in Virginia,
but to a lesser degree also in South Carolina, masters courted their support and
generally received their recognition. The master class thus gained in legitimacy
and respect, and the society as a whole could afford to have pretensions to cul-
ture and civilization. By contrast, the absence of a substantial class of nonslave-
holding whites, as in many slave societies of the Caribbean and Dutch East
Indies, helps explain why slavery in these places became so brutal and degrading
to slaves and masters. Lower-class whites played a vital role in determining the
nature of any slave society.
Encounters between whites and blacks in the eighteenth-century South
were never simple or straightforward. As much as masters treated slaves as chat-
tels, they were unable to ignore their inescapable humanity. As much as they
devised barbarous laws to hamstring their slaves, they also sought ways to miti-
gate the impact of legislation. As much as they subjected slaves to personal dom-
ination, they also offered them personal protection. As much as they inflicted
unspeakable cruelties on slaves, they also established warm and caring relation-
ships with them. As much as they viewed slaves as animals, they never doubted
slaves’ desire for liberty and capacity to rebel. As much as they spoke the lan-
guage of commercial capitalism, they also talked of reciprocal obligations and
mutuality. As much as plain white folk and slaves became implacable foes, they
also continued to share much and to cooperate. White-black relations in the
eighteenth century were riven with ambiguities.
THE SOUTHERN COLONIES IN BRITISH AMERICA 67
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
These paired polarities were not immutable. For most of the eighteenth cen-
tury, control and discipline were the masters’ watchwords. To be sure, masters
acknowledged their obligations to provide and protect, but they were also quick
to judge and punish. They were often brutal, whipping and dismembering their
slaves almost at will. Yet, at least these severe taskmasters viewed slaves as integral
parts of society, as members of their households. But new ways of thinking grad-
ually emerged. By the late eighteenth century, masters began to augment their
threats with appeals, temper their severity with solicitude, expect not just obedi-
ence but gratitude, and manumit not just for faithful service but out of respect
and regard for their slaves. At the same time, masters who saw themselves less
as taskmasters than as benefactors increasingly viewed slaves, not as organic
members of society, but as outside civil society altogether. Just as the masters’
worldview became more exclusive, so the everyday world of whites and blacks
became more fissured. The distance between plain white folk and black slaves, for
example, grew wider through the eighteenth century.
FURTHER READING
Ira Berlin, Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America
(1998).
Trevor Burnard, Mastery, Tyranny, and Desire: Thomas Thistlewood and His Slaves in the
Anglo-Jamacian World (2004).
Kirsten Fischer, Suspect Relations: Sex, Race, and Resistance in Colonial New England (2002).
David Galenson, White Servitude in Colonial America (1981).
Alison Games, Migration and the Origins of the English Atlantic World (1999).
Rhys Isaac, London Carter’s Uneasy Kingdom: Revolution and Rebellion on a Virginia Planta-
tion (2004).
Rhys Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740–1790 (1982).
Winthrop D. Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro (1986).
Allan Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake,
1680–1800 (1986).
Daniel C. Littlefield, Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade in Colonial South Carolina
(1981).
Sidney Mintz, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History (1985).
Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia
(1975).
Anthony S. Parent, Jr., Foul Means: The Formation of a Slave Society in Virginia, 1660–1740
(2003).
Peter H. Wood, Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South Carolina from 1670 Through the
Stono Rebellion (1974).
68 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
CHAPTER 3
Colonial New England
and the Middle Colonies
in British America
In September of 1620, some one hundred English people boarded the Mayflower and set
sail for Virginia. Most of those aboard ship were dissenters from the Church of England
who called themselves Pilgrims. After nine long weeks at sea, battling sickness and Atlantic
storms, they lay anchor near Cape Cod, hundreds of miles away from their intended
destination. Shortly thereafter, they met Squanto, described in Chapter 1. A few years
after the Mayflower’s arrival, another wave of English settlers, known as Puritans, arrived
in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, small colonies of Dutch and Swedish settlers, who were
particularly interested in trading with the Indians, gained toeholds to the south. Although
England eventually seized both New Netherlands and New Sweden, the ethnic diversity
brought by these early colonization efforts would endure. In 1681, King Charles II
granted William Penn a huge tract of land, which became known as Pennsylvania, or
“Penn’s woods.” Pennsylvania too would become a site of religious and ethnic diversity.
From these modest beginnings, the colonial regions of New England (the colonies of
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire) and the Middle Colonies
(New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey) would grow to power and influence.
From very early on, colonial New England and the Middle Colonies had several
prominent features. First, religious belief deeply colored the aspirations and daily life of
many colonists. Ironically, the Puritans’ quest to create “holy communities” in Massachusetts
led to religious conflict and encouraged some to flee westward and form their own colonies in
Rhode Island and Connecticut. A variety of religious groups made use of Penn’s promise
of religious tolerance in the Middle Colonies and created additional communities into the
eighteenth century. In the mid-eighteenth century, many colonists would be stirred to reli-
gious rebirth by a movement known as the Great Awakening. Second, ethnic diversity
characterized the Middle Colonies, and this did not diminish over time; if anything, it
increased. In the eighteenth century, immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, and Germany
69
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
joined English colonists in settling the rich farmland of Pennsylvania. As the century
progressed, they participated in a westward migration that brought them into contact—
and often into conflict—with Indians. A third characteristic was an interest in trade; even
though the Dutch traders were conquered by the British, their economic aspirations for a
trading empire endured. By the eighteenth century, merchants from the Middle Colonies
and New England dominated colonial trade. Fleets of ships, owned and operated by
American colonists, plied their trade throughout the Atlantic world.
The endurance of these features led the economies of New England and the Middle
Colonies to develop in ways that differed from those of the southern colonies. Slavery
existed in all the British American colonies, but plantation agriculture never took root in
the soils of the North. Rather, people in these colonies either farmed or joined a growing
mercantile and artisanal class that provided services or made goods for the whole colonial
economy. These activities changed the society and culture of the northern colonies as well
as their economy. Religious goals tended to give way to economic ones; as some historians
have pointed out, “puritans” became “yankees.” Americans also began to focus on the
economic opportunity that their society offered to Europe’s poor. More than one American
observed that their colony was “the best poor man’s country” in the world.
QUESTIONS TO THINK ABOUT
Historians have been fascinated by the transformation of religious colonies into
secular societies. What psychological anxieties might have resulted from this tran-
sition? In what ways might these anxieties have been manifested in society? How
did the population of the northern colonies differ from that of the South in
terms of occupation and ethnic background? How did this contribute to a colo-
nial world different from that of the plantation South?
DOCUMENTS
These documents show the interplay of religious and economic forces in colonial
society. The first documents illustrate the early hopes of and tensions within
creating a colonial society in the first century of settlement, whereas the final
documents display the growing importance of material acquisition and difficulties
of everyday life. Whereas the Pilgrims wrote a contract called the Mayflower
Compact in 1620, Puritan leaders also put down their beliefs about the proper
organization of their society, as evidenced in document 1. Written by Governor
John Winthrop in 1630, A Model of Christian Charity asks the people to work
together to create a godly society. Unfortunately, the hopes of fostering such a
society were often challenged. Document 2 is a poem written in 1656 by Anne
Bradstreet, one of the original Puritan settlers. In it she discusses her feelings for
her children and their activities. We see within it the mobility and instability of
colonial society. Document 3 describes both the conflict between Indians and
New England whites and the aspirations to set this conflict in religious terms.
70 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Mary Rowland son, taken captive in 1 675 during King Philip’s War, depicts her
capture and hopes to make sense of it through her faith. When Pennsylvania
was founded, William Penn wrote an account of the colony, which is docu-
ment 4, that described its attributes and, more importantly, encouraged people
to move there. Document 5 is an account of another challenge to New England
soci ety: the Salem witchc raft outb reak in 1692. In it, an unfree Indian woman
discusses the enticements of the devil and witches. In th e mid -eighteenth
century, a r eligio us rev ival known as the Grea t Awakening burst forth, again
in part as a result of tensions in society. Document 6 is a eulogy by Phillis
Wheatley, an African American slave, to revival minister George Wh itefield.
For his dramatic preaching and his numerous tours throughout the colonies,
Whitefield became the most famous man in the English colonies. He inspired
a wide variety of Americans, and Wheatley speaks to the radical direction of his
preaching. Document 7 is from a diary by a Scottish travel er named Alexander
Hami lton, who noted in 1744 that northerners were increasi ngly buying mate-
rial goods and displaying these goods in their homes. In document 8, a German
immi grant named Gottlieb Mittelberger tells how Germans coming to Amer ica
often faced a frightful journey and then had to serve terms as unfree laborers to
pay off the costs of their passage.
1. Puritan Leader John Winthrop Provides a Model
of Christian Charity, 1630
1. For the persons, we are a Company professing ourselves fellow members
of Christ.…
2. For the work we have in hand, it is by a mutual consent through a special
overruling pro vidence, and a more than an ordinary approbation o f the
Churches of Christ to seek out a place of Cohabitation and Consortship
under a due form of Government both civil and ecclesiastical .…
3. The end is to improve our lives to do more service to the Lord the comfort
and increase of the body of christ whereof we are members that ourselves
and posterity may be the better preserved from the Common corruptions
of this evil world.…
4. For the means whereby this must be effected, they are 2fold, a Confo r-
mity with the work and end we aim at, these we see are extraordinary,
therefore we must not content ourselves with usual ordinary means what-
soever we did or ought to have done wh en we lived in Engla nd, the same
must we do and more also where we go: That which the most in their
Churches maintai n as a truth in profession only, we must bring into famil-
iar and constant practice, as i n this duty of love we must love brotherly
without dissimulation, we must love o ne another with a pure heart fer-
vently we must bear one another’s burdens, we must not look only on
John Winthrop, A Model of Christian Charity (1630), in Collections, Massachusetts Historical Society, 3d ser., VII (1838),
3–48; reprinted in Winthrop Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, II (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1931),
282–295.
COLONIAL NEW ENGLAND AND THE MIDDLE COLONIES IN BRITISH AMERICA
71
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
our own things, but also on the things of our brethren, neither must we
think that the lord will bear with such failings at our hands as he doth from
those among whom we have lived.…
… [F]or we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of
all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with out god in this work
we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we
shall be made a story and a by-word through the world, we shall open the
mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of god and all professors for God’s
sake; we shall shame the faces of many of gods worthy servants, and cause their
prayers to be turned into Curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good
land whether we are going.
2. Anne Bradstreet Discusses Her Children
in the Colonies, 1656
I had eight birds hatcht in one nest,
Four Cocks were there, and Hens the rest.
I nurst them up with pain and care,
No cost nor labour did I spare
Till at the last they felt their wing,
Mounted the Trees and learned to sing.
Chief of the Brood then took his flight
To Regions far and left me quite.
My mournful chirps I after send
Till he return, or I do end….
My second bird did take her flight
And with her mate flew out of sight.
Southward they both their course did bend,
And Seasons twain they there did spend,
Till after blown by Southern gales
They Norward steer’d with filled sails….
One to the Academy flew
To chat among that learned crew.
Ambition moves still in his breast
That he might chant above the rest,
Striving for more than to do well,
Anne Bradstreet, “In Reference to Her Children,” (1656) in The Poems of Mrs. Anne Bradstreet (1612–1672) (1897),
275–279.
72 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.