Uniquely New England

One of the joys of writing historical novels is doing the research. In fact, it can be so engaging that it hinders the actual writing of the novel. Lately I’ve been investigating the Great Migration, the massive influx of (mostly) Puritans into Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1630’s. Some of my ancestors were among these people, so the research fascinates me on several levels.

One thing that especially intrigues me is the commitment that Massachusetts Bay Colony had to building and supporting community. Migrants came to New England not only to acquire land but also to live in towns. These towns were organized by religious congregations. Every town in the colony had to first “gather” a church, so there was no town without a church. Nor was there any church without a town. The town, like the church, consisted of a group of people covenanting together.

Settlers weren’t allowed to simply fan out over the countryside and pick any site that looked promising. They had to be granted that land by the governing body of the colony, called the General Court. With the importance of community firmly in mind, the colony required New Englanders to settle in towns. Land was granted not to individuals but to a group of “proprietors,” who agreed to take on certain responsibilities in exchange for the privilege of dividing up the land in specified “allotments.”

Before anyone was allowed to settle in a town, the land had to be surveyed and roads laid out. This was the responsibility of the proprietors who, as a group, received the land grant. This land only became profitable when people settled there. Land was essentially worthless unless it was “productive,” in other words, cleared and farmed, which was labor-intensive work. So the proprietor’s next task was to attract new settlers to the town.

Once people arrived and agreed on the town and church covenants, the proprietors divided up the land, balancing the needs of individual freeholders with the needs of the community. They had to make sure that every family had sufficient land to sustain them so they wouldn’t become an economic burden for the town. In most towns the proprietors held much of the land in reserve for allocation to future generations.

This system effectively limited the number of settlers in each town. Proprietors established criteria for town admission, usually requiring settlers to be pious, God-fearing Christians. After the initial allocation, more settlers were allowed as needed, but they rarely stayed in that town because the latecomers weren’t entitled to any say in the future division of land.

So there was economic incentive for the latecomers to move on and become proprietors of new towns, where they could control land distribution. This meant that many families moved around a few times before permanently settling in a town. Typically, colonists would arrive in summer, spend a few weeks in the town where their ship had landed, and sought admission into a nearby town before winter. But they often didn’t stay there for long, preferring to find a place where they could become proprietors in a new town, where they would have a say not only in land allocation but in the selection of the town’s minister and selectmen.

The Puritan family I’m writing about in my novel followed this pattern. John White and his family landed in Salem and lived there for a few years before he became a proprietor in the new town of Wenham. After several prosperous years there, he moved his family yet again to the “frontier” town of Lancaster, where, as a proprietor and because of his status and wealth, he became the largest landholder in town.

In each place, he and his family were integrated into the community, supporting and supported by neighbors and friends who lived nearby. They worshipped together, met together in town meetings, and shared the particular challenges and blessings of each place. The colony’s ideological commitment to community was realized in nearly 70 towns before King Philip’s War.

The archetypal image of the picturesque New England town, where church-going neighbors help each other and work out their differences in town meetings has its roots in a history that stretches back to the Puritans. While it’s a nostalgic and for the most part outdated image, there are still daily reminders of that tradition. No one has to request the blessing of town proprietors before moving here, but the church on the common still rings out each hour for everyone to hear, the fire siren still shrieks when a neighbor’s house goes up in flames, and we spend hours at town meetings debating how to use town land. Whether we realize it or not, we’re still trying to balance our individual needs and desires with the welfare of the community in which we live.

City on a Hill

Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting from John Winthrop’s seventeenth century lecture, “A Model of Christian Charity,” in which Winthrop called on the Massachusetts Bay Colony to be “as a city on a hill.” and reminded his fellow Puritans that “the eyes of all people are upon us.” But the popular symbol of America as a shining beacon of freedom for the world is a long way from Winthrop’s original concept. The city he envisioned was one in which community – not freedom – was the dominant theme.

“We must delight in each other,” Winthrop said, “make other’s conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together.” The city on a hill was one in which people put the common good before their own desires and ambitions, “that every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection.” They were more concerned with their dependence on each other than with independence from any authority. (Yes, even including the Church of England.)

The Puritans who came to these shores in the 1630s believed they were bound in a covenant with God. If they failed to keep their end of the bargain, they should expect to be punished – not individually but as a community. “If we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken,” said Winthrop, “we shall be made a story and byword through the world.” In other words, they would be a public humiliation, a scourge upon the earth. The city on a hill metaphor was intended as a warning as much as a promise. Keeping that covenant put the Puritans under specific obligations.

It required them to be charitable to each other. “There is a time when a Christian must sell all and give to the poor,” Winthrop insisted. “There is a time also when Christians (though they give not all yet) must give beyond their ability.” They were to let no one go hungry or without shelter. They had a duty to visit the sick, and to comfort those whose loved ones had died. They were supposed to watch out for each other. “Mutual watch,” they called it, and they took it very seriously.

If “mutual watch” sounds comforting, we should remember that it has a dark side. It’s the uncomfortable part of living in community. It means that if you beat your wife, you should expect to be reported to the authorities. Your absence from worship will be noticed and if you miss enough services, you will be reprimanded. If you get drunk and insult your neighbor, you’ll have to apologize for it - in public.

Anyone who’s lived in a small town has experienced this to some extent. If you grew up in a town under 2,000 people, chances are you haven’t ever quite lost that sense that everyone knows your business. And you know everyone else’s. You learn that everything you do and say will likely be recorded in someone’s memory and played back to someone else. You learn to mind what you say and what you do. You learn to take care of your reputation, because once you lose it, you can’t get it back.

The “mutual watch” was a duty, and it went way beyond sharing information. It required doing whatever was necessary to relieve the suffering of others in the community. Winthrop spoke of a “double law” that regulated all their relationships: “This law requires two things,” he said. “First, that every man afford his help to another in every want or distress. Secondly, that he perform this out of the same affection which makes him careful of his own goods.”

This understanding of each person’s responsibility for the well-being of everyone else was integral to life in the “city on the hill." Not exactly what Ronald Reagan had in mind.

In fact, the Puritans were as wary of personal freedom as we are entranced by it. Their commitment was to community. They understood its costs and its perils. They knew that community wasn’t easily accomplished; it was a difficult and often frustrating undertaking.

They also knew that freedom, unharnessed to a self-reflective humility, was a dangerous thing. It had the potential to loose the demons of greed and corruption, to elevate self-righteousness, and ultimately to destroy community itself.

America has come a long way from the Puritan dream. Few of us would want to go back to it, even if we could. But have we perhaps forgotten something life-affirming and necessary in our national journey? Does personal freedom, when taken to an extreme, have a way of isolating us? Even in crowds, we often find ourselves alone as we listen privately to music on our mp3 players or carry on cell phone conversations as we walk down the street. We often feel anonymous, just numbers on a social security or credit card. We receive phone calls from robots. We spend hours sitting alone in our cars, commuting to work and driving to shopping malls. We try to fill our need for community with characters from television shows or by joining special interest groups, or instant messaging. Yet we still feel oddly unconnected, and so we chase our dreams across the globe, but they’re never quite within our grasp.

Community makes demands on us. It is hard work – life-changing, world-changing, hard work. It intrudes on our personal space and requires us to relinquish some of our own freedom for the good of all. But it is through these sacrifices that we become part of something greater than ourselves. “Love,” claims Winthrop, “is the bond of perfection.” In this bond people “partake of each other’s strength and infirmity, joy and sorrow, weal and woe.” This is the city on a hill that Winthrop envisioned: true community, a beacon not of freedom, but of love.