the humility of john winthrop
John Winthrop is having a hard time these days. As we have become aware of the roots of slavery and profound injustice against Native people in our past, the first governor of Massachusetts and his puritan peers have been subject to intense scrutiny for their acceptance of slavery and for conflicts such as their devastating war against the Pequots. There is much to condemn in their record on these matters. But that is not the whole picture.
As someone who has thought about and written about the John Winthrop for over half a century, I have done so while bearing in mind the instructions that Winthrop's contemporary, the puritan leader of England Oliver Cromwell, is said to have given to the man preparing to paint his official portrait. Paint it, Cromwell said, "warts and all." Following this advice, today we should acknowledge the imperfections of our subjects but avoid focusing only on the warts, something too common in some revisionist accounts. To properly assess the men and movements of the past it is important to place their failures in the context of their times.
Winthrop and the men and women who joined with him in the shaping of New England made major contributions to the world in which we now live. Having established their religious congregations by mutual covenant, clergy were elected by members of those congregations. Puritans then expanded this participatory democracy in their churches to their political life. Local communities were therefore governed by town meetings, open to all and with elected delegates; and all elected officials, both for towns and colony-wide, were elected annually. This system stood in absolute contrast to that in England, or indeed other British colonies, which were ruled by appointees of the king or colonial proprietors.
Oliver Cromwell: paint my portrait “warts and all” - and the artist did. Courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, London, NPG 514
New England puritans also insisted on a literate populace, for women as well as men. They passed legislation making education mandatory and created North America’s first public schools. They instituted a legal system of citizen jurists, rejecting the traditional system in which decisions were handed down by appointed judges based on their understanding of precedents. They published laws so that everyone, from the highest to the lowest in society, could read them and know their rights. Even today, the 1641 Body of Liberties, the first bill of rights in British North America, stands as an important statement of individual liberties.
Above all, for the puritans, individuals should work for the common good. Winthrop insisted that the colonists should exercise charity in their dealings with one another - to "bear one another's burdens" and "make each others conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together.” He personally demonstrated this belief in sharing his provisions during the harsh first year of the colony.
"Town meetings were open, and officials elected - in contrast to england and other british colonies”
These noble goals of community were not always reached. Tolerance of diversity was limited. Quakers were persecuted, four of them executed; slavery was legalized. Attitudes towards race and the policies that stemmed from those attitudes may have been typical of their time but were contrary to our commitment to equality. These were among the warts that blemished puritan society. But there’s more to say, not least in today’s political climate.
“We should make each others conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together” - the message in John Winthrop’s sermon, delivered before departure on the Arbella to New England, paints a picture of the society which he hoped to build. Courtesy of the New York Historical Society
Humility is pretty far down the list of attributes most Americans associate with the puritans, but it was an important aspect of John Winthrop's life and beliefs. His humility and his belief in the structures of governance meant that in controversies which did not threaten the survival of his colony he gave way to those who opposed him with grace. Though one of the leading governing figures throughout the 1630s and 1640s, he did not believe that his service made him immune from criticism or even prosecution. As a scholar of Winthrop and trans-Atlantic puritanism I am struck by how sharply his behavior contrasts with that of modern political leaders.
This political integrity had many origins, some religious, some rooted in the East Anglian English community in which he was raised. He was a puritan, but that is a term that covers many possibilities. There were 17th century puritans who were totally convinced of their rectitude and the legitimacy of their beliefs, which made them self-righteous and intolerant. Thomas Dudley, one of Winthrop's fellow magistrates, was one of these, referred to by his daughter, the poet Anne Bradstreet, as being "to sectaries, a whip and maul." But there were others who were open to what the puritan clergyman John Robinson called "further light."
John Winthrop was one of these. Like Oliver Cromwell, he was aware of his warts. In his spiritual diary he acknowledged his sins and his failure to live up to the Christian ideal. In his "Christian Charity" sermon he asserted that there was further truth that God would reveal to the colonists if they adhered to his will, and that as a "City upon a Hill" they would be scorned by all if they failed to live up to the standards of charity and community that were expected of them.
“he acknowledged his defeat and relinquished his position - a stark contrast to some of today’s political figures”
Winthrop's humility led to occasions when he took steps that set examples for other leaders of the colony, examples that are stark contrast to some of today's political figures. After serving as governor of Massachusetts for five one-year terms, he was not chosen to the office in 1634. Bowing to the wishes of the people, he readily acknowledged his defeat and relinquished the position to Thomas Dudley. Over the next decade he would be elected as governor on eight other occasions and twice face defeat. Each time he was passed over he repeated his acceptance of the voters' will.
In May 1645 Thomas Dudley was again governor and Winthrop deputy-governor. Citizens from the town of Hingham brought charges against Winthrop, asserting that as a magistrate he had acted in an arbitrary and unjust manner in intervening in a dispute over the election of the town's militia captain. Faced with this, Winthrop stepped down from his office to defend himself before the General Court, accepting that leaders were liable to prosecution. He did not seek to claim any form of official immunity from such charges. He defended himself successfully and then, having been acquited, resumed his official post.
Throughout his career Winthrop accepted the fact that he was imperfect. While he did not always agree with criticism from fellow magistrates such as Dudley, or from the colony's clergy, he was open to hearing it. He believed that the future would bring further light and he would not be surprised that today's students of the seventeenth century would find things to criticize in his beliefs and actions. Those who remind us of his warts are right to do so. But at a time when humility is distinctly lacking in political figures, we would do well to recall the respect in which elections and governance were held by our forebears four centuries ago.
Francis J. Bremer is professor emeritus of history at Millersville University. Among his many books is John Winthrop: America's Forgotten Founding Father (Oxford, 2003). He has served as editor of the Winthrop Papers for the Massachusetts Historical Society.