AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT

Keith E. Whittington

Supplementary Material

Chapter 2: The Colonial Era – Democracy and Liberty

John Winthrop, “A Defense of an Order of Court” (1637)[1]

A founder of the Massachusetts Bay colony, John Winthrop served as its first governor and was repeatedly reelected to that office until his death in 1649. In 1636, the Puritan colony was roiled by religious controversy. When a group of dissenters led by Anne Hutchinson argued that there could be no reliable external sign that someone was saved, the Puritans commitment to the belief that only the saved could be members in good standing was thrown into question. The leaders of the colony were concerned that the dissenters (the “Antinomians”) would be able to draw new settlers to their side and overwhelm the original colonists. To block that possibility, the General Court (the legislative assembly for the colony) barred the admission of any new colonists who were not approved by the magistrates. Winthrop issued a statement justifying this order of the Court, arguing that a society created by consent required not only the voluntary action of each individual entering the society but also the assent of the members of the society being joined. A community could rightfully exclude those who would undermine its general welfare.

In 1637, Anne Hutchinson was banished from the colony. She eventually settled in Dutch territory in present-day New York. Five years later, she and her family were killed in a raid by a local Native American tribe.

For clearing of such scruples as have arisen about this order, it is to be considered, first, what is the essential form of a common weal or body politics such as this is . . . The consent of a certain company of people, to cohabitate together, under one government for their mutual safety and welfare.

In this description all these things do concur to the wellbeing of such a body, 1. Persons, 2. Place, 3. Content, 4. Government or Order, 5 Welfare.

It is clearly agreed, by all, that the care and safety and welfare was the original cause or occasion of common weals and of many families subjecting themselves to rulers and laws; for no man has lawful power over another, but by birth or content, so likewise, by the law of property, no man can have just interest in that which belong to another, without his consent.

From the premise will arise these conclusions.

  1. No common weal can be founded but by free consent.
  2. The persons so incorporating have a public and relative interest each in other, and in the place of their cohabitation and goods, and laws, etc. and in all the means of their welfare so as none other can claim privilege with them but by free consent.
  3. The nature of such an incorporation ties every member thereof to seek out and entertain all means that may conduce to the welfare of the body, and to keep off whatever does appear to tend to their damage.
  4. The welfare of the whole is [not] to be put to apparent hazard for the advantage of any particular members.

From these conclusions I thus reason.

  1. If we here be a corporation established by free consent, if the place of our cohabitation be our own, then no man has right to come into us etc. without our consent.
  2. If no man has right to our lands, our government privileges, etc. but by our consent, then it is reason we should take notice of before we confer any such upon them.
  3. If we are bound to keep off whatever appears to tend to our ruin or damage, then may we lawfully refuse to receive such whose dispositions suit not with ours and whose society (we know) will be hurtful to us, and therefore it is lawful to take knowledge of all men before we receive them.
  4. The churches take liberty (as lawfully they may) to receive or reject at their discretion; yea particular towns make orders to the like effect. Why then should the common weal be denied the like liberty and the whole more restrained than any part?
  5. If it be sin in us to deny some men place, etc. among us, then it is because of some right they have to this place, etc. for to deny a man that which he has no right unto is neither sin nor injury.

. . . .

  1. A family is a little commonwealth, and a commonwealth is a great family. Now as a family is not bound to entertain all comers, no not every good man . . . no more is a commonwealth.

. . . .

  1. The rule of the Apostle, John 2.10, is, that such as come and bring not the true doctrine with them should not be received to house, and by the same reason not into the common weal.
  2. Seeing it must be granted that there may come such persons (suppose Jesuits, etc.) which by consent of all ought to be rejected, it will follow that this law . . . is no other but just and needful, and if any should be rejected that ought to be received, that is not to be imputed to the law, but to those who are betrusted with the execution of it. . . . [I]f such to whom the keeping of this law is committed, be persuaded in their judgments that such a man is likely to disturb and hinder the public weal, but some others who are not in the same trust, judge otherwise, yet they are to follow their own judgments, rather than the judgments of others who are not alike interested: As in a trial of an offender by a jury; the twelve men are satisfied in their consciences, upon the evidence given, that the party deserves death: but there are 20 or 40 standers by, who conceive otherwise, yet is the jury bound to condemn him according to their own consciences, and not to acquit him upon the different opinion of other men . . . .

. . . .

[1] Excerpt taken from Thomas Hutchinson, ed., A Collection of Original Papers Relative to the History of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay (Boston: Thomas and John Fleet, 1769).