Compare And Contrast Morton And William Bradford

Thomas Morton and William Bradford
The New World was not without its conflicts as evidenced in the many disputes the Puritans such as Bradford and his Separatists along with Winthrop and his Congregationalists had with other parties who were regarded as dissenters. The causes of such disputes did indeed vary but the inherent reason under all of them was thought to be the Puritan leaders’ defensive nature along with their desire to interpreting history so as to make it compatible with Calvinistic theology. This thus brings varying discrepancies in the early American literature such as those of Thomas Morton and William Bradford who describe similar events but with varying points of view thus reaching different conclusions.
Bradford’s account features many slanderous claims about Morton and his character which Bradford views as immoral. Bradford further describes him as the “Lord of Misrule” who sought to establish Atheism in his Merrymount community. Bradford’s distaste for Morton is further exhibited in his description of Morton’s Maypole celebration which he views as an abomination while Morton on
the other hand explains that it was pursuant to traditional English customs and affiliated with Anglican history and holidays.
A further discrepancy can also be highlighted in Bradford along with his Puritan community’s take on Morton’s symbolism during his celebration. The trophe that is erected during Morton’s celebration is described by the Puritans as a prostitute, while in real sense it is a tribute to the Lady of Learning, Maja. The most delicate issue however between the two is the selling of ammunition to the indigenous American population. While Morton claims to be simply helping the indigenous population to learn better methods of hunting and acquiring food, Bradford reads mischief in the practice describing it as a villainy and extremely horrible. The hostility however is as a result of Bradford’s involvement in the Pequot War.
The Role of the “Invisible World in Everyday Life”
The early colonists were indeed very spiritual and superstitious people as is evidenced in the different scholarly works of different authors.
Anne Bradstreet was a Puritan who was vocal about the invisible battle that always goes on between God and the devil and how the devil was clever always seducing man to succumb to his inherent materialistic desires. She also notes of the need to obey God and how God answers prayers to those who are faithful. Edward Taylor’s accounts were focused on dichotomizing Christians in different classes as he noted that there were different ranks of Christians within God’s church. He noted that in everyday life, those who softened their hearts to God’s mercy were frequently tempted by the devil in an effort to subdue them. He highlighted how these temptations presented themselves in varying forms from subtle arguments to threats of
justice.
Jonathan Edwards was also a Puritan whose works sought to promote awareness and the role the invisible world played in everyday life. He suggested on ways by which an individual could know whether he was a true Christian. He also stated that the devil and his demons had knowledge of God and were constantly seeking to dissuade man and shift his allegiance from that of being true to God’s commandments. Cotton Mather was also vocal on the subject of the invisible world and had warned the settlers whom she deemed as exclusively Christian to have stumbled and settled on territory that previously belonged to the devil, she based her claims on the practice of witchcraft which had earlier been practiced and was still being practiced in secret in the country. She blamed the misfortunes the early settlers endured on the invisible hands of the Devil and his agents such as demons and witches who practiced dark magic.
How Religious Faith Organized Early Life within the colony
The early Puritan community of the Seventeenth century was dichotomized into Separatists and Non-separatists, the two classes had different beliefs and thus different inclinations on faith and religion. The Separatists sought to distinguish themselves from the English society which they viewed as corrupt while the Non Separatists remained loyal to England as they wished to obtain sympathy from the throne as the King had once hailed from a Calvinistic background in Scotland. However when the King promoted anti-Puritan activities they fled England still loyal to the Anglican church but against its impurities. This thus laid a background for religion within the New World.
On reaching them New World, Puritans had a clear idea on how churches ought to be, membership within churches was restricted only to those who had been acquainted to “saving grace” which involved supernatural experienced signifying intimate contact with God. Social life within the Puritan community was governed by strong cultural beliefs; good and moral practices were encouraged as those who adhered to these practices were destined for heaven while those who did not had their fate sealed in hell fire.
Religious leaders had a great deal of influence within the early Puritan society. Religious leaders were consulted and ensured that the form of government developed was compatible with Puritan religious beliefs. Religion was also a powerful tool as political and religious authority was almost synonymous and voting was only exclusive to church members. Family life and the conduct within society and the home were also subjected to public scrutiny. Individual rights such as that of privacy or freedom of expression and thought were not prioritized as individuals were expected to conform to the already established practices and beliefs. The Puritan way of life thus leads to the forming of American ideals. Puritan religion led the society to promote ideals such as communal responsibility, moral excellence, and the importance of education.
Representation of the Contact Zone
The early settlers described contact zones over which different cultures of people interacted. In his map of Virginia, John Smith represents England’s first successful colony in the New World showing a strong presence of indigenous people with which the colonialists had to accept and come to terms with. Through his cartographic image Smith is able to describe early America’s social landscape; he also indicates the indigenous names that are used to describe the various features present in Virginia. The map extends from the earlier English discoveries; John Smith leaves the earlier surveyed lands and describes the complex contact zones where trans-cultural relations occur.
Samuel de Champlain’s contribution was also imperative in the exploration of new borderlands as well as contact zones where different people interacted. The “Father of New France” as he was referred to, was a pioneer in the exploration of Northern America for the French. Through a combination of illustrations, personal narrations, natural, and geographic descriptions coupled with history was able to paint a vivid description of early North America including the contact zones where the indigenous Huron and Mountainous Indians were able to interact with the French Scouts and other indigenous communities.
William Bradford of the Plymouth Plantation also described contact zones in the narrative about Puritan settlers which has been disputed by other scholarly works such as “Relacion” which focuses more on the indigenous people as opposed to the Puritan settlers. The two offer varying points of view on contact points. Though the two rely on narratives to describe contact zones, William Bradford and his Puritan sought to subdue the indigenous population thus contact zones were usually violent conflicts between the different communities such as the Pequot War. He also documented contact zones which he deemed as immoral in his account of Morton’s Merrymount plantation where Morton entertained the natives selling ammunition to them as well as engaging in hedonistic activities.
Benjamin Franklin and John Winthrop’s
The two scholars are indeed influential in modern American ideals and way of life, however the two had extremely varying points of view on wealth creation as well as what makes a productive society. The varying points of view might have been attributed to the different backgrounds the two hailed from. While John Winthrop was part of an aristocratic society, Benjamin Franklin was a classic rags to riches story. Both had varied notions on the rich and poor, Winthrop expressed the Puritan viewpoint that the rich were expected to aid the poor as they were less privileged and it was the duty of the rich to help them. Benjamin Franklin expressed that the difference between rich and poor was contentment. He explained that discontent would often make extremely wealthy people seem poor. The two differed on wealth creation and social classes. While Winthrop maintained that social classes were a divine establishment that enabled each man to need another. However Benjamin Franklin was more inclined to an individualist form of wealth creation and stated that the power to make wealth was inherent within the individual, all it took was the initiative from the subject individual.
Being a Puritan, Winthrop had a charitable perspective towards wealth stating the need to share all the gold and wealth with them. Benjamin Franklin however believed that the best way of wealth redistribution was not to make it easy on the poor by simply giving them money but rather driving them out of poverty. He was against taking from an individual because he had acquired a lot by virtue of his industry or the industry of those who preceded him to provide another who had not exercised similar industry was not just and should not have been encouraged. The two however shared almost similar sentiments on the need for individuals to exercise good social responsibility.