How did New England become so secular and socially liberal?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Perhaps it's because of the congregationalist nature of most Puritan churches? The fact that towns could change their local church rules according to societal whims meant that not only could the prevailing ideology change with relative ease without the mandates or diktats that we see in other ecclesiastical structures, but also meant there was no need to search for another upstart religion to join.

And this same dynamic also worked in the opposite direction of “secular and socially liberal” outside of New England - most dramatically in the South, which of course has a very different social, economic, cultural, and demographic history than New England.

I agree with Averroes that Catholicism is underrated as a factor here, especially considering how Catholics were historically among the “outs” of Protestant-dominated American society. Yet many of the descendants of working-class Catholic immigrants are thoroughly assimilated and highly educated, urban professionals. Secular and socially liberal, indeed.

I would also note how old New England is; how, from very early on, it’s had a strong tradition of local government, civic participation, and yes, obviously education (and this is directly a product of New England religion; note who the Ivy League colleges were founded by...).

Another thing is geography. New England is small, coastal or close to the coast (many major ports with long histories), and with cities, towns, and neighborhoods that tend to be more like Europe than to the suburban sprawl of much of the rest of the USA.

All of this is at least related to the answer(s) to Scott’s question, if not causal factors in and of themselves.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

The birthplace of Calvinism (the Netherlands) and of Puritanism (New England)

What? New England didn't even exist when Puritanism came about in the Elizabethan era.

[Del Tachi]

Easy answer:  New England in the 21st Century is nothing like it was in the 18th, thanks to large, successive waves of mostly Irish and Italian (i.e., Catholic) immigration.  The influence of the old Puritan churches in New England rapidly diminished as their parishioners were outnumbered by new immigrants. 

The South is the most Anglo region of the country, not New England. 

[SingingAnalyst]

The birthplace of Calvinism (the Netherlands) and of Puritanism (New England)

What? New England didn't even exist when Puritanism came about in the Elizabethan era.

I stand corrected. OK, New England where the Puritans went to flee whatever religious persecution they were suffering (and spread the Gospel).

[Wikipedia delenda est]

From the beginning New England was both very liberal and very religious. One could even say that liberalism as an ideology would not exist without the Puritan revolution, as much of early liberal philosophy was taken directly from radical Protestant theology, such as its emphasis on individualism and opposition to church hierarchy. In fact, I would argue that the abandonment of Puritan values in the 19th century made New England a much more conservative place, as godly small farmers gave way to profit-seeking businessmen. As to how New England became secular, one might consider that secularists of the 19th century like the National Liberal League were natural outgrowths of Puritanism and held a firm place on the Protestant continuum of the time.

In my view, the real question is how Episcopalianism became so socially liberal. For centuries in both England and America, high church Anglicanism was about as Tory and upper class as you could get. But today, Episcopalians are somehow the most socially liberal church there is. Really mind-boggling if you ask me.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

In my view, the real question is how Episcopalianism became so socially liberal. For centuries in both England and America, high church Anglicanism was about as Tory and upper class as you could get. But today, Episcopalians are somehow the most socially liberal church there is. Really mind-boggling if you ask me.

As a practicing Episcopalian, this question has boggled me for some time. Insofar as "church shopping" was a thing, I would not have been an Episcopalian for most of its early days despite my Anglo-Catholic tendencies.

Lutheranism or Methodism probably would've been my next stop. Or a non-Roman Catholic Church.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Education.

Basically this. New England was the most educated region of the US and education became correlated with secularism over the course of the 20th century.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In my view, the real question is how Episcopalianism became so socially liberal. For centuries in both England and America, high church Anglicanism was about as Tory and upper class as you could get. But today, Episcopalians are somehow the most socially liberal church there is. Really mind-boggling if you ask me.

As a practicing Episcopalian, this question has boggled me for some time. Insofar as "church shopping" was a thing, I would not have been an Episcopalian for most of its early days despite my Anglo-Catholic tendencies.

Lutheranism or Methodism probably would've been my next stop. Or a non-Roman Catholic Church.

The tl;dr as I understand it is that the Episcopal Church from the early twentieth century onward developed the same modernist/progressive factions as the other mainline Protestant churches, and then in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries these factions in TEC turned out to be better at Church politics and infighting than the conservatives and put themselves on top. (Schori, who was almost Ratzingerian in her ability to get her ideological opponents marginalized at General Synods and such, was a key player in this.) As recently as the late 2000s a bishop-elect had his election nullified for theological unorthodoxy; that probably wouldn't happen now.

There's also the fact that the conservatism that the Episcopal Church used to represent itself did not look the same intellectually as American conservatism now--Prescott Bush the Planned Parenthood executive, etc. People with those same views are able to pass themselves off as liberals or even leftists now because of the different issues over which American politics is now being fought.

[Former President tack50]

It was my estimation that the religious fervor itself created a generational friction that wore away at such fervor over time.

So basically too much puritanism and religion led eventually to an "equal and opposite reaction" backlash?

That makes sense and is an interesting theory. The question is then why hasn't that happened elsewhere (like say, the rural Southern US, which are just as religiously strict nowadays?)

[°Leprechaun]

In 2020 Vermont was the most Democratic state for POTUS. (after DC) It used to be the most Republican state. So, the change has a lot to do with the fact that over time The Democrats became less conservative than the Republicans. After the civil war, the Republicans gradually became more conservative on economic issues, since slavery became less of an issue something needed to fill the vacuum.
Those who are politically conservative tend to be more religiously conservative. In religion conservatives tend to stick with a more originalist ideology and this is also true of politics.

The split goes way back. Look at a map of the 1796 election.

I don't know much about slavery in New England, but certainly it ended sooner than in the South. IIRC John Quincy Adams was anti-slavery while Jackson owned slaves.

Slavery had an impact on religion. In the south people tended to believe that Slavery did not go against the Christian religion.

Anyway, maybe this is oversimplification.

[H. Ross Peron]

Easy answer:  New England in the 21st Century is nothing like it was in the 18th, thanks to large, successive waves of mostly Irish and Italian (i.e., Catholic) immigration.  The influence of the old Puritan churches in New England rapidly diminished as their parishioners were outnumbered by new immigrants. 

The South is the most Anglo region of the country, not New England. 

That doesn't explain the religious pattern of Yankees in New England, who are just as secularized and socially liberal as their Catholic counterparts. Indeed, if you look at politicians who espouse socially conservative views in New England, they tend to be ethnic Catholics not Yankee descendants. I think the triumph of Unitarianism in the early 19th Century definitely played a role here.

[H. Ross Peron]

Perhaps it's because of the congregationalist nature of most Puritan churches? The fact that towns could change their local church rules according to societal whims meant that not only could the prevailing ideology change with relative ease without the mandates or diktats that we see in other ecclesiastical structures, but also meant there was no need to search for another upstart religion to join.

Otoh, Baptist churches generally tend to be congregationalist in nature and the most independent Baptists (ie those unaffiliated with any larger national bodies like the Southern Baptist Convention) are usually the most fundamentalist in their theology and practices.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I've wondered this.  I've also wondered why historically Protestant parts of Europe, such as Holland and Scandinavia, are so secular and liberal.  I wonder if there are overlapping factors for both.

That's a good observation; in my view it has much to do with the strong historical ties between Protestantism and classical liberalism.

[PSOL]

I’m mainly pulling this out at straws, but here it goes. It is most likely 100% wrong and honestly not up to the quality of this board.

I've wondered this.  I've also wondered why historically Protestant parts of Europe, such as Holland and Scandinavia, are so secular and liberal.  I wonder if there are overlapping factors for both.

In Scandinavia, could the class composition of its elite come into play? This is recent history-ish, but the class conflicts of the 19th Century going onward in the 20th with the rise of the SÄP brought forth labor leaders from, or having close generational connections too, the countryside.

It’s a stretch that’s missing a lot of the middle and a lot of context, but when Christianity was being spread in Scandinavia, the countryside was the last vestige of Paganism compared to the cities which has more of the “elite” of society than the affluent outskirts or rural reserves compared to what we see now in America. Christianity thus became associated by these up and coming leaders as something reserved for protecting the Monarchy and maintaining dominance by corporate.

Of course, considering that most of New England (and the west coast in general)  has a disproportionate amount of our elite even with new immigrants adapting into the structure a bit, I doubt this was totally the answer.

The answer I accepted is rooted in fear of Europe reaching America in terms of revolution, which is based in pure projection and blindness to the more mundane. The WASPs saw religious restrictions and force in the core of Paris turn revolutionaries out of clerical workers “from the same cloth”. They saw religious restrictions in the Hispanic domain and other places as leading to “backwardness” which put them at odds in making wealth as their corporate structures dictate. They saw those who abandoned the stuffy books as more adaptive in not getting less wealthy or overrun in Europe.

So a sort of secularism had to take place rooted in “science“ and more specifically scientific practices and hypotheses based on maintaining control. That could explain the rise of Eugenics and scientific racism, as well as American sociology being based on results to be implemented in society compared to Europe where social sciences are viewed differently.

Synthesizing this with the other replies, then it’s an all of the above answer. Religion was a stuffy matter alienating the more urban merchants of New England, turning radicals out of them like the Quaker community leader or the socialist politician. The fact that the religious structure and values of old were unsuitable in maintaining stability led to a localized church that basically adapted as society adapted, like becoming itself an irrelevant ordeal mainly for community interaction than control (that’s for more revolutionary classes ). Slavery’s existence threatened the wage-Labour system from expanding, and was dragging the whole country down to the dogs with less-than-expected profits, so adopting the more correct biblical line was problematic. Once they became the top dogs after 1865 or so, they couldn’t bring the zeal of Christ in a “modern nation” less risk being left “behind”.

Of course it could be horrendously wrong, but whatever at least I tried to come up with something that combines what makes sense in the thread with a given narrative.

[PSOL]

The South is the most Anglo region of the country, not New England. 

That’s not how you spell Utah, where most of the population descends from rural WASPs or 19th century English immigrants.

[Del Tachi]

The South is the most Anglo region of the country, not New England. 

That’s not how you spell Utah, where most of the population descends from rural WASPs or 19th century English immigrants.

Utah is the only state to report "English" as its primary ancestry because Mormons have a weird obsession with family genealogy.  Self-reported English ancestry is a severe undercount, and all of the White "Americans" in the South are mostly of English, Welsh, French or Scots-Irish descent.

The South is easily the "WASPiest" region in the United States, since there are practically no White people of Irish, Italian, German, Polish, Jewish or other "ethnic" descent down here

[Mopsus]

Education.

I know this answer got dumped on, but it’s worth pointing out that Protestantism simultaneously asks its adherents to have an individualized relationship with God, and to put their faith in a set of scriptures that have been divorced from the authorities that traditionally underwrote them. It’s perfectly reasonable to believe that at some point, the dissonance became too much for affluent, educated New Englanders.

[Blue3]

New England is still as ideological... it just shifted from religious to political, with the abolition movement playing a key role in the transition.