Plymouth or Jamestown?

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Write in: Philadelphia.


And to Orser67's point in the other thread:  American Nations is an excellent read and has pretty objective takes on all of the different cultures.  Including the Puritans... intolerance towards outsiders and what we modern Americans define as "Liberty" and personal freedom.

I guess that's why the Puritans in England allowed the Jews to return to the country after 400 years of being banned under the Catholic turned Anglican monarchy.

"While other colonies welcomed all comers, the Puritains forbade anyone to settle in their colony who failed to pass a test of religious conformity.  Dissenters were banished.  Quakers were disfigured for easy identification, their nostrils slit, their ears cut off, or their faces brandished with the letter "H".  Puritans doled out death sentances for infractions such as adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, sodomy and even teenage rebellion. They fined farmers who tended to their crops, raked hay or hunted birds on the Sabbath.  Boston magistrates put Captain Thomas Kemble in the stocks in 1656 for kissing his wife on his doorstep after a 3 year absense-"lewd and unseemly behavior" in the eyes of the court.  Early Yankeedom was less tolerant of moral or religious deviance than the England it's settlers left behind."

American Nations pg. 58, Colin Woodward.

This is to say nothing of their abysmal relations with the Native Americans.  In fairness, the values of self-governance and democratic norms that the Puritains introduced are nothing short of astonishing.

But this narrative as Puritan New England being some progressive, open minded utopia where everyone gets along is part of a sanitized and idealized version of 4th grade US history and the American story, whereas the truth is far more complex and gray.  Plus, at least part of this has partisan motivations-the Democrats want to align with N.E. to portray the Republicans of representing the slave-society south.  

There is a great thread from 5-6 years ago (which I'm sure NC-Y remembers) that goes into far more detail on this.  It's called "the inconvenient US history thread " or something like that, I bookmarked it in 2019.


Edit: said thread https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=184903.0

For several centuries the term "Puritan" was synonymous with democracy, enlightenment, rebellion against tyranny, freedom, and much else that was laudable. In the last century an entire reversal has occurred, making the term to mean repressive, hypocritical, censorious, prudish, and worse ... From 1620 to 1900 the great majority of commentators, including such non-Calvinists as Emerson, Thoreau, and Unitarians and liberals generally, expressed their profuse admiration of the Puritans.

I know what you mean about 4th grade history. We're all taught about how the Puritans/Pilgrims fled from religious persecution, signed the Mayflower Compact giving them (us) our self-governance, and had a lovely Thanksgiving dinner with the Indians with whom they lived peaceably and happily. This telling of the Puritans, the dominant one from 1620 to 1900 as mentioned above, is the traditional story. But as the memory of the actual Puritans faded, the image of a dissenting friend of liberty prone to resistance was replaced with that of an authoritarian prude driven by a "haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy". Revisionists, perhaps out of a (not unwarranted) distaste for American exceptionalism, have written works like The Handmaid's Tale, supposedly inspired by Puritan New England, depicting a theocratic nightmare of a society. The Puritans, they assert, were actually intolerant fanatics with a near-genocidal hatred of Native Americans; totally unworthy of any veneration. According to the linked quote, this modern conception of the Puritans has held the upper hand since the 20th century, 4th grade history lessons aside.

In my opinion, both stories are great oversimplifications and the truth is a lot more complicated, as is always the case. In fact, I pretty much agree with your original post; my only problem was that you didn't factor in the English Puritans and their welcoming of the Jews when describing "the Puritans" as intolerant toward outsiders. That said, between the old and the new view of the Puritans, I am more inclined to trust the views of contemporaries and near-contemporaries. But more importantly, my own research and reading has led me to a view which is closer to the traditional outlook, which is that the Puritans were the founders of Anglo-American liberalism. I mean, why not? They were radicals and revolutionaries who prized individual freedom and liberty, espoused republicanism and democracy, and led the way (at least in England) to religious toleration. There was extensive popular engagement in politics and strong feelings on both sides; they fought a Civil War for God's sake. The Cromwellian regime even went to war with Orangists in the Netherlands as part of the larger ideological struggle between republicanism and monarchy. If Thomas Jefferson can be called a liberal even though he owned slaves, then why can't the New England Puritans?

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Just as there being a continuinity between the Federalist Party and people like Elizabeth Warren is questionable besides them being strong in the same region, I’m also not so sure if there’s much continuity between the Puritans and the Federalist Party.

I actually think you have a point there. Samuel Adams, probably the most "Puritan" of the Founding Fathers, became a Democratic-Republican.

This thread has... taken a turn. Anyway, if you want to find modern liberal attitudes towards religious pluralism in the 17th century you're wasting your time. You can find the origins of it, though, at the radical end of Protestantism (i.e. the diverse groups termed as 'Puritans' in English), but 'origins' must be stressed as the concept was never extended to religious groups regarded as being political enemies. No one was really in favour of that at the time.

I don't think that's quite right. Notions like "liberty of conscience" most definitely existed at the time. The Diggers and Levellers openly supported religious toleration, though I doubt that would've extended to Catholics. And the Puritans, who included orthodox Presbyterians among their ranks, were hardly at the most radical end of Protestantism. "Sectaries" like the Quakers, Ranters, Fifth Monarchists, and an endless number of millenarian and apocalyptic sects were considerably more radical and less orthodox. Also, later on James II, ironically enough a Roman Catholic, was willing to grant toleration to all including to his political enemies; the very Dissenters who had tried to exclude him from the throne were not excluded by James. Admittedly, he didn't pursue tolerationist policies out of genuine pluralist convictions, but as a desperate attempt to gain Whig allies and a backdoor way to re-Catholicize the country. Someone who did genuinely support toleration though was William Penn, who was evidently fine with tolerating even Catholics as evidenced by his steadfast support for the Declaration of Indulgence.

It's important to remember that in these days the "political sphere" of society by and large began and ended with the elite.

I have to strongly disagree here. In England there was absolutely an active political sphere that included the general public. Most Englishmen in the later 17th century were deeply concerned with their country's politics and held strong opinions about which way the nation should go. They participated in broadside battles, coffeehouse debates, parliamentary elections (which generated great enthusiasm), and even riotous mobs. Not to mention the exorbitant petitions, declarations, and associations that were signed by millions of Englishmen. To give one example, the Association of 1696 was signed by 80% of the population, unlike the 1584 Bond of Association which really was restricted to just the elite. The English political nation expanded drastically in the 17th century, thanks largely to the "culture of print" which became ingrained during the Civil War period. But this is just England. Plymouth, being a representative democracy, had perhaps the widest political sphere in the world, and nary an "elite" to restrict it to.

It's important to remember that in these days the "political sphere" of society by and large began and ended with the elite.

Its like at various points people forget such obvious realities of the period in question and latch onto a groups elite status as an x-factor to refute an argument. Bonus points if such elites were involved in slavery.

The thing is I get why. It's difficult to imagine a political structure and scope of ideology contained within such a small group of people with a shared material class. It's tempting to project modern ideological definitions that were constructed in a time of mass suffrage and political engagement to the past.

The late 17th century in England was a time of intense ideological division and party politics. The Whigs and Tories offered completely contrasting visions on religion, royal vs. parliamentary power, the political economy, and foreign policy. I think it makes perfect sense to describe the Whigs as "liberal" and the Tories as "conservative", if not the Roundheads and Cavaliers as well. Heck, the so-called father of liberalism John Locke was a Whiggish anti-papist, as much as modern Democrats may cringe to know their ideological forefathers were rabid anti-Catholics.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Write in: Philadelphia.


And to Orser67's point in the other thread:  American Nations is an excellent read and has pretty objective takes on all of the different cultures.  Including the Puritans... intolerance towards outsiders and what we modern Americans define as "Liberty" and personal freedom.

I guess that's why the Puritans in England allowed the Jews to return to the country after 400 years of being banned under the Catholic turned Anglican monarchy.

"While other colonies welcomed all comers, the Puritains forbade anyone to settle in their colony who failed to pass a test of religious conformity.  Dissenters were banished.  Quakers were disfigured for easy identification, their nostrils slit, their ears cut off, or their faces brandished with the letter "H".  Puritans doled out death sentances for infractions such as adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, sodomy and even teenage rebellion. They fined farmers who tended to their crops, raked hay or hunted birds on the Sabbath.  Boston magistrates put Captain Thomas Kemble in the stocks in 1656 for kissing his wife on his doorstep after a 3 year absense-"lewd and unseemly behavior" in the eyes of the court.  Early Yankeedom was less tolerant of moral or religious deviance than the England it's settlers left behind."

American Nations pg. 58, Colin Woodward.

This is to say nothing of their abysmal relations with the Native Americans.  In fairness, the values of self-governance and democratic norms that the Puritains introduced are nothing short of astonishing.

But this narrative as Puritan New England being some progressive, open minded utopia where everyone gets along is part of a sanitized and idealized version of 4th grade US history and the American story, whereas the truth is far more complex and gray.  Plus, at least part of this has partisan motivations-the Democrats want to align with N.E. to portray the Republicans of representing the slave-society south.  

There is a great thread from 5-6 years ago (which I'm sure NC-Y remembers) that goes into far more detail on this.  It's called "the inconvenient US history thread " or something like that, I bookmarked it in 2019.


Edit: said thread https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=184903.0

The problem I have with the thread that you linked to is that Mechaman never seems to acknowledge that anti-Catholicism (or "anti-popery") was itself an important aspect of classical liberalism, merely writing it off as "Anglo Protestant supremacy". I've seen RINO Tom make posts along the lines of "it's wrong to assume that being against slavery was always a liberal position"; but I would argue that a much more common (and incorrect) assumption on this board is that anti-Catholicism was always conservative; when very often it was the complete opposite. I'm not saying anti-Catholicism was OK when liberals used it, but it was there and its prominent role in liberalism has to be acknowledged instead of being brushed over.

Another problem I have with Mechaman's argument is his dismissal of the relationship between the anti-slavery movement and liberalism. He writes: "Liberalism was defined by an upholding and assertion of the rights of the non-elite (though of course, not always all of the non-elite, as exhibited by the grey area of slavery¹)." But slavery was no grey area. The anti-slavery movement emerged in the late 18th century as a direct result of the Enlightenment and was championed by liberal intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States, Thomas Jefferson recognized the conflict between his slave owning and liberalism and chose to abolish the slave trade at the earliest available opportunity, while in Britain and France radicals and revolutionaries led the charge for abolition. The evangelical preachers of the North who would come to oppose slavery in the 19th century were also liberals - Protestant liberals - with values informed by the Enlightenment, as were the religious freethinkers and atheists (at the far end of a Protestant continuum) who were often even more anti-slavery. These men and women were the founders of the Republican party, an intensely ideological party committed to classical liberalism. By contrast, the pro-slavery movement in both Europe and America was composed of the most ultra of reactionaries. It found its strongest support in the reactionary halls of power, from the plantations of the Southern United States to the aristocratic courts of Europe to the throne of St. Peter. Its ideological defenders used arguments emphasizing tradition and order against the Lockean liberalism of the abolitionists. No wonder that when the Civil War broke out, the conflict was viewed in Europe as a struggle between materialist Yankee liberalism and parochial Southern traditionalism, and the ideologues of the continent took their respective sides.

So, as it turns out, the assumption about slavery which RINO Tom likes to decry is actually true. The common intuition about the anti-slavery movement, that it was liberal, is correct in this case. But there is another assumption, one which is less obvious and really ought to be decried instead. I am, of course, referring to the anti-Catholic assumption that I mentioned at the start. If one looks at the past with the modern idea of "evangelicals are right-wing" in one's head it is an easy assumption to make. I have done so myself (by the way, Tom's Lincoln quote in that thread is clearly Abe trying to appeal to conservatives, and should not be taken at face value; it was the Democrats that campaigned as a "conservative and national party" in 1860). But as I learned more history, European and American, it became clear to me that what I thought I knew about anti-Catholicism was wrong, so my views changed.


1. I would argue that the actual grey area was the "Celts" he keeps talking about. In both England and America, early liberals were extremely hostile to the Irish. In both countries, the conservative elite - landed gentry/Southern slave owners - were less hostile to the Irish, for they shared a common enemy in the Puritan/Yankee liberals. Both countries pitted a coalition of the conservative elite and Irish Catholics (Tories/Democrats) against the Protestant liberals (Whigs/Republicans).

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Another issue I have with Mechaman's thread is how much his undisguised hatred of "New England WASPS" percolates his argument. You don't have to like the Puritans, but can you not admit that they did anything right? Is it impossible to acknowledge the debt American republicanism owes to its Puritan forefathers? His conception of a "WASP" is a ridiculously one-sided caricature, and it belies a basic ignorance of how English and American Protestants understood themselves and were perceived in the world at large. It’s no accident that Vermont, the most Yankee state of them all, began its life as an independent republic with a constitution inspired by the radical democracy of Thomas Paine. Did New England Protestants also possess some conservative qualities? Of course they did, but compared to whom? Certainly, their radicalism did not go nearly as far as that of the French revolutionaries, but just as clearly it far outstripped their Southern compatriots and the monarchies of Europe. In these parts, the dominant perception of New Englanders, and Northerners in general, was of a hyper-individualist, acquisitive people, whose Puritan heritage had led them to ever-greater liberal heresy and religious schism. Northerners were less critical of themselves, as might be expected, but they made the same fundamental ideological assumptions as their adversaries, contrasting a modern, progressive North to a South dominated by "backwardness"; and an America of "free institutions" to a Europe in chains. This had its roots in a much older English tradition, a Protestant and Whig tradition - for centuries, Englishmen had taken pride in their liberties and rights accorded to them as Englishmen, which so clearly separated them from those unfortunate souls who squelched under the "slavery", "tyranny", and "arbitrary government" of "popish" states. They were quick to characterize English society as rational, enlightened, and tolerant; putting it into direct opposition to the bigotry, superstition, and prejudice that predominated in Catholic countries. One can argue about how much truth there was to this national myth, but the sway this mentality held on early liberalism is undeniable. Certainly, the English were anything but tolerant to their Irish subjects, who they mercilessly brutalized for centuries, but part of the power of liberalism is that is that it could, and did, expand its view of who ought to be liberated, and who was granted inalienable rights - in the 19th century, it was the formerly anti-Catholic Whigs and their Liberal successors who fought for Catholic Emancipation and then Home Rule. In the late 17th century, Locke and other Whigs were participants in the slave trade, but a century later, influenced by the Enlightenment, the Foxite radicals campaigned tirelessly for abolition. And so it goes.

Mechaman's description of "they" (who he then clarifies as "a lot of anti-slavery advocates") as "quite socially conservative" is equally problematic. It's become something of a pet peeve of mine to see religious moralism, especially Protestant religious moralism, always described as "socially conservative" no matter the circumstances. I'll say it again: social liberalism is not the same thing as social permissiveness. Yes, there are connections there, even in the language with words like "liberality", but I doubt many people would argue that economic liberalism and libertarianism are the same thing. Just as laissez-faire capitalism and "small government" are not inherently liberal, neither is moral laxity. The link between religiosity and social leveling is a long and storied one. In Medici Florence, Savonarola and his lower-class supporters championed religious piety against the debauched behavior of the upper-classes. So too did the Roundheads during the English Civil War. Even the French revolutionaries, for all their anti-clericalism, weaponized a sort of secular moralism, "republican virtue", against the decadent aristocracy. In the late 19th century, the Social Gospelers rallied for economic populism and Prohibition, both of which they viewed as progressive. The New England evangelical abolitionists of the mid 19th century who inveighed against the sinfulness of slavery were perfectly in line with this tradition of religious opposition to perceived injustice and tyranny.

Yesterday, I also happened to read a very interesting article called "How the Puritans Won the American Revolution". In it, the author is mostly concerned with one George Bancroft, and how his interpretation of the Puritans influenced their place in American history. Essentially, Bancroft - a Jacksonian New Englander - was very positive on the Puritans, who he viewed as a sort of embodiment of America - its revolution, middle-class values, and modern capitalism. Bancroft held up the Puritan as a universal symbol of Americanism, to be emulated by all, whether immigrant or native, Catholic or Protestant. Interestingly, he also connected Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy with Puritanism, perhaps giving some credence to darklordoftech's point. All in all, I wasn't quite able to tell whether the author agrees with Bancroft's interpretation, but it seems that for the most part he does. Still very worth reading.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Wrong thread, perhaps, and I can't say I really have the patience or the knowledge for these wall-o-text threads anymore, but... As long as we are proposing that a "party switch" did occur, when did it happen, how, and why?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Wrong thread, perhaps, and I can't say I really have the patience or the knowledge for these wall-o-text threads anymore, but... As long as we are proposing that a "party switch" did occur, when did it happen, how, and why?

I would just like this subforum to discuss literally anything else: Mesoamerican agriculture, homosexuality in ancient Greeece, the Xinhai Revolution...literally anything other than whether the US parties switched or not -- or navel-gazing on the origin of US liberalism/conservatism or whatever, though that's probably an unfair ask on a US politics forum, I suppose...

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Wrong thread, perhaps, and I can't say I really have the patience or the knowledge for these wall-o-text threads anymore, but... As long as we are proposing that a "party switch" did occur, when did it happen, how, and why?

I would just like this subforum to discuss literally anything else: Mesoamerican agriculture, homosexuality in ancient Greeece, the Xinhai Revolution...literally anything other than whether the US parties switched or not -- or navel-gazing on the origin of US liberalism/conservatism or whatever, though that's probably an unfair ask on a US politics forum, I suppose...

I already wasted my intellectual reroute reading about the Soviet Union; it's too late for me to investigate Antiquity.

[darklordoftech]

Wrong thread, perhaps, and I can't say I really have the patience or the knowledge for these wall-o-text threads anymore, but... As long as we are proposing that a "party switch" did occur, when did it happen, how, and why?

I amswered you in what seems like the appropriate thread: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=371825.300

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Wrong thread, perhaps, and I can't say I really have the patience or the knowledge for these wall-o-text threads anymore, but... As long as we are proposing that a "party switch" did occur, when did it happen, how, and why?

There is another thread perhaps more suited for these questions (I think you know the one ), but I'll give a short answer here to at least the "when" part. My view is that from 1854-1876, the Republicans were well to the left of the Democrats. The Republicans were founded as a classically liberal party committed to the eradication of slavery for ideological reasons, while the Democrats had gone from the party of the "common man" during the Jacksonian era to an assortment of reactionaries and slavery apologists. After 1876, when the Republicans abandoned Reconstruction and the Democrats largely repudiated their Civil War era politics, both parties were less ideologically coherent and more identity-based, with only a couple signature policies like the tariff and free trade distinguishing them. The establishments of both parties were conservative in the Gilded Age and depended on corrupt political machines. After 1896, strong progressive wings emerged in each party, wings which challenged and sometimes succeeded in winning the Presidential nomination and even the White House, but the party would often reverse course in the next election cycle if defeated. This continued until the end of the Progressive Era with the beginning of the New Deal, at which point the 1920s conservative Republican Presidencies had confirmed the progressive Republicans to be a minority and the rise of FDR affirmed the ascendance of the Democratic progressives. The line dividing the parties was now a much firmer one, and has continued to this day.

Additionally, I found a rather interesting quote from Nicholas Murray Butler's (1912 Republican VP nominee and author of The Faith of a Liberal) Volume I of his memoirs, published in 1939, describing the current state of the Republican party:

Surely, it is a little less than grotesque to continue to describe as liberal those public men who are definitely and vigorously opposed to almost every constructive policy which is offered at the moment, simply because they gained for themselves that adjective under the conditions which prevailed a quarter-century ago.

Butler is saying that the Republicans in 1939 can no longer be called liberal, even though 25 years earlier they had "gained for themselves that adjective". This suggests that, at least according to Butler, the decisive break with liberalism for the Republican party did indeed occur sometime in the 1920s or 30s, with the end of the Progressive Era and beginning of the New Deal. I'd like to think therefore that Butler would've been pleasantly surprised a year later when Willkie, the ultimate liberal Republican, won the party nomination.

Wrong thread, perhaps, and I can't say I really have the patience or the knowledge for these wall-o-text threads anymore, but... As long as we are proposing that a "party switch" did occur, when did it happen, how, and why?

I would just like this subforum to discuss literally anything else: Mesoamerican agriculture, homosexuality in ancient Greeece, the Xinhai Revolution...literally anything other than whether the US parties switched or not -- or navel-gazing on the origin of US liberalism/conservatism or whatever, though that's probably an unfair ask on a US politics forum, I suppose...

I totally get that, considering how long this has gone on. I've tried making threads about early modern Europe a few times, which is after all my main focus, but those haven't spurred the same level of discussion - probably because, like you said...it's a US politics forum.

[Diabolical Materialism]

In hindsight I was I had included St. Augustine as an option. Perhaps it's my home state bias but I do think that there's a seat at the table for St. Augustine when comparing Jamestown and Plynouth. In many ways it was a synthesis of the two. For better or for worse.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

To continue from my last post, I would like to quote from an article about abolitionism within a specific Protestant denomination, with the hope that it may illuminate the larger relationship between abolitionism and Protestant liberalism:

The Covenanter notion of resistance to tyranny and absolutism was a factor in their antislavery ideology. In the classic works of covenanting political theology, Lex, Rex (1644) and A Hind Let Loose (1687), Samuel Rutherford and Alexander Shields recognized that slavery was an evil contrary to nature. Another factor that may have influenced them was the enslavement of some early Scottish Covenanters during the seventeenth-century persecution. Since their spiritual ancestors had suffered enslavement, it is possible that this made Reformed Presbyterians sympathetic to others in bondage. The influence of anti-popery sentiments must also be taken into account; Thomas Houston explicitly linked the fall of slavery with the demise of Rome's spiritual oppression: "as slavery is doomed of God, and abhorred of man, so the Papacy, its inseparable ally, must with it be speedily swept from the earth."

[...]

Reformed Presbyterians in America, Scotland, and Ireland partly condemned slavery because it was a violation of man's God given right to liberty. Such sentiments were given official expression when the American Civil War was deemed by the Irish Synod in 1862 to be Divine judgment against "systematic and persevering disregard of the rights of God and man."

Here we may learn that anti-slavery sentiment was indeed influenced by 17th century British religious radicalism, contrary to what some insular Americanists might have you think. Like their British forbears, Reformed Presbyterians shared in an opposition to tyranny and absolutism, which manifested itself in anti-popery and anti-slavery sentiments. Like their forbears, they valued God-given liberty and natural rights, two key tenets of classical liberalism.

Antislavery also appears to have been part of a broader desire for social reform among Covnenaters. Both Old and New Lights yoked it alongside the promotion of poor relief, care for the weak, and the condemnation of sinful amusements. In relation to this, it is interesting to observe that Thomas Houston described Francis Calder, a leading figure in the Belfast Anti-Slavery Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as "an esteemed friend." John Paul's Eastern Presbytery, furthermore, also viewed West Indian emancipation as a practical outworking of the British Parliament's Reform Act of 1832. The above factors, which combine an aversion to tyranny, arbitrary power, and the promotion of benevolence, would appear to reflect the influence of Enlightenment sensibilities. Although this would have chimed well with certain traditional Covenanter preoccupations, it may also reflect the continuing influence of some United Irish ideas among Reformed Presbyterians.

From this paragraph it is clear that the liberalism of Reformed Presbyterians extended beyond opposition to slavery. They linked it to other reforming causes like the promotion of poor relief, reflecting the influence of the Enlightenment. But as the author also notes, "this would have chimed well with certain traditional Covenanter preoccupations". Anyone who has read 17th century British history will instantly make the connection to "the aversion to tyranny [and] arbitrary power" mentioned in the previous sentence, as I believe the author intended. He also points to the continued influence of the United Irishmen, the instigators of the 1798 Irish Rebellion who included many Presbyterians among their ranks and whose leader, Wolfe Tone, was himself a Protestant.

In conclusion, the opposition to antebellum slavery by the Covenanters in Ireland, Scotland, and America is proof that theological conservatism cannot be equated with conservatism toward the peculiar institution. On the contrary, as the Reverends A. M. Milligan and J. Renwick W. Sloane told Lincoln, they were "an antislavery church of the most radical school." This demonstrates that it is a non-sequitor to assume that theological and political conservatism are always inextricably linked. Furthermore, Mark Noll has observed that the religion of African American Christians in the Civil Rights movement displayed a capacity to link conservative theology with progressive social action. Reformed Presbyterians could perhaps be seen as forerunners of later groupings which married theological conservatism with political radicalism. Indeed, the position of the Covenanters is best described as one of radical orthodoxy, which combined rigid confessional theology with immediate emancipation. Garrison recognized this when he privately acknowledged they were "comparatively radical on the subject of slavery," while complaining that their orthodoxy meant "they think more of sect than of the slave." Covenanters likewise also praised Garrison and Wendell Phillips for the zeal for the rights of man, but desired that they would pay more attention to the rights of God and the royal prerogatives of Jesus Christ.

This is probably the most important paragraph of all. I have long argued that fervent religiosity, even of a theologically orthodox nature, is not and never has been inherently conservative socially or politically. Though the Reformed Presbyterians are but one of many sects, their mere existence is "proof that theological conservatism cannot be equated with conservatism toward the peculiar institution." "It is a non-sequitor to assume that theological and political conservatism are always inextricably linked" - I couldn't have said it better myself.

The Covenanters also got on well with less zealous abolitionists. Reformed Presbyterians, like other Protestant-inspired abolitionists, could easily agree with Garrisonian defenses of natural rights even while taking a more religious tone in their own anti-slavery sermons, with no apparent ideological confusion. I can't say our more modern observers on this site always posses the same level of clarity.

[DINGO Joe]

I was going to write in New Orleans, but pre-AC New Orleans where people went around wearing wool and had to put up with malaria and yellow fever and flying alligators and god knows what else had to practically be hell.  Plymouth it is, especially as mentioned, sweet sweet Rhode Island was nearby.

[RosettaStoned]

Jamestown, easily. There is no way in hell I would have lived with a bunch of Puritans.

[Continential]

I'd take Plymouth in a heartbeat.