Conflict in Early American History - The Difference of Enlightenment

The portrayals of John Winthrop in Paul Johnson's A History of the American People and Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present showcase the fundamentally different philosophical viewpoints of the two authors. The treatments of John Winthrop show Zinn to be an enlightened humanist, whereas Johnson thinks in a surprisingly similar manner as the Puritans about whom he writes. Howard Zinn places a great deal of importance on the human rights of all those involved, including the American Indians. Paul Johnson shows himself to be much more interested in the historical development of Western capitalistic civilization, disregarding many phenomena of natural and human varieties.

Zinn is very concerned with the various ways in which white settlers stole from and violated the human rights of the American Indians. Zinn states that "John Winthrop, created the excuse to take Indian land by declaring the area legally a "vacuum."" (13-14), making injustice towards the American Indians the pivotal point in his short discussion of Winthrop. Johnson names one of his chapters "John Winthrop and his 'Little Speech' on Liberty." In a discussion that is much longer than the one in Zinn's book, Johnson fails to mention any connection whatsoever between John Winthrop and the American Indians. However, he does devote eight lines to Winthrop's 'Little Speech' on liberty that states that people should "quietly and cheerfully submit under that [God's] authority which is set over you ... for your good" (41-42). Johnson then immediately remarks that "that was all very well in theory" (42), indicating wholehearted support for Winthrop's sentiment that one should not question authority. Johnson then in a somewhat reluctant manner goes on to discuss how Winthrop abused his power as governor and ignored the charter to which he was bound. This admission of corruption initially seems completely out of step with Johnson's writing style, since he normally focuses only on aspects of history that show the American people in a positive light. Reading further down the page, the reader's surprise is quickly at an end. Johnson cleverly and quickly shifts his heroification from Winthrop to the freemen of the region who force him out of power. He lauds their initiative and praises their ability to keep tabs on their leaders and dispose of them when they step too far out of line. After admitting that Winthrop was a corrupt leader who abused his power, Johnson lets him off the hook very quickly claiming that "Winthrop, no doubt from high motives, had taken some of those rights from them [the colonists], by flouting the charter" (42). He qualifies the deprivation of rights of the colonists with the word "some," yet has "no doubt" that Johnson meant well. He almost makes John Winthrop's abuse of power sound like an accident or small slip that could happen to anyone and should not be judged too harshly.

Johnson's ideas circulate around the Pilgrims and other freemen in the colonies, which is what allows him to praise the ideas of John Winthrop and those who oust him from power without so much as mentioning the impact of all of these events on the American Indian community. Johnson simply does not see the American Indians as particularly relevant or important to the history of the United States of America, which is not to say that Johnson is a racist. Johnson is simply concerned with issues of religion and civilization, and for him the American Indians were simply primitive heathens who were lucky that the Europeans came to convert them to Christianity and force them into conforming to their agricultural, and later industrial, way of life. Had the Europeans not come to America to perform their enculturation of the American Indians, they would still be stuck in their old ways, which are of no interest to Johnson.

The viewpoint of Johnson and many Puritans discounts nature and all that is natural, placing their own preferred version of civilization in the honored position. Zinn helps the reader to understand the beliefs of Johnson, Winthrop, and many Puritans by stating that "the Indians, he [John Winthrop] said, had not "subdued" the land, and therefore had only a "natural" right to it but not a "civil right." A "natural right" did not have legal standing" (13-14). Johnson also quotes Winthrop as saying "natural, corrupt liberties" (42) in his 'Little Speech' on liberty, which goes a step further than dismissing nature; the statement actually condemns nature as "corrupt." If nature and everything natural is corrupt, then their particular brand of Christianity and civilization must be the embodiment of what is right and good. In addition to their negative view of nature, another key to understanding their thought process is the sense of entitlement that many people felt. Many Puritans felt that it was their Manifest Destiny to rule over people they regarded as primitive heathens, such as the American Indians. They often look to the Bible to back up this point of view, which Zinn points out, stating: "the Puritans also appealed to the Bible, Psalms 2:8: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."" (14). They saw American as God's gift to them. Even when they met with resistance and their gift was not given to them wrapped up with a ribbon, they used the Bible "to justify their use of force to take the land, they cited Romans 13:2: "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."" (14).

Johnson goes about showing the manner in which America dealt with and overcame those like Winthrop who stepped out of the bounds of their authority, portraying that historical episode as a stepping stone of progress towards the ultimate goal of a civilization in which freedom of trade was upheld as a central pillar, property rights of members of that civilization were fiercely protected, and there was freedom to be part of the branches of Christianity that differed from the Anglican and Catholic, insisting on organizing at a more local level as opposed to obeying a central authority. Referring to Protestants such as the Pilgrims, Johnson states: "to them, liberty and religion were inseparable, and they came to America to pursue both" (41). The Puritans definition of liberty was very narrow, really just referring to their freedom from the Anglican Church that had oppressed them back in England, as opposed to the broad definition of liberty, applying itself to all aspects of life that Enlightenment thinkers introduced into the general public. As an intellectual who is a product of the Enlightenment, Zinn does not think in the same narrow terms as the Puritans did or Johnson does. Instead Zinn implements many of the same notions that the Puritans spoke of and believed in on a larger scale including other groups of people such as the American Indians. Where Johnson documents the progress towards the ultimate goal of civilization discussed earlier in this paragraph, Zinn shows the cost of that progress in land, dignity, and lives.

Works Cited
Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1998.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present. NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 2003.