John Winthrop: Arbitrary Governor?

Did John Winthrop establish an arbitrary government in Massachusetts Bay Colony? l tend to argue that it was not arbitrary, and although Winthrop's tenor as Governor was of an authoritative nature, it was not arbitrary.

In this research paper, l will address the issue of the government utilized in the Puritan community of Massachusetts Bay Colony under the Governor John Winthrop between 1630 and 1649, and whether or not it was arbitrary. l intend to demonstrate Winthrop was indeed an authoritative governor, but he was not arbitrary. Using his journal as a primary source, and other respectable secondary sources, l will show that through his conception of civil society and his actions as governor, he instituted a very authoritative form of power, but did not abuse it to the point of arbitrariness. l will use his dispute with the magistrates over his use of power, to demonstrate his willingness to compromise his position of power to maintain an ordered society.

John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, from 1630 to 1649, is perhaps one of the most famous of the Puritans who first arrived in America from Europe. He hoped to establish a civil society where he was free to establish a government without interference or oppression from the English. The Puritans left England in search of religious freedom, because they felt that the Church of England had strayed from the true teachings of the Bible. Winthrop was one of the first Puritans to lead an entourage to New England in search of religious freedom free from English tyranny.

Ironically, however, in establishing their own government, the Puritans were denying their own people freedom of religion, banishing those who spoke contrary to scripture, including Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, among others, in the famous Antinomian controversy. Indeed, the ministers themselves began questioning Winthrop's authority, challenging his form of government as being arbitrary. Was their concerns justified, or was Winthrop's authoritative nature necessary in maintaining a civil society in his view?

I will argue that Winthrop's government was not arbitrary, but merely an authoritative government by nature, which could sometimes appear to be arbitrary because of the manner Winthrop exercised his authority. When the magistrates challenged his authority as governor in the election of 1639, they chose an adversary of his and also former deputy-governor, Thomas Dudley, to run against him, who won. The following year, Richard Bellingham was elected narrowly over Winthrop. This fact alone is just one example of why the government established was not arbitrary, and the people were protected from this sort of government through election of the governor by the freemen.

It could be argued, however, that it was not the people in fact who elected the governor, but a select few who met a mere four times a year in a General Court, and therefore they could easily have established a "ruling oligarchy'', but they did not. They even had "divine authority'' granted to them, which they could have used as justification or any actions that they took.

When Winthrop did use his power granted to him in the charter, such as banishing individuals for actions contrary to scripture, it was not questioned by many. Perhaps this was out of fear, in part, of being banished from the colony, or more likely they respected and admired Winthrop. The deputies who did challenge Winthrop did so in fear of an establishment of a governorship with life-long tenure, not because they disliked or distrusted Winthrop himself. They only felt it necessary to challenge in order to curb the ability of corruption of the governor, who was only human.

The most compelling point supporting the non-arbitrary side of the Winthrop government is the very fact that Winthrop was granted a wealth of powers in the charter of England, which merely forbade him to make any laws contrary to those of England, but chose not to fully exercise them, even while practicing absolute authority, which he firmly believed was necessary in maintaining a civil society. In fact, Winthrop, "by limiting freemanship to church members he extended political rights to a larger proportion of the people than enjoyed in England and to people who were better qualified to use them. On October 19, 1630, Winthrop summoned the first officials meeting of the General Court members to draw up a constitution to establish the first government of the colony. The initial council of freemen consisted of eight members; the next meeting had one hundred and sixteen. In addition, the role of the freemen was reduced from electing officials to electing assistants, who in turn made laws and appointed a governor and deputy-governor. Does this sound like the work of a power hungry man who is establishing an arbitrary government?

Arguments over what political theories are best applied in the real world, as an actual form of government has been an on-going discourse for many centuries. Why should this stop with Winthrop's government that he established with seven other individuals? There have undoubtedly been many other legitimate and successful non- democratic governments similar that established by the Puritans, which have been accused, of being arbitrary. Some of these had leaders who abused their power much more frequently than Winthrop was even accused of. Look no further than Stalin, Hitler, or Napoleon, for example, not to mention several kings and queens of England who on occasion arbitrarily decided to have certain individuals beheaded without benefit of trial. Winthrop did none of these things. Admittedly, a major reason for his restraint in punishments could be linked to his high moral standards founded in the Puritan tradition of reading scripture. However, Winthrop was well within his rights to instill much stiffer penalties to those committing offenses contrary to scripture and community.

In the Antinomian Controversy of 1637. Winthrop takes an interesting stance, but an understandable one in his justification of his decision to banish Mrs. Hutchinson. Church members in Boston disliked Winthrop's decision, and so he felt it necessary to defend himself, and addressed the church members accordingly. In his understanding of a civil society, order must be absolute, and an individual who has deviated from the standards of the community and continues to do so cannot remain within a community of Christ. His actions were justified by the similar banishment of Lot, Hagar, and Ishmael in the Bible. He does not have her stoned or put to death, but merely banishes her from the community. This may appear to be arbitrary on the surface, but Winthrop was only following the principles he interpreted as being God's will in the words of scripture.

Even though power seemed to be limited to a few individuals, furthering the notion that the government was being run arbitrarily, this did not mean that it was in fact, arbitrary. In fact, "Winthrop did believe that the people...were entitled to determine the form of government to be established over them and to select the persons who should run that government." He demonstrated this belief through the action of instituting popular elections of assistants, governor, and deputy-governor in 1631. At the same time he maintained that there should be a sharp distinction between the ruler and ruled, because without such a distinction would mock the authority of God given to rulers. So, "Winthrop counted on the ministers to give the people sound advice and to instruct them about the kind of men who were best fitted to rule. This was not a democracy, and Winthrop, like most political leaders of this time period, did everything they could to avoid arriving at such a form of government where the people would be the rulers, open to corruption.

In yet another concession of power, the deputies sought to draw up a Body of Liberties on behalf of the people. This process lasted over several years, but was eventually passed in 1641, while Winthrop was not governor. With these laws in place, the freemen thought it safe to return Winthrop to the governorship, which he did the very next year. Although Winthrop arguably would have rather the provisions never passed, their was little in the context he could find to disagree with, and he did nothing to overturn them.

Had Winthrop truly ruled in an arbitrary manner, he had ample opportunity to assure a life-long position as governor of the colony. By simply taking advantage of the oligarchy-like conditions left to him by the charter with England, he could have ruled with an "iron-fist," so to speak. Simply using the backing of scripture could solidify any apparent arbitrary decision as "God's will.'' However, he did not invoke such divine authority when he allowed a formation of a constitution to replace the charter with England, which actually limited his authority, and increased the power of the people. His position of governor could not have been threatened had he not approved this measure. Winthrop simply believed in a different political philosophy concerning how to establish laws. He believed magistrates, or judges, in establishing precedence, were the best way to make law. Winthrop had faith in God to protect the people from the corruption of their leaders, because he believed those who were chosen fit God's plan for the community. Therefore, the magistrates were best suited to discover the correct decision in each case based on Scripture.

Perhaps unfortunately, Winthrop's faith did not extend as far as the other freemen did. They feared corruption, and thought it necessary to establish legislation to protect the people from corruption of its leaders, particularly the governor. This was the primary source of concern that differentiated Winthrop from the deputies. This fear was so overriding in these deputies, that even they had great respect in Winthrop, they sought to displace him as governor to assure the power of the governor did not become so absolute, he or any future governors would be able to retain his position for life. Ironically, such a system was put in a place briefly for three years; beginning in 1636 called the council for life. They hoped to encourage others to run for the position, and claimed God chose the best magistrates, and scripture indicated they should be appointed for life. However, the magistrates not elected became jealous, so the plan was abandoned. So, Winthrop was forced to continually defend his authoritative style of governing, and at the same time give concessions of power to satisfy the elders. It would have been just as easy for him to silence those who opposed him by punishing them for speaking against "divine authority,'' but he did not.

In regards to the close ties of government and church, the colonial government was not a theocracy, nor a democracy. In fact, the clergy had no political authority in the government, although they were quite influential. Besides being highly respected in the community, they often gave advice to magistrates. Despite this fact, interestingly the clergy supported the deputies on passing legislation limiting discretionary authority. Winthrop, even though he was also a strong supporter of the magistrates, was not resistant to allowing these laws to pass, which limited their authority. Winthrop did nothing to further the ties between the church and government, despite his use of scripture to defend his authoritative government. To do otherwise, would have been arbitrary to the extent that it would have blurred the lines between church and state, and where the true authority lies.

If Winthrop's view on government could be summed up in a few words it would be to the effect that he disliked legislative restraints, instead preferring magistrates to make laws through precedent. This was the point of conflict with which Winthrop and the other deputies most often were confronted with, and often resulted in a shift of authority. Winthrop feared that legislation which consistently delegated more power to the people, threatened to bring the government closer towards democracy, and further blurring the lines between the ruler and the ruled. The problem with leaving this power to the magistrates, the other deputies believed is that it left the people unprotected from corruption, because the freemen were only human. Winthrop placed more faith in God to protect against this, so he was still able to maintain absolute authority, and a therefore a civil society.

Winthrop also believed that "If you stand for your natural liberties...you will not endure the least weight of authority.'' In his famous speech "On Liberty,'' in 1645 after his acquittal, he distinguished between the two types of liberties. There is natural liberty, where there is the human nature of corruption, and civil liberty, which is the covenant between God and man, and is only just. The significance of this distinction is an important concept in understanding Winthrop's understanding of authority. With absolute authority, natural liberty has no place. True freedom is the right to follow God's will, not to do whatever you feel like. Winthrop believed that legislation in expanding individual freedom threatened civil liberty, because it limited absolute authority to maintain a civil authority. So, in Winthrop's view, his authoritarian government could not be arbitrary, because civil liberty is the only fair and just liberty. Natural liberty only invites corruption, and robs the community of their civil liberty. Understanding this concept is important to understand Winthrop's resistance to legislation that sought to undermine the authority of the elected leaders. Winthrop believed to allow the people to have control, only furthers the cause for natural liberty.

The circumstances leading up to this famous speech Winthrop delivered distinguishing the two types of liberties, is quite fascinating. The trial is also a good example of Winthrop's willingness to submit himself to authority, when necessary.

1n 1645, Winthrop was singled out and accused of an abuse of power in his part in the rendering of a judgment that had the effect of punishing certain individuals via excommunication for spreading lies about magistrates within the church. The individuals were told by Winthrop, deputy governor at the time, that a judge did not have to inform them who their accusers were before the trial. Since Winthrop would not inform them who their accusers were, they refused to agree to appear in court, and petitioned the General Court challenging their power as arbitrary. Winthrop was chosen by the petitioners to represent the accused court in a trial, even though he himself was a member of the court. The two petitioners became the prosecutors in the trial. The magistrates agreed to take the case after the deputy representing the petitioners requested a public hearing. Ironically, the deputy was well aware that the judgment could have a damaging effect on his position, as well as the magistrates. Not to mention, there were no formal criminal charges brought against Winthrop. The petitioners simply had a grievance with the apparent arbitrariness of the general court's exercise of power.

In the end, both the deputies and magistrates agreed that the petition was false, that the petitioners themselves were all offenders to varying degrees. and should be Censored, and finally deputy governor Winthrop should be acquitted. Whereupon after this decision, Winthrop delivered his "On Liberty'' speech.

Being faced with this accusation, the magistrates nonetheless agreed to hear the case concerning their own power and role in an arbitrary government. The challenge that the magistrates had unlimited power could be proven unfounded with the very fact that they did take the case, when they could have just as easily buried the case. Their ruling, however suspect, was still considered appropriate and justified. It did align with Winthrop's distinction between the two liberties, where maintaining authority is more important than individual rights. In that respect, the general court could not have ruled in any other way, without betraying their own principles.

Winthrop's role in all this, further supports the point that he firmly believed that the government established was not arbitrary, and the event encouraged him to write a treatise on this very subject. It was suppose to serve as a model for the deputies to follow, but many found dangerous concepts within, having not known the author.

However, having the text censured would have damaged the magistrates reputation with the people and weakened their position. Therefore the text stood, but the ideological differences between Winthrop and the other members of the general court remained.

The irony in all this is that even though Winthrop supported the authority of the magistrates, they still questioned a document that was brought to them by the deputies of Winthrop's that actually supported their authority. If it was indeed an arbitrary government, it never would have been an issue, or considered by the so-called arbitrary magistrates. They could have just as easily prevented their opponents from challenging their authority, but they instead chose to listen to the charges. It is only appropriate that Winthrop was singled-out to represent them. The trial was a perfect microcosm of the entire issue I have argued in this paper. In the end, Winthrop was successful in defending his stance on authoritarian government and civil liberty over natural liberty.

In conclusion, deciding if the government established in Massachusetts Bay Colony by John Winthrop was arbitrary or not is a simple one. However, in analyzing the facts arrived at the conclusion that it was not. Given the opportunities Winthrop and the General Court had in exercising authoritarian power to block opponents from challenging the government, the accusation of arbitrariness is unfounded. Winthrop was confronted on several occasions with this accusation, and each time was able to successfully defend himself, as well as the authority of the General Court. Winthrop believed to maintain a civil society and civil liberty, absolute authority must be protected. The danger was blurring the lines between the ruler and the ruled. He was not a democrat, nor a theocrat. The clergy had no power in the political process, although they had some influence through advisement of magistrates. The fear of the governor holding too much power resulted in legislation to help protect the people from abuses of power. Winthrop did not oppose this, although he may not have liked it. Continuing fears of the abuse of power by those who had it resulted in further efforts to limit it by means of trials accusing Winthrop and others of being arbitrary. Winthrop again defended himself with the concept of civil liberty as opposed to natural liberty, which is open to human corruption. Winthrop took compromising steps to satisfy his opponents, choosing not to exercise all the powers granted to him in the charter, and even creating a constitution that allowed more protection against corruption. The Antinomian Controversy was only a small example of Winthrop's tendency to practice leniency instead of taking advantage of his full power in handing down punishments. Was Winthrop a part of an arbitrary government? l believe he was not considering the facts involved.

Bibliography

Primary Source:

Winthrop, John, ed. Winthrop's Journal: History of New England, 1630-49. N.Y.:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1908.

Secondary Sources:

Bremer, Francis J. "The Heritage of John Winthrop: Religion Along the Stour Valley,

1548-1630." New England Quarterly 70, (1997): 515-47.

Bush, Sargent, Jr. "The Journal of John Winthrop: 1630-49, abridged ed.'' Early American Literature 33 no. 1 (1998): 97-107.

Crilly, Mark W. "John Winthrop: Magistrate, Minister, Merchant.'' The Midwest Quarterly 40 no. 2 (1999): 187-208.

Dawson, Hugh J. "Christian Charitie as Colonial Discourse: Rereading Winthrop's

Sermon in its English Context.'' Early American Literature 33 no. 2 (1998): 1 17-

148.

--- "John Winthrop's Rite of Passage: The Origins of the "Christian Charitie' Discourse.''

Early American Literature 26 no.3 (1999): 219-231.

Michaelson, Scott. "Modell Covenant and the Company Way.'' Early American

Literature 27 no. 2 (1992): 85-97.

Miller, Joshua. "Direct Democracy and the Puritan Theory of Membership.'' Journal of Politics 53 (1991): 57-74.

Morgan, Edmund S., ed. The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop. Boston:

Little, Brown, 1958.

Oetting, D.L. "John Winthrop, 'On Liberty,' 1645."

http://douglass.speech.mwu.edu/wint.n54.htm (17 March 2001).

Winthrop, Robert, C. "Life and Letters of John Winthrop: governor of Massachusetts

Bay Colony at their emigration to New England, 1630." Microfiche: Chicago,

Library Resources, 1970.