The Puritan colonies of New England

 

The first English colony in what is now the United States of America was that of the Virginia Company, founded in 1607 during the reign of King James I. The first township was called Jamestown, after the king.

The next American colony was of a very different character; it was formed by religious exiles from England. A few Puritans, mostly from Lincolnshire, were disgusted with their treatment in England under King James I and left England to seek refuge in Holland. After ten years there, some of them decided to emigrate to North America. Other Puritans joined them, and the exiles, who became known as the Pilgrim Fathers, left Plymouth in the Mayflower in September 1620. They landed just north of Cape Cod and founded the first township which they called Plymouth.

Eight years later a larger body of Puritans in England formed a company which they called the Massachusetts Bay Company. The following year King Charles I granted them a charter and the whole body of shareholders crossed the Atlantic in 1630 to form the colony of Massachusetts. A steady flow of English immigrants during the next eleven years meant that the colony prospered. By 1644 the total population was more than 20,000.

Despite the fact that these Puritans had left their home to escape from religious intolerance, their own government was no less intolerant. John Winthrop, the first governor, was a man of considerable ability but had narrow views. Political rights in Massachusetts, no less than in England, depended on conformity with the narrow religious creed. This creed was determined by a small circle of strict Puritans who supported the governor. Anyone who differed from their rulers on minor points of religion could be subject to harsh punishment. Roger Williams, a clergyman who was driven from Massachusetts by this persecution, founded a new colony, that of Rhode Island, in 1636.

Other colonies followed, namely Connecticut and New Hampshire, the whole group becoming known as new England. These Puritan colonies were on the whole very prosperous, continuing to receive emigrants from England. Although the New Englanders tend to be less aristocratic than the Virginians, narrow religious opinion prevented the growth of a real democracy. The severance from England was more marked that of Virginia, because they regarded themselves as exiles rather than colonists.

© John Welford

The poisonous myth of the Hamitic heritage

It should come as no surprise when people seek to justify immoral actions by appealing to a Biblical precedent. That was the case with the enslavement of black people by whites, which they claimed was sanctioned in the Book of Genesis.

Noah and Ham

Genesis Chapter 9 tells the story of Ham, the third son of Noah, finding the latter drunk and naked in his tent and telling his brothers, Shem and Japheth, who avert their gaze as they go into the tent to cover their father up and prevent any further embarrassment. On waking up, Noah is angry with Ham and lays a curse on the latter's youngest son, Canaan, which is that he is to be a bondservant to his two uncles. 

On the face of it, this seems to be particularly unfair to both Ham and Canaan. If Ham had not been first into the tent, presumably it would have been one of the other two. And why does Canaan, who was presumably only a child at the time, get it in the neck? However, that is the story as given, whatever the justice or otherwise of the case. Later interpreters have ascribed various degrees of significance to this passage. 

The descendants of Noah

Genesis Chapter 10 outlines the descendants of the three sons of Noah. This is not exactly a riveting read, but it is important as an account of how the world was repopulated after the Flood, bearing in mind that, according to Genesis, these were the only human beings left alive. 

Shem’s descendants are therefore the Semites, who include the Jews, with Abraham being a direct descendent of Shem by nine generations. Ham’s descendants are the Hamites, whose tribes include the Canaanites, who were to become the enemies of the Jews. This may explain the curse placed on Canaan. Other descendants of Ham were to populate much of North Africa.

Fact or myth?

Whether or not one regards the foregoing as fact or myth, depending on one’s interpretation of Genesis, what follows surely comes under the heading of myth, because it is based on such things as supposition, misreading and prejudice, with little if any Biblical justification. In short, Ham is judged to have been the father of the black races of the earth, and these are seen to be inferior to the white races.

For example, one early Jewish text has it that Ham was the only brother who had sexual intercourse during his time in the Ark (he is the only one mentioned as having a son immediately after the Flood) and for this he was “smitten in his skin”. Later writers also connected punishment with being made black, and linked blackness with slavery. For example, Patriarch Eutychius of Alexandria wrote: “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers … He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians…” 

The curse in modern times

These myths persisted down the centuries, so that the most terrible things could be written by people who were well-respected and venerated in their time and later. For example, the visionary Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), who was placed on the road to sainthood in 2004 by Pope John Paul II, was able to write: 

“I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang".

One of the worst Victorian exponents of the myth was the explorer John Hanning Speke (1827-1864) who made three explorations of Africa in searching for the source of the Nile. He claimed that the Tutsis of Rwanda were superior to the Hutus because they had more “white” characteristics and did not suffer from the curse of Ham. This division into “good” and “bad” races led indirectly to the genocide of 1994 in which maybe as many as a million Tutsis and thousands of Hutus died within a hundred days.

It is an undisputed fact that the curse of Ham has been used as a justification for the enslavement of black people. Indeed, some have even regarded it as a virtual duty of white people to enslave black people, because of the Biblical example. In seeking to defend slavery at the time of the American Civil War, the crime of Ham was blown up to include rape and incest, with the clear implication that his black descendants were still guilty and deserved his punishment.

It is unfortunate that, in the eyes of many misguided people even today, black is bad and white is good. The perniciousness of this view, that has caused so much misery and injustice down the centuries, is largely due to the Hamitic heritage, and it is high time that we, as the human race, grew up and came to recognize the evil of maintaining this belief, and others that have no basis in reality but lurk under the cloak of religion to destroy so many innocent lives.

© John Welford

An appalling historical example of Christian violence

Lest anyone should forget that unspeakable savagery in the name of religion is not the preserve of any particular faith, the date of 15^th July might be brought to mind. It was on this day in 1099 that the First Crusade achieved its aim of capturing Jerusalem from the Muslims who had occupied it for 400 years.

It had taken more than three years for the Crusading force to reach Jerusalem from western Europe, during which time the original army of 50,000 had been reduced by half. However, the force was still strong enough to breach the city’s defences, thus persuading the inhabitants to seek refuge in the Temple of Solomon.

When the Crusaders broke in they massacred everyone they could find – possibly as many as 10,000 men, women and children – and then cut open the bodies in case the victims had swallowed jewels or coins in the hope being able to escape with a little money to support themselves.

The Crusaders followed this episode by turning on the Jews of the city, herding them into the main synagogue which was then set on fire.

Having eliminated all opposition, the Crusaders set about establishing a permanent presence in Palestine in the form of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was to last for nearly 200 years. However, Jerusalem itself fell to the great Saracen leader Saladin in 1187, which led to another Crusade being launched, notably featuring England’s King Richard I as one of its leaders.

Although Christians at the time would have regarded the sack of Jerusalem as a major triumph that showed that God was definitely on their side, later generations have come to see these events in their true light, namely an utterly revolting episode that did absolutely no credit to the religion it purported to be championing.

© John Welford

Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, 630

On 11^th January 630 the Prophet Muhammad returned to Mecca, where he had been born some 60 years previously, at the head of an army of 10,000 followers. This show of force was enough to dissuade his opponents from putting up much resistance and so the conquest of Mecca was nearly bloodless.

Muhammad had spent most of his life in Mecca but had been forced to leave in about 622 due to the hostility he had aroused from some local people. His temporary home had been the rival city of Medina.

On his return, Muhammad negotiated a takeover of Mecca with Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Quraysh ruling tribe. As a result, only a few opponents tried to block his entry and most of those soon surrendered.

Muhammad also made sure that no reprisals were taken against his former enemies in Mecca, stating that “he who lays down arms will be safe. He who locks his door will be safe.”

Less assured of safety were the religious images that adorned the Kaaba, the holiest sanctuary in Mecca. Many idols were removed and destroyed, although some accounts maintain that images of Abraham, Jesus and Mary were spared. His main aim was to restore the status of the Kaaba as a sanctuary that was so “by virtue of the sanctity Allah has bestowed on it until the Day of Resurrection”. Mecca and the Kaaba have remained the focal points of Islam ever since.

© John Welford

The Shakers: The "Shaking Quakers" best known for their furniture

The Shaking Quakers, better known as Shakers, were a remarkable group of Christians that flourished in the United States during the late 18^th and early to mid 19^th centuries. Although their numbers were never all that large their name lives on mainly because of the artefacts they left behind them.

History of the Shakers

Although they are always thought of as an American religious sect, the Shakers had their origins in England. Their founder was Ann Lee, who was born in Manchester in 1742. She came from a very poor background and had to work in a factory. She sought solace in religion and joined a group that held meetings in which dancing and shouting in strange languages were encouraged.

Ann Lee fell out with this group over her belief that the root of all evil was lust, which was the real reason, according to her, why Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. She felt herself called to spread the word about the need for chastity, and became convinced that the American colonies would be the most receptive place for her message. She therefore left England for America in 1774, accompanied by her husband and a few followers.

It was not until 1780 that Ann Lee began her public ministry (at Niskeyuna near Albany, New York), but this was followed by a missionary journey through New England from 1781 to 1783. This led to the setting-up of a number of “Shaker villages” that were to become the nucleus of the sect. Ann Lee’s message about the value of hard work, meekness and simple living went down well with the Yankees in their newly freed states, but many were not so happy about the idea of enforced celibacy and this led to physical attacks on Shaker worshippers.

Ann Lee and her husband both died in 1784, but the movement was then led by James Whittaker, who was followed by Joseph Meacham. Whittaker stressed the need for communal ownership of property and Meacham developed the blueprint for gathering Shakers into communal villages. He was joined in the leadership by Lucy Wright, and this established a pattern within the villages of a male leader or official being matched by a female one.

There were originally eleven villages in the New England states, and the movement later spread westwards into Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. 

Shaker communities

Shakers were allowed to marry but could not have sexual relationships. They therefore lived in separate dormitory-like buildings and children were raised in their own groups rather than directly by their parents.

Although new recruits to the movement would have brought their children with them, no further babies were born. Shakers therefore adopted orphans from outside their communities, and this no doubt solved many problems for non-Shaker women who bore children out of wedlock.

Shaker communities were founded on hard work and sharing various labours, but they did not believe in drudgery for its own sake. Shakers were responsible for producing several labour-saving devices, including the circular saw and a washing machine.

They traded extensively with the outside world, becoming known not only for the quality of their work but for their honesty in business dealings. Shakers became particularly well known for their furniture, which was basic in design but well-made and comfortable. Many pieces have survived to the present day.

By removing the burden of child-bearing from their women, the latter were able to play a full part in the life of their community to the extent that the sexes were regarded as equal in all material respects. It was true that certain tasks were regarded as men’s work and others as women’s work, but this did not mean that men’s tasks, such as blacksmithing and cabinet-making, were seen as being more important than the women’s tasks of cooking and cleaning. They were different in kind, not in status.

This attitude to gender roles and the importance of dual leadership were grounded in the Shakers’ theological view that God was both male and female and all creation was based on that duality. Ann Lee, who was revered as “Mother Ann” was the female counterpart to the male Jesus. 

The “shaking” of the Shakers continued to be an important feature of their worship meetings, in which the sober behaviour of the people in their day-to-day activities was replaced by dancing and shouting. However, at times during the 19^th century the Shakers adopted a less exuberant form of worship, with choreographed dance movements and songs that were sung unaccompanied. They allowed non-Shaker visitors into these more restrained Sabbath meetings and drew large crowds. 

The decline of the Shakers

The Shaker movement was not attuned to modern times and it eventually faded away, starting from the late 19^th century. The ban on sexual intercourse not only made it impossible for Shakers to maintain their numbers unless they adopted orphans, but it also made their way of life less attractive to those orphans when they grew up and, to be blunt, realised what they were missing. Many of them left the villages at the first opportunity. The Shaker lifestyle was in any case unappealing to most outsiders and recruitment became increasingly rare.

There is, however, one Shaker village still in existence. This is Sabbathday Lake in Maine, where the last few Shakers live out their days and the village acts as a museum of Shakerism. Meanwhile, genuine Shaker furniture attracts very good prices at antiques sales across the world on the rare occasions that it comes on the market.

© John Welford

The myth of the Black Hole of Calcutta

The story of the Black Hole of Calcutta was one that was believed for decades to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but what really happened would appear to be very different from what the history books used to tell.

It was a story that grew from the days of the building of the British Empire, when everyone in Great Britain was convinced that empire-building was the right thing to be doing – spreading civilization and Christianity to the benighted people of far-distant lands. With that mindset, everything that the British did was right and proper and the actions of “lesser” people to frustrate British ambitions had to be wrong and improper. The Black Hole story fits into that scenario very well.

The East India Company

Britain’s early expansion into India was largely due to the actions of the East India Company, which had received its royal charter as far back as 1600. It pursued its aims – of trading in India on terms that were extremely beneficial to British interests – with considerable energy, which included imposing its will by force if necessary. The Company had its own army and navy, and at its peak in the 1850s it had control of more than 250,000 troops and a fleet that was larger than that of the Royal Navy.

By 1756 the East India Company was throwing its weight about in the region around Calcutta (modern Kolkata) and interfering in the internal affairs of the territory ruled by Siraj ud-Daulah, the Nawab of Bengal. The Company operated from Fort William, its fortified power base in the city.

The Nawab decided to frustrate the Company’s ambitions by launching an attack on Fort William on 20^th June 1756. Seeing what was about to happen, most of the company troops and local recruits deserted the fort and fled, leaving only a token force behind. The fort was therefore easily taken after a short armed struggle, but the Nawab made it clear that he intended no harm to come to the prisoners he had taken. However, the reaction of the prisoners, led by the fort’s commander John Zephaniah Holwell, was far from cooperative so the Nawab ordered that all the Europeans in the fort, including Holwell, should be thrown into its jail briefly as a form of punishment.

The Black Hole Myth

The first element of the myth now comes into play, because the number of prisoners could not have been more than around nine, as opposed to the 146 in the account that reached the history books. In reality, only three of the prisoners died during the night of the incarceration and not the 123 that were claimed as the casualties. The three deaths were not from any mistreatment that they endured but the result of wounds suffered during the previous day’s battle.

The myth was created by John Holwell when he returned to London and put together a report with the title: “A Genuine Narrative of the Deplorable Deaths of the English Gentlemen and Others Who Were Suffocated in the Black Hole”. He was helped in its composition by two other executives of the East India Company who were not witnesses of the event. Holwell could therefore say whatever he liked because he knew full well that nobody would contradict him.

His account was plainly absurd. The room in question measured 18 feet by 14 feet and was therefore physically incapable of holding 146 people. Holwell included lurid details of the agony-twisted faces of the prisoners as they were denied water by their jailers. However, he was right about one thing, which was that the fort’s jail was not called the Black Hole for nothing – it had no windows and only two narrow ventilation slits, so it would have been impossible to see the faces of anyone in the pitch darkness that would have resulted.

But none of this mattered to the British public, who revelled in the horror story and pushed hard for revenge to be taken on the Nawab, who had dared to inflict such an atrocity on British subjects. The worse the atrocity appeared to be, the more likely it was that they would insist on the strongest possible measures.

Enter Robert Clive

Robert Clive has gone down in history as “Clive of India”, being the general most responsible for winning the battles and skirmishes that brought huge swathes of the subcontinent under British control. He had joined the army of the East India Company as a young man and risen rapidly through the ranks, although his reputation for bravery and skillful command may have been ill-deserved, given his use of trickery and cruelty to gain his objectives.

At all events, he was the man to whom the East India Company turned in order to sort out the problem of the Nawab of Bengal. Clive had little difficulty in recapturing Fort William and then went on to defeat the Nawab at the Battle of Plassey.

Clive used his time in India to enrich himself and acquire large amounts of loot from the various rulers that he defeated. When he finally returned to England he was challenged by Parliament to explain his vast wealth and justify his apparently underhand methods but was completely exonerated. In the end, winning an Empire for Great Britain was justification enough.

Challenging the Myth

It took a very long time for the Black Hole story to be properly challenged and exposed for the lie that it was. The first rebuttal did not come until 1915 with a paper entitled “The Black Hole: The Question of Holwell’s Veracity”, by the secretary of the Calcutta Historical Society. Other investigations were to follow. However, such was the power of the original story that it is still widely believed today, despite its impossibility.

The Black Hole of Calcutta is just one of many examples of “fake news” from past centuries. Telling huge lies has often proved to be profitable, especially when they are believed by enough people. Under search circumstances, why bother telling the truth?

© John Welford

Peter Minuit's big buy

On 24^th May 1626, a director of the Dutch West India Company named Peter Minuit, a Dutch-speaking German, bartered a consignment of pots, pans, fish hooks, tools and cloth, together worth around 60 guilders, for an island at the mouth of the Hudson River. The value of that island, named Manhattan (“island of hills”) by the local Algonquin tribe, has risen considerably between then and now!

Two years before Peter Minuit had joined them, the Dutch West India Company had established the colony of New Netherland in the lower Hudson valley and had landed its first settlers there who subsequently established small communities dotted around the bay into which the Hudson River empties. However, war broke between local tribes over the fur trade they were conducting with the settlers, and the purpose of Minuit’s purchase from the native Lenape people was to provide a safe haven for the settlers at its southern tip.

He called the settlement New Amsterdam and had a wooden fort built at its centre into which the settlers could retreat if they came under threat.

In 1631 the Dutch West India Company called Peter Minuit back to Holland and, after more adventures in the New World, some on behalf of the Swedish government, he was drowned in 1638 in the West Indies when his ship foundered during a hurricane.

Even without Peter Minuit’s leadership the colony of New Amsterdam went from strength to strength, but things changed in 1664 when the colony was under the despotic and controversial governor Peter Stuyvesant.

As a prelude to the second Anglo-Dutch War, the English King Charles II decided that it would be a good move to annex the territory of New Amsterdam and join it to other English possessions in North America.  A fleet of warships was duly dispatched. Control of the colony was duly wrested from the Dutch after usual combination of threats and assurances had been delivered and received.

The English crown now held a colony named New Amsterdam, which clearly unsatisfactory. The king’s younger brother James, the Duke of York, was Lord High Admiral and nominally in charge of the naval action that seized the colony, so changing the name from Amsterdam to York seemed to be an appropriate move. It was therefore not the case that the colony took its name directly from the city of that name, which was typically the case when settlers from a particular town or city in Great Britain established a settlement in the New World.

James, Duke of York, who would later succeed his brother as King James II, had a personal interest in acquiring New Amsterdam because he foresaw a good deal of money flowing his way if Dutch sea power could be destroyed. He was far from being alone in this ambition and was therefore extremely popular with those colonists who shared his point of view. The choice of New York as the name did not therefore meet with much opposition.

However, once he became king in 1685, attitudes towards James changed considerably. After a reign of only three years he was forced to abdicate the throne and leave the country. He was never popular in England, having acquired the nickname “Dismal Jimmy” in contrast to his flamboyant brother who became known as “The Merry Monarch”.

Despite his later fall from grace, New York stayed as New York and that also became the name of the territory that the colonists settled between the Atlantic and Lake Ontario. Not only that, but another city also owes its name to James. This is the capital of New York State, Albany, this having been James Duke of York’s other royal title.

© John Welford