Reflections of a New Hampshire Puritan Patriot
It is appalling to me that people of close relation can be alienated by the current political events of early 1776. My cousin Bartholomew, who works in Portsmouth for one of the royal officials, cannot understand why I am a patriot willing to “turn my back on our King,” as he says, and fight for the independence of all thirteen colonies’ from Great Britain. He goes on and on about the good life he thinks we colonists of New Hampshire have lived. I wish no ill upon my cousin, who would stand to lose his job should he join our cause; but I must take the broad view, and look at the beneficial ramifications of more groups in society participating in government, versus the detrimental outcome of continuing the monopoly of political influence exercised by King George III and the most privileged economic groups. Because my Puritan faith is rooted in religious democracy, it shouldn’t be surprising that I believe in political democracy, not political tyranny. Political democracy is only fair and right, and consistent with the laws of God and nature. As I reflect over the past few years, I can easily and simply conclude: I am a patriot because I philosophically favor political democracy over the monarchical politics of Parliament.
I am especially steadfast and confident as a patriot because of the fervent support from my church. Eighty-four of 118 churches in this province are of the Congregational sect (Upton, p. 208), and I am thankful that most people with whom I attend church are patriots. Indeed, the Congregational Church has been called “the mainspring of Revolutionary New Hampshire” (Upton, p. 60), proclaiming that our freedom and independence are inherent rights that emanate from God and nature. It was primarily to obtain the freedom to worship as they pleased that my Puritan ancestors came to this continent (Auden & Taylor, p. 42); now we must act to obtain independence, to insure freedom to benefit from stewardship of the land we inhabit and work. Almost every day, I look forward to hearing the inspiration of our preachers. Admittedly, since clergy are the main source of our news and political information in New Hampshire, I may be somewhat biased by their opinions. However, clergymen are the best educated element in our colonial society, especially the Congregational clergy (Upton, pp. 56, 60), so they are our most credible source. Increasingly, they are reporting and protesting “the arbitrary and unjust acts of a Parliament and ministry determined to subvert traditional liberties” (Daniel, p. 217). As the Crown has taken note and lusted after our abundant resources, becoming more determined than ever to control them, we colonists once again find ourselves needing to escape the King of England’s selfish demands. Sailing away to another continent is not an option this time, but severing our ties to the maniacal monarchy is becoming our sacred duty.
My first personal experience with the monarch’s ridiculous and unfair policies occurred when I worked in the lumbering industry. From 1762 until 1768, I profited from British trade because land in New Hampshire grows quality pine trees, and the tallest are highly regarded for building ships. For decades, ships produced by New Hampshire have been purchased by English enterprisers and have played a significant role in the British Empire’s trade ventures (Upton, p. 150). Furthermore, the British Royal Navy has used innumerable New Hampshire trees for their fleet; they prefer our pines over any in the world for the masts of their sturdiest ships, built for enormous cargoes (Morison & Morison, pp. 43-46). When the King decided he wanted every single one of our giant trees for himself, he commanded that white pines of twenty-four inches or more in diameter be emblazoned with his mark, and anyone caught cutting one faces imprisonment and fines (Morison & Morison, p. 46-47; Upton, p. 170). Nevertheless, New Hampshire colonists – especially the Congregational Church – strongly disagree with this precept. Their typical attitude is that trees are “gifts of God and Nature” (Upton, p. 171) and, therefore, we colonists ought to be allowed to do with them as we please. Earlier governors did a poor job of enforcing the white pine law, but in 1768, John Wentworth became governor, and he strictly enforced it (Upton, p.171). I disobeyed the King’s law by cutting down marked trees if I saw fit, as did my fellow workers. However, I quickly wearied of playing cat and mouse with the King’s men, and thus decided to try another line of work.
Having chosen to resume farming, I returned to the agrarian roots of my mother’s family, in Hillsborough County. Located in the middle of the state, and consisting mostly of farmers (Upton, p. 52), this central section of New Hampshire breeds the most fervent patriots. Good land is scarce and communication is difficult, so most of our farms are small and self-sufficient (Upton, p. 2). We sell little. The income I produce as a farmer is minimal, but what I farm is my property, and I may do with my crops as I wish. This is as it should be. Unlike lumbering and certain other trades or government positions, my occupation has no direct ties with Great Britain. Being a farmer thus does not conflict economically with my patriotic goal of claiming independence from Great Britain; independence will not decrease my agrarian income. We farmers are united and strengthened by a general religious and economic consensus advocating for patriotism. Our hardy central-state neighbors in lumbering and linen manufacturing join us agrarians to form the backbone of the Sons of Liberty in New Hampshire (Upton, p. 2). Of course our poorest neighbors, being sorely discontent, also side with the Revolutionaries (Upton, p. 2). All of us insist on resisting unfair taxes levied on household products, like the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts, which have affected everyone regardless of occupation (Auden & Taylor, pp. 92-93). Any and all taxes we pay should have nothing to do with the King. Further, my fellow colonists and I should have a voice in what we pay to our own government (Upton, p. 3). Freedom to be and do as one reasonably pleases, having a say in one’s own governance, all this should be the privilege of the many, not only the aristocratic few.
As the God-given freedom to self-determination does not now prevail among the many, but instead exists only for those who are privileged with wealth or political favors, it is no wonder that we New Hampshire patriots have made the difficult decision to participate in a struggle that can be violent. New Hampshire Sons of Liberty, being predominantly Puritan, are not quick to bear arms against another. But we have been provoked and cannot stand by idly watching our ideals and rights be trampled. As I reflect on the Boston massacre that occurred March 5, 1770, I remember the letter that many received, signed “Consideration”. This letter stated, “O AMERICANS! This BLOOD calls loud for VENGANCE! . . . . Let it be the DETERMINED RESOLUTION of every Man, that a standing Army shall never be permitted in AMERICA, without the free consent of the House of Commons, in the province where they reside” (Upton, 9). As I read this, I felt compassion for the colonists and some downright pity along with my scorn toward the British. It was probably this letter that ignited the resentment which compelled me, in December of 1774, to participate in seizing one hundred barrels of British gun powder at Fort William and Mary (Morison & Morison, p. 70; Upton, pp.22-23, 40). I helped to confiscate the powder and hide it in our private homes.
That very gun powder was recently used, on June 17, 1775, when I – a Puritan and a patriot – served in the battle of Bunker Hill in Boston, along with more than 900 other patriots from New Hampshire (Teitelbaum, p. 57; Daniel, p. 242), the largest contingent present. I lost many friends in this battle. Officially, I have killed a total of thirty-two people, all on the bloody Bunker Hill. Honestly, I am still questioning myself on the moral validity of killing another human being. In essence, yes, Cousin Bartholomew, I am questioning the moral validity of my extremity as a patriot. How do I justify the act of killing another person on the basis of differing political thought? Many of my religious companions do justify such extreme acts on the basis of this political differentiation. I feel that religious democracy has an inherent holy purpose. Does political democracy have such a purpose? Guardedly but confidently, I am concluding that it does, and is thus worth fighting for. I am a patriot, Bartholomew, not because I care to turn my back on “my King”, but because I dare to defend the rights with which God has blessed me and every other human being. I am a patriot because political democracy has an inherently sacred purpose and responsibility.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Auden, Scott and Alan Taylor. Voices from Colonial America New Hampshire, 2007
Daniel, Jere R. Colonial New Hampshire: A History, 1981
Hill, Ralph Nading. Yankee Kingdom Vermont and New Hampshire, 1960
Morison, Elizabeth and Elting E. Morison. New Hampshire: A History, 1976
Teitelbaum, Michael. Life in the Thirteen Colonies New Hampshire, 2004
Upton, Richard Francis. Revolutionary New Hampshire, Kennikat Press, 1936
Wiener, Roberta and James R. Arnold. Thirteen Colonies New Hampshire, 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment