View source for HIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments

== Arabella Sermon ==


'''In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?'''--Melissa Brokaw

In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies.  The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning.  They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs.  The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America.  However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes.  The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help.  It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease.  It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely.  The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks.  These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony.  They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way.  It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way.  - Alex Zelin

In the John Winthrop reading, '''he speaks a lot of the poor and the rich'''. In the second paragraph he uses the phrase "poor and inferior sort," (page 56). '''This suggests to me to me, that in order for their to be Christian charity, some humans must be inferior and subordinate in every way to others. In the next paragraph, he states, "no man is made more honorable than another," (page 56). This seems very contradictory to me. Am I reading this out of context, or is this actually a contradtiction of two very important points in christianity?''' -Laura Peters

I found the quote “no man is made more honorable than another” contradictory, as did Laura, but for a different reason.  When he said that no man was better essentially than another, this seemed to be a complete contradiction of the Puritan belief.  If wealth and position is preordained by god and thus some are favored and more “honored” by god, then why would he say that no man is more honorable than another?  -Kathleen Dray

One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. '''I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today?''' -- Katie Mauro

I had the same thought as Katie did about Winthrop's quote from Matthew ~ if the Puritans hadn't included it in their communities, then would Americans try to instill the same values? I think that if the Puritans hadn't included their vresion of "the golden rule" into their communities and society, then the world--or at least America--would be a completely different place. The golden rule--doing unto others as you would have them do unto you--governs or at least holds precedence over a lot of institutions, including the honor code here at Mary Washington in that the university trusts the students to be responsible and upstanding citizens of the UMW community, while the students trust the university to act responsibly in the best interests for the community. Is it possible for anyone to imagine a country where the golden rule is not implemented--would there be more crime? More difficulty trusting superiors like the government or certain authorities? -- Meganne Lemon

In the Arbella Sermon, John Winthrop talks about the three conditions of love that the Puritans are expected to follow. He mentioned that after Adam betrayed God by going into the Garden of Eden, Adam sort of fell out of love with God because he disrespected him and the temptation Eve and the Garden imposed on him was too great. '''Winthrop mentions that as a result, Adam came to love and seek himself more than God. If Winthrop and the Puritans believed that women carried the burden of Eve's betrayal by experiencing the pain and impurity of childbirth (as Dr. McClurken lectured about), is it possible to believe or suggest that men carry the burden of Adam's betrayal by being somewhat self-interested, a little egotistical, or having too much pride of themselves? Or if not just men, then all women--all humans everywhere--as well in addition to bearing the retributions of Eve's seduction?''' -- Meganne Lemon

In the Arbella Sermon, Winthrop talks about having to love each other and treat each other the way they would want to be treated in order to be united with peace. '''There must be a reason why he is talking about love and unity throughout the sermon. Before New England, did the Puritans not have any unity or love for each other? or is he saying that since they were discriminated against in England that they must be more united and have more love for each other to succeed as a community in the New World?''' -- Eun Yi

I had always been led to believe that Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was the most famous sermon in American history.  '''Do scholars debate the amount of impact the Arbella Sermon had over "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"?'''  If so, what are some of the grounds for their conclusions? - Landon James


I found the title of the Arbella Sermon is totally absurd and contradictory. It is titled, A Model of Christian Charity, but the piece comes across almost threatening and undermines those who don't follow their beliefs. '''This Christian Charity seems only to apply to those who follow Puritan belief; it fails to mention charity towards Indians. I feel as though this sermon was given less out of good will and more as a preemptive move to ensure that everyone would cooperate and live under Puritan guidelines.''' I suppose that giving a sermon like this could be a smart move considering the how poorly the establishment at Jamestown went. '''I wonder how influential it was in respect to the success of the Puritan colonies?''' -Lindsay Bothwell

'''This document seems to be really strict in its views and expectations of the colonist. How adimently did the colonist really follow these rules and beliefs?'''--Dani Jones

Although I felt John Winthrop's sermon to contain many great points and inciteful excerpts related to love and people's relationships with one another, a lot of it felt to me to be using God as a kind of selling point. Don't get me wrong, I am sure he was an extremely religious man, but a lot of it gave me the impression it was coming from a politician using religion to get people to act in a particular way. In the beginning he speaks of the rich and the poor. He explains "no man is more honorable than the other" this is because one is rich or poor because God made them that way for the common good of man, and particular traits were even instilled by God into each two classifications of people(rich - love, mercy, gentleness, temperance, poor- faith, patience, obedience) to further justify the divine providence of their rank. '''Winthrop continues further to instruct that this community must be out of the ordinary, based on brotherly love, the golden rule, and most importantly to follow the rules set by God. It just seems to me he is using God to justify all of the aspects that would get the people to act in the way he directs, and create this utopian community, one that England would look upon with jealousy.''' He explains how they are up on a pedestal, with all eyes upon them so and if they "deal falsely" with God, he will draw away his present help from them and the world will see them fail. --Christen Booher

This sermon really shows the extent to which Puritans believed in predestination. Not only did they believe that it was predestined who would be saved and who would not, but they also believed that wealth and social status was predestined. However, in his sermon Winthrop makes it clear that they all need to work together and be united when they arrive in the New World. As someone else commented, this was essential for their survival, as Jamestown showed. Therfore, this sermon of unity and working together is very important for all the new colonists to hear. -Iris Onks

== Roger Williams ==

Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw
'''
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words.''' This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright

I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American's and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. '''Wouldn't a colony want a peaceful and knowledge sharing relationship with the Indians? Is it the fact that he went past their boundaries and studied the Indians that makes this such a wrong doing?''' Williams, I feel, does a great job in expressing his Puritan beliefs, along with the insites he has gained from the Indians.- Taylor Warner

I feel like this account shows how ignorant people can be somtimes.  Since the begginning of time people have always been selfish and looking out for themselves.  If this people stopped and just thought about it for a minute the would of realized that they could of used the indains as a way to survive.  After Rogers Williams learns more about the native americans instead of banishing him they shoud of embrassed him and they could of prospered alot more.-Bryan Quintana

Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted.  Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive.  Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee  Rosser

I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world.  He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them.  He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did.  He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them.  Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way?  They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards.  ~ Renee Rosser

Throughout this reading, he seems to take a different persepective on many aspects of English culture, more or less taking a more negative look on it than before. So I was curious, if he had become so bitter about England after being in America, why did he go back to England in 1643? -Laura Peters

Compared to the readings in past weeks, there is a definite change of attitude from the Indians. At first they thought the Europeans were a sign from the heavens, but now they've begun to realize they aren't going anywhere. They now ask Questions on why have the come here and what are they doing? I wonder how long the Native Americans Believed the Europeans would remain in America with them. Lauren Hicks

In class this week we discussed the relationships and roles of men and women, I thought it interesting that Williams notes "Yet sometimes the man himselfe, will help the Woman which (by the custome of the Countrey) they are not bound to." does he note this because it was a big deal that the man helped the women with her chores? Lauren Hicks


I too found William's account strange.  He seemed the voice of reason amidst all of the Englishmen/ priests that were bent on converting them or simply using and abusing the native population at that time. ''' It made me wonder what events in his life or experiences would have lead him to have such a drastically different view of the native Americans because back then''', it wasn't necessary that Englishmen treat the native americans with respect etc... -Kathleen Dray

'''I found it interesting that Williams compared religious intolerance like "spriritual rape." It seems interesting because rape is non consensual, and forcing someone to believe something they might not want to. Seems to me that at this time sex was somewhat taboo... So making this statement must have been pretty daring. I mean, even more than it already was. Right?''' --Jessica Lawrie

It is very interesting comparing John Winthrop’s sermon to Roger Williams writing. '''Winthrop’s sermon continuously refers to communal love between the elite Christians. Williams writing reveals to the reader how Puritan actions told a very different story.''' “It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians (Indians), then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians…” (Pg 64) '''Did the Puritans truly make important changes in their lives in New England versus their old lives in England, or was it mostly talk?''' -Emily King

This document is an exclent source to understanding the Natives of New England. I like how Williams is mostly unbias about the information. I did notice, though, that Williams did not write this as he was experiencing it, but rather while he was sailing back to England. How reliable would his writings be if he did not write it directly after his experience with the Natives?-Kristina Scrimshaw

I found it interesting that Roger Williams implies that a more stable, technological society has more opportunity and room for sin. He states that the Indians had no room for the sins that the Europeans brought with them to the New World. Although the Indians weren't as stable and technologically advanced, would they not still have room for error and sin?-Dani Jones

The English idea of a civilized culture seems very skewed in this observation of Native Americans by Roger Williams. At one point in the text Williams makes the point that the Native Americans do not even know the sins of gluttony and drunkenness, and do not commit crimes of murder, robbery, or adultry such as the English do. Then he goes on to praise god "who hath so advanced Europe above America". The European superiority complex, and idea that "good English gentlemen" must make it their duty to "civilize the savage" is very apparent here. --Helen Dinndorf

'''Maybe I'm a little too innocent in my reading of this, but Roger Williams seemed to be a very unbiased man.'''  He compared and contrasted to English society just because that's all he knew, but he seemed to truly study them before forming opinions on what he thought was right or wrong or different.  I really enjoyed this reading. --Gracie Ofslager

Roger Williams seems to have an unbiased view of the Native Americans. The English were harsh to the Native Americans upon arrival because they wanted to enslave them. However, Williams wrote of the Native Americans being kind, always willing to give any food they have if a stranger walks in. " It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally find more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." I wonder how different the relationship between the Native Americans and English would have been if the English hadn't been i such a race for profit. Perhaps they could have actually had a peaceful relationship and maybe some of the problems that still exist today would be nonexistent. --Courtney Newcomb

I found Williams's discussion of blood interesting.  He seemed to recognize that blood united the Native Europeans and colonists ("One blood made all mankind").  '''Considering the lack of medical knowledge at the time, it brought up a question to me.  How advanced was the medical knowledge of Purtians at the time?  Did they have legitimate doctors and scientists in the new world? How did it compare with Jamestown and VA Colonies?'''  - Adam Shlossman

Williams states that the Native Americans are heathens and they dress with a "two-fold nakednesse" like "their and our first Parents."  Is this to say that he believes that they share the same ancestry, meaning Adam and Eve?  And if so, how can it be that he believes some are created lesser than other when they share the same ancestry?  I also think it is an interesting aside that he likens their polytheistic religion to the Catholic Saints, which gives the Native American a more human-like comparison. -- Taja L. Winston

Like several others have commented, I was also wondering why Roger Williams was banished? He has a very unconventional yet positve view of the Native Americans. In many other European accounts of the Native Americans they are described as either violent or unintelligent. So, it is very refreshing to see Williams describe them for who they really are and show them in such a positive light. -Iris Onks


== Testimony against Bridget Bishop ==

I found it interesting to read the various accounts that were trying to prove that Bishop was in fact a witch.  The information that people provided was wide ranged, from business deals to children crying.  The account I found most remarkable was the man, William Stacy, who received money for working for her, but later, approximately 3 rods from her, he could not find his money.  He assumed she had taken it away from him.  It was very interesting to read the different accounts, and know that these "stories" were the evidence used to convict a woman of witch craft.  Quincey Garcia

I think it was crazy that back in those days all it took was your neighbor believeing you were a witch and you would be hung.  People had to of been nervous just leaving their houses for if they upset the wrong person they very well might accuse them of witch craft.  At the same time if you snitched on someone saying they are a witch then your other neighbors might start believeing that your a witch as well and could also accuse you and the cycle keeps going on.  I couldnt even picture a world like that.-Bryan Quintana


I also found these documents on the testimony aganist Bishop very interesting.''' I know that the witch hysteria was a very crazy thing, but why did so many people give testimony aganist this woman? Was this a common practice of having many, many people testify aganist the accused, or was this a special case?'''-Kristina Scrimshaw

I personally love the fact that everything that was presented against Bishop are all things that today would be taken as mere coincidence. The fact that children grew ill and that objects were either misplaced or disappeared were all attributed to this one woman shows the suspicious nature of these people. If my memory serves me correctly, Bishop was also one, if not the first, person to be accused of witchcraft in Salem.  -Virginia Stratton

I'm interested in knowing where the ideas of witches started in the first place. ''' Was it an idea that was carried over from England?  Also, Bishop pleaded not guilty; if she had pleaded guilty would she have recieved a lesser punishment than execution?''' -Megan Malecha


== John Dane's Memoir ==
 
'''While reading this I found myself wondering why this account was an important one.  Who exactly is John Dane?  Did he do anything noteworthy or was he just another Puritan?  Why is it important that we know his life story?  Is there a particular reason or is it just so we can try and get a sense of what life might have been like for the Puritans prior to and after coming to New England?  -Jenna Shevlin'''

In John Dane's Memoir, Dane is constantly analyzing and questioning his actions. Did Puritans rely on Individual distinctions between right and wrong? If so, did they believe that fear in God would guide these individuals to the right path?...or did they have more formal rules/laws? –Emily King

In John Dane's Memoir, I thought it was interesting that when John's parents discouraged him from going to the colonies, he took out the bible and decided that whatever page he randomly opened to would decide his fate. When the passage he read seemed to be telling him to go to the colonies, his parents all of the sudden we're encouraging him to leave right away. The bible seems to have totally control of the puritans, and yet they seem to twist its context because the passage John reads definitely does not clearly state for him to go to America, in fact it doesn't even seem close. --Helen Dinndorf

I question the childhood of John Dane and how it shaped his maturity.  Why is it so that he can grow up in a strict Puritan community but yet have this desire to disobey his parents?  Basically, I'm questioning whether his disobedience was determined by nature or nurture.  It seems unlikely that he has a desire to go against the teachings of his religion when that is the foundation of his life.  Did he just assume that he was inherently evil anyways so it didn't matter whether he was obedient to authority?  -Ally Campo

'''This question is not specific to only this passage, but it did get me thinking about the issue with child abuse.  I know that it was acceptable throughout most of history, but I cannot find any justification for why.  In the Bible it talks of how a master should treat his inferiors with respect and show mercy upon them. How could one show any respect or mercy by beating a helpless child?  If the Pruitans held so true to the Bible as the Word of God, why did THEY disobey the Lord by allowing such abuse?'''  -Ally Campo 

In response to Jenna’s questions about John Dane's Memoir, I have what may be some possible answers given my own interpretations of the memoir. First of all, I think that this selection is important mainly because it gives us a view of what life was really like for a true Puritan, rather than the typical stereotypes frequently portrayed about the archetypal Puritan that we so often read about.  I did some research and found nothing about the name John Dane…so apparently he was no one of great importance, but that’s not to say he is still not an important example in which we can learn from. I think it is significant to get Dane’s unusual perspective because it is in fact, unusual…especially for what many think of the representative Puritan. '''I don’t know about you, but I’ve never come across any stories about Puritans doubting their beliefs, so this was especially intriguing to me.''' 
~Megan Tisdelle~

I did some research on Puritans and found some of the information very interesting and significant to John Dane’s memoir: The Puritan’s interpretation of the scriptures was extremely harsh.  They emphasized a redemptive piety along with conversion instead of repression. Conversion rejected in the "worldliness" of society, and a strict adherence to Biblical principles. While repression was not encouraged, it was evident in their actions. God could forgive anything, but man could forgive only by seeing a change in behavior. Actions spoke louder than words, therefore actions had to be constantly controlled.  The doctrine of predestination kept all Puritans constantly working to do good in this life to be chosen for the next eternal one.  However according to the Puritans, god had already chosen who would be in heaven or hell, and each believer had no way of knowing which group they were in. Those who were wealthy were obviously blessed by god and were in good standing with Him (nothing new). 
~Megan Tisdelle~

Reading about John Dane's strong resistance to temptation and commitment to Puritanism made me curious if there were some that were not so strong. Were there any people brought up by Puritan families that completely rebelled against their lfestyle? If so, are there any records of these peoples' contributions to their own society? Or did these types of rebellions not exist back then and all Puritan children just did as they were told?- Jake Guralnik

Are religious convictions stronger or weaker today when compared with Puritans like John Dane? What group or groups in modern times most closely resembles the Puritans?- Jake Guralnik

== Suffolk County Court Records ==

'''I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed.  However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed.  Ironic?  Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets?  Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments?'''  - Alex Zelin

In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence.  In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes.  Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification?  And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese

In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed.  The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.”  What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese

The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright

In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--

I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--


In the "Suffolk County Court Records" one of the cases talked about "Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child..." She was obviously not married because they did not refer to her by her husbands name and also because it would not have been suspicious if she had been with child and had been married. They found that she was not with child and so did not set a punishment however, I was wondering what sentence would they have given her if she had been with child? I assume that it would have been rather severe considering women's expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro

I'm not sure if this is a reasonable question, but I noticed in almost all of the court records, the spelling of words is somewhat hard to read. Is this the way they spelled in this time period? Or was education not as big of an importance as status or religion? When I think of a judge, or anyone involved in court cases, I think of intelligent people. Do these cases have anything to do with justice, or are they mostly just based on the rights and rules of the Puritan beliefs?- Taylor Warner

I noticed a lot of accusations present in these court documents involved alcohol and drunkeness. I was curious though, with moral standards as high as that of the Puritans, and laws as strict as that of the Puritanist colony, I would think that any kind of alcohol would be strictly forbidden. Was it? It seemed that people had access to it, as long as they did not abuse it, but that seems very unrealistic. -Laura Peters

In the Suffolk County Court Records the Puritans seem very punishable for petty crimes such as cursing, and alcoholism, but it still seems strange to me, and I frankly don’t understand why the Puritans punish people for their wrongdoings if at the beginning of time we are all predestined to our fate, and I am curious to know why the court system was such a big part of the Puritan society if the "elect" had already been picked by God understanding of course that some kind of governing system had to be in place in order to ensure safety among the people.-Paul Carter

In the Suffolk County Court Records, majority of the accusations seem more of a personal issue to me. I mean I understand that the Puritans were very religious but didn't they think that some of the issues can be solved at home? And for practically all the cases, there is a fine no matter how small the crime is which makes it seem as if they are more after the money. And it seems the women are getting harsher punishments than the men. --- Eun Yi

This was definitly an interesting account to read.  To see just how different is was then through the court records was great.  '''I did find myself wondering however whether there were some kind of standards or written laws that dictated the punishment.  How did the court decide what the punishment to be?  Why wasn't the punishment the same across the board for a crime?''' -Jenna Shevlin

I agree with Jenna that this was an interesting account to read because it enabled the reader to see the world of the Puritans judicially, which also explained general behaviors of there time period.  In response to your question about why the punishment wasn't the same across the board, I think that the reason the punishments differed was because of their religious standards and patrichial system, which held men to high standards.  Since more was required of the men, I think the government felt that the punishments had to make the men understand that their actions were not tolerated by the community, nor were they acceptable based on a religious stand point.  Quincey Garcia


'''One of the things I found interesting was the random, or not so random, capitalization of certain words.''' For example, in the first paragraph the words "Fornication", "Marriage", 'Evill", "Money", "County&Court", and "Sentence" are all put into capital letters. Is this to put extra emphasis on them? Or merely something that they did then? 
-Virginia Stratton

I liked reading about the accounts of things, such as drinking, profanity, etc., that we see today in our daily lives that were against the law and taken to court in this 1670's Puritan community. Seeing the types of things that were considered such serious offenses to the Puritans as those described in the court records, makes me wonder what other things in this time period were illegal and what were requirements of the people. --Christen Booher

I thought it was somewhat odd that it was wrong for a man to beat his wife. don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he should. lol But, i mean only that if the woman is a possession of the man, just as the kids are... it seems he would have been allowed to hit her as well. And i thought it was really weird that the court had 3 people check that girl to see if she was with child. Why wouldn't they just wait to see if a baby came out? lol --Jessica Lawrie

On the one hand it seemed great that they upheld good morals; however, this took it so far.  It seems as if instead of most of the morals being laws, they ought to be things that are socially acceptable.  If someone is really immoral, the people ought to try to work with him/her on it, rather than punishing them by law. They're not going to change because of a stupid fine.
--Gracie Ofslager

I'm pretty sure the conviction of Walter Barefoot for being an Atheist as well as Peter and Clemence Egerton for "Fornicacion before Marriage" is where the separation between church and state came from.  Ok, maybe not directly, but it sure makes me appreciate that separation in a whole new light! ~Kristen Lonsdorf

Also, I "loved" how in the court documents it is written "Peter Egerton & Clemence his wife."  She is being charged with an offense that happened prior to her marriage, yet in the documents she is only listed as Peter's wife, his possession.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think she should be listed as this even after she's married.  I think it's a deplorable practice that I am glad we have put in the past.  It just helps to illustrate the patriarchal system that these people lived in. ~Kristen Lonsdorf

I noticed that Cowesett Indian was sentenced by the Court to have his "haire cut round close of from his head".  I didn't understand this and wanted to clarify.  Was this a sort of public shaming based on social codes regarding hair?  Were there any rules at this time relating to the types of punishments these courts could administer?  -Adam Shlossman

I think it is quite interesting that the prostitute had to pay a cumulative amount of 31 pounds to the court for “entertaining” when she is not forcing her work on anyone else in the community.  How did the courts find out about her services?  Why is no male receiving punishment for their debauchery as well?  Is this a double standard?  She did not force herself upon anyone, yet the man who beat his wife was only required to pay 10 pounds … -- Taja L. Winston